Ha-ha, I've always enjoyed your pamphlets Jeremy even when you're totally wrong. Ever seen other power plants than coal or nuclear? Come over here and I can show you some "green" stuff and abracadabra they really work!

Patrick, Saarbrücken, Germany

In Australia were I live, we have a lot of sunshine , but no solar energy to speak of . I think Jeremy may be right about us Australians!

Raoul Merten, sydney, australia

Probably the best commentary on the "global warming" movement I have ever read. Mr. Clarkson has got a fan for life, even if I do live in Arizona. This column should be read in all institures of higher learning, especially to the people who "really care" about the issue.

Jeffrey Steven Goldfarb, Tombstone, Arizona/US of A

For all you non nuclear proponents, those left that is and most of you are left of the mark...

1. The waste disposed of is mainly clothing and other miscellaneous waste of no harm whatsoever, in large quatities caused by scaremongering campaigns of the 70's. The amounts of dangerous high level waste to be disposed of are miniscule as most rods are reprocessed and we have a multitude of deep mines where these could be disposed where the background radiation is high enough that they will make little difference.

2. Illness and deaths due to Nuclear energy are a myth, due to fossils fuels however they are and inexcuseable failure of the human race.

3. The only problem with nuclear is that you cannot switch it off, this would suggest a restructuring of our entire power philosophy. Hydrogen and battery cars that currently make little sense as they simply relocate the place where the carbon emissions are released will suddenly be far more viable.

Richard, Hamilton, Bermuda

Dennis from Omaha: just imagine the effect if you were to desist from wasting electricity by having to connect to the internet to foist your opinions on the world, and just talked to yourself instead ?

We would soon be able to provide the entire country with limitless, cheap power, courtesy of the endless supplies of hot air that you would generate, and all from the comfort of your sofa. Now that's what I call environmentally friendly.

Martin Aston, Newport Pagnell, UK

British people, such as myself, have whole heartedly embraced man-made climate change becasue we are a nation of penny pinching shop keepers. In the same way that people who have an affinity for genocide and eugenics swathe themselves in the blanket of religion in order to have the moral high ground, so us miserly Brits re-use plastic bags buy tiny-engined cars all in the name of climate change despite the lack of any solid evidence that it is man who caused it.

Peter Main, London, UK

On the BBC's Today programme this morning Sarah Montague enjoined her interviewee to'hang about' and later referred to a proposal as a 'no brainer'. How long until she ends her sentences with 'innit'?

Julian Bourne, Bisley, Surrey, England

Coal powered plants have the same weakness as petrol powered cars. We are competing against slave holders in communist China who will cynically use a mercantile style of capitalism. Bennedict Arnolds in the corporate boardrooms keep touting the benefits of unrestricted trade with tyrants, And their thesis they are trying to convince us of through Rupert Murdoch's media is that we cannot complete with slaves unless we become slaves ourselves. Wind power is the power of freedom. Everything else is paying top dollar for the privilige of bowing to slave holders in bad countries.

Dennis, Omaha, NE

Base load arguments are important but I only pay about $A24 a quarter for grid connect electricity, and as a retired person not having to find big bucks for the quarterly energy bill is great. I would not give up My german solar panels and water heating panels.for any body.. When the grid goes down the battery backup works and the wind mill ,mills electricity and we switch stuff off... The computers/hifi and other stuff dont get killed by brownouts either.
Your Faith in centralised base load utilities is touching Jeremy

rwn, muston,

"Connect the dots."

Unfortunately, people who say stuff like that often end up drawing an elephant when the picture was supposed to be a giraffe.

starling, Lancaster,

If they are going to remove the CO2 from the new range of coal fired power stations (as they say), can they not assimilate this into a solid material using glassification? Then they could use it to wrap the nuclear byproducts in and kill 2 birds with one stone! it could be then be stored in the old coal mines under the North Sea.

Base load power stations are going to be required well into the future until all this "green" power generators are proven and cost effective. It's the cost which is preventing it being used as well as the shelf life. A few more "Brown outs" should assist people to make up their mind.

Ian B, Somerset, UK

Why is it that Jeremey Clarkson appears to be only person in the whole of the United Kingdom not afraid to speak the truth for fear of incurring the wrath of the pathetically politcally correct?

Once again, well done Clarkson. If only you could be persuaded to enter politics and apply in practice some of that genius theory!

Damian Warburton, Bristol, UK

Well I have to say Bravo Jeremy! There are far too many NIMBY's in this country - by volunteering to bury nuclear waste in your garden you are setting an excellent example to all those wimpy greens who are needlessly worrying about radioactive waste.

The nation salutes you for your John-Gummer-& -burger style sacrifice......

What's that ? What do you mean you don't want to have nuclear waste within a thousand miles of your back garden? Why on earth not?

VB, London, UK

Brilliant. Just two energy facts that you may have missed.

1. The most dangerous form of electricity generation is hydro as the number of people killed by bursting dams in the last 50 years is roughly 100-fold greater than nuclear and 10-fold higher than coal.

2. Soon, solar energy will be a viable alternative to nuclear. It will have the added advantage that you will need to cover the whole of Essex in solar arrays. (Essex gets more sun than Wales).

Steve, Cambridge,

France is laughing kitbags, they even export electricity to UK.

If you have to import it you might as well produce it.

m wilson, bidache, france

Nuclear powers 75% of France but look at the size of the place compared to GB!One huge farm.

Terence, Lausanne, Switz

Jeremy you are right, nuclear is the only current option.

As for Royden's comment about solar panels generating enough power to sell back to the grid - that is not even remotely possible in Britain with the solar panels around now.

Should we not be thinking about saving energy rather than generating and using more?

IH, Derby,

I always thought these eco-freaks were just insane. Now can see that they are actually power-hungry communists, switching the poofy hat and military uniform for a rainbow headband and some jeans.

Alex, Orangeville, Ontario, Canada

Jeremy is just a wind up merchant. The more you lot react to his moronic ramblings the more famous he becomes. Ignore him, and hopefully, he might go away.

James Montgomery, perth, australia

Issigonis (British ?) designed a small car that had to be radically redesigned as soon as it was put into production (sump gear box, tiny wheels etc), is was rapidly made obsolete by continental rivals but continued to sell for donkeys years to the nostalgically crazed British.
Barns wallace, do we really need dam damaging bombs, is not killing 1000 civilians a war crime?.
Most other British 'inventions' were under development at the same time or earlier in other countries (TV, gas turbines,Computers etc)

Peter Marchese, Maidstone, Kent

Any more personal details to disclose Jeremy. You seem to have given as little thought to this article as the last.

Bob, Bobville,

I daresay a mixed energy approach is inevitable, including nu-cu-lar. Can't expect tiny brain Clarkson to address the reprocessing of the waste?

Jon Stone, Phoenix, AZ, USA

It is a great pity that governments generally don't take energy really seriously. They are only interested when to it is headline news.

We should have been investing in nuclear 10 years age .

The government should also put in place legisalation ( as with Spain & Greece) whereby all new houses and commercial buuilding a fitted out with solar panels that will meet 10% more than currently requirements to cater for the future any excees to be sold back to the grid automatically.

They should also give all the encouragement they can to companies investing in producing solar panels etc.

Wind turbines are purely a gimick and will never no matter how many we have produce the power we neeed.

Royden Fairfax (Energy Consultant ) Boune Lincs

Royden J Fairfax, Boune, Lincolnshire

I have to correct you Jermey. Communists are all for coal, gas and nuclear power. You can't equate them with environmentalits.

Igor, Ljubljana, Slovenia

I heard a rather good description of the kind of environmentalists Jeremy describes on a documentary about something or other in South America. One minister said they were like watermelons - they look green, but at their core they're red through and through. They don't do their cause any good at all.

Mark Heenan, Stafford,

Jeremy

What ever happened to British ingenuity?

What Britain needs is to re invent or clone its heritage of great engineers like Brunel, Stephenson, Barns Wallace and Alec Issigonis. They could overcome all the obstacles to make existing power stations more thermally efficient. Clean coal power stations is an oxy moron of people trying to gain or retain power. If you remove all the CO2 from a process you need to generate more power to do it. On the other hand a 60% efficiency instead of 30% efficiency, gives you twice the power or you use 50% less fuel with 50% less emissions.

Imagine these cloned engineers working in a team. They could design a Channel Tunnel built using a coal fired, steam powered, east west engined, front wheel drive, tunneling machine that could be dropped from a Lancaster bomber and float through the air like the R101.

Go for PM Jeremy, your country needs somebody who appreciates things with engines in them and building stuff – The stuff of engineers.

David, Karratha, Western Australia

Why is it OK for us to promote nuclear power as safe in our hands but equally denounce it as lethal in the hands of "B list" nations who may want nuclear energy for its benefits and not to produce weapons no matter how much we doubt them? Nuclear energy is not safe .It can produce rather large bangs and flashes either in a Chernobyl-esque event or a Hiroshima/Nagasaki attack ,one unintentional ,one completely intentional but with comparative results.

Mark Bretherton, Cochrane, Canada

For all those that say Nuclear power is too dangerous to consider, exactly what in life is without risk? Doesn't mean you simply give up and and stop trying. You work round the problems until it is safe enough. Granted the Nuclear waste is a bit of a problem, but given the worlds unwavering intent to reduce carbon emmissions (which I'm still not convinced will make the blindest bit of difference) coupled with the need for power. Nuclear is the best way forward for now. Hopefully when this new batch of Nuclear stations is ready for decommissioning the world would have moved on and developed a method of producing cheap electricity that truly has no down sides.

Tony, Northampton,

Connect the dots. Less nuclear power means more coal, oil and gas. Coal, oil and gas companies like to sell more of their product and often have plenty of money to donate to foundations and non-profits like Greenpeace, Sierra Club, Union of Concerned Scientists, Clean Air Task Force, and hundreds of other groups that have made a career out of fighting to slow or dismantle the nuclear power industry. (If you do not believe that the donations are made, simply visit the web sites of major oil and gas companies.)

For those of you who believe that Greens are really Reds in disguise, another thing to consider is the dependence of the Soviet Union (and now the Russian) economy on oil and gas sales to Europe. One of the biggest Green/anti-nukes in Germany - Gerhard Schroder - immediately went to work for GAZPROM after leaving his office as the German chancellor. While in office, he led the effort to force the German utilities to shut down their operating nuclear plants. Hmmm.

Rod Adams, Annapolis, United States/Maryland

You should be grateful for this power caper, because it gives you an easy article at any time. If one wants to know how seriously Power takes power, then the present state of power generation provides a window. If solar cells were to be produced in the same quantity as CDs, domestic power bills would be a fraction of their present level. But it would produce all sorts of institutional complications, and, funnily enough, governments of all stripes seem to be agreed on this point.

Henry Percy, London, UK

For the record jeremy, a full scale wave power station across the Severn could supply 5% of the UK's leccy (and the tides will keep on flowing even if there's no wind).
As a champion of Brunel, I'm suprised you're not championing such an innovative 21st century project - we could even build an export industry building them abroad, to balance out the payments deficits from buying german, french and US coal and nuclear power plants.
Most of our generation of world leading nuclear power specialists are nearing retirement age, and we havn't trained many of their replacements due to nearly a decade of prevarication by NuLab.

paul newbold, sheffield, UK

I am trying to register in order to vote for a South Bank award nominee, but your site will not accept my registration. Is this a problem faced by others?

Robert David Usher, Marple, Cheshire

This glorious wordsmith has it absolutely correct. Most of us would love to find an environmentally friendly method of generating electricity but it is practically impossible to do this and none of the current alternatives comes anywhere near being capable of meeting increasing demands. All construction methods consume CO2 but only nuclear power effectively limits consumption to the construction phase.

Something could be done about the demand. The affluent are able to purchase more energy efficient items until it comes to their cars but even here things are moving rapidly. It is possible to produce energy locally. This can be done when and if the planners begin to allow integral solar panels to be fitted on every property and that presumes these are cost effective themselves. New technologies will make these inevitable and one hopes architects, planners etc are aware of the progress being made.

Richard Mousley, St Pompon, France

Althought Jeremy is a bit abrasive he is quite right. Wind power is no good without wind so when it stops convential power stations have to provide the power. As it takes time for the generators to run up to full power they must be kept going all the time to be ready for a drop in wind. In the same way tidal power stops generating each time the tide changes and power has to come from convential generators. All power generation comes at a cost per kW generated and this always seems to be left out when the greenies talk about generation. Another thing that seems to have been ignored is the effect of low frequency emissions from wind generators on people who live within a few miles of the generators. The only practical way to produce electricity is by nuclear energy.

Hugh Putt, Brackley, UK

What's wrong with a beard?

Will Duffay, London,

Greenpeace are a nasty spiteful organisation. They'll hurt anyone, physically or financially to achieve whatever their current aim happens to be.

Would be interested to know what percentage of their members have even bothered to install water meters in their homes.

Dennis, Richmond, Surrey,

I hate to spoil your party, Jeremy, but the suggestion to put nuclear waste on a boat is not quit enough. In fact there is still nuclear waste of the last 40 years, plus waste imported from Germany stocked in Sellafield. And it won´t go away. Not for the next 35000000 years. The best solution people (and they were from a privat company) for that so far, was (listen closely): to bury it in the Cotswold, the geologically most stable region in Britain. Well, sounds ok, doesn´t it? Under your home and every day or so (thats the amount), a truck full of that stuff through your village. Welcome to the future!

stefan, southampton,

Well said!
You and I are apt to have a pop at the French. However they produce the vast majority of their power from Nuclear Stations. Who's laughing now?
Using the tides to generate power, great idea. But it will not happen because the poor fishes will have there homes wreaked. The French on the otherhand build Hydro-electric power stations werever they would work visit the Rhien south of Strasborg no problem with the little fishes there. We cannot burn our household rubbish because of the Dioxins from the flue. But the French do. Oh and they use the energy produced to generate electricty.
So we don't what nuclear power. Well go to the National Grids web site and you can see how much electricty is being generated in the U.K. you will also note that were are often importing our electricty from (oh no) France. Say no to nuclear power today and you will be saying it to yourself in a darkened room eating leaves

phil, leeds, u.k.

It is difficult to get hold of all the figures necessary to show that countries can become near-zero carbon countries. However, there is a simple explanation that adequately reveals how this necessary target can be achieved. All our power requirements are for lighting, heating, transport, and energy for such things as industry on down to exercise machines. The lighting can be zero rated by building Buxton Geothermal Turbine Generators, the heating can be near-zero rated by installing Starlite coatings, that prevents heat escaping, on the walls and ceilings of all premises, and by having electrical heating from renewable sources we cut heating CO2 emissions to zero. Transport can be made near-zero in terms of carbon emissions by ensuring that all vehicles use carbon zero electricity, instead of petrol. We have until 2016 to this.

Andy Kadir-Buxton, Hatfield, UK

I just saw some of the proposed 4,000 wind machines being built off the eastern shore of England in the North Sea. Aside from being hideous right now, and presumably even more hideous when all 4,000 of them are finally installed, they might just bring Britain some much-needed cheap electricity, because the wind never seems to stop blowing there. And, they might be a new kind of tourist attraction. Also in my recent trip, during which I saw Jeremy Clarkson on TV any number of times but never in person so I was unable to tell him to his face that he's a right prat, I saw a green business park with an unbelieveably enormous wind machine that supposedly provides all the businesses therein with cheap electricity. Well, the machine is big enough, so maybe it actually works. So I say: Good for you, Britain, for trying to green up a little. And best of luck to you in the future.

MJH, Miami, Florida USA

What stopped more Nuclear power plants from being built in the United States were not things like "The Simpson's", as Doug from Colorado said. What stopped more Nuclear power plants from being built was the Three Mile Island incident, and then the following Chernobyl incident in Russia. Have you looked at the pictures from Chernobyl, or read the of the human disaster that ensued, and still exists today?

Nuclear power, despite what anyone says, is dangerous. I would rather see 30 coal, and/or oil power plants built, than one nuclear power plant. It scares me that so many who tout nuclear energy as being safe, can't even pronounce the word correctly, it's not nucular as our dear old GWB pronounces it.

Nuclear energy is not the answer. The waste from Nuclear power plants is left to be buried in the ground, and have half-lifes of around 100,000 years. Radioactive isotopes cause cancer. Need I say more?

Evan, Pennsylvania, USA

I agree that nuclear energy is the road that we should be taking and the energy of the future. We hopefully have better technology these days than what was available to the makers of the first generation of reactors which should ensure better safety. The only worry is that short cuts will be made in order to ensure profitability leading to illegal discharging of radioactive waste into the air and seas from time to time. Therefore reactors should be policed at all times.

jon, derby, uk

So Jeremy, how about a big nuclear plant in Chipping Norton? I see you are ready to site one in Wales, again. What happened to the last one?
A lead suit your size would be quite heavy you know and your lead lined Merc/BMW/Messersmitt wouldn't go half as fast.

Jim Hatch, Acapulco, Mexico

Absolutely correct, but had Jeremy tried to publish this article 5 years ago, he would have been given the bum's rush. How times are changing - now we hear that alcohol is indeed good for you. Soon they will be telling us that a fag or two a day reduces the tension of modern day living to the extent that smokers could expect an extra 3 years of mortality!
Jeremy has the right attitude - there is a growing reaction against the Nanny State and the notion that New Labour knows best. Fortunately, in the case of nuclear power stations, Labour has been cornered because of its green commitments and realises (somewhat grudgingly) nuclear is the only option. But let's not try to "do our own thing" for patriotic reasons. Let the French design and build them - after all they have designed and built 56 of their own.

Dwight Vandryver, Scholar Green,

Whatever the merits or dangers of nuclear power, Jeremy has it absolutely right when he says environmentalist don't WANT a clean solution to our global energy needs, they want us to stop using energy - full stop. One of the world's top environmentalists, Jeremy Rifkin, who started the Global Greenhouse Network, thinks that such "free" power would be "the worst thing that could happen to our planet." Apparently, it would give man "an infinite ability to exhaust the planet's resources."

Ah ha! so there is indeed another agenda!

James McMeehan Roberts, Petersfield, UK

I have noticed that a lot of people who are against nuclear power bleat about Chernobyl and the viability of disposal of toxic waste; these are never people who know anything about either the event or the subject.

But then ignorance has never got in the way of anyone's opinion, has it?

What caused the Chernobyl disaster? Human error. Protocol was ignored by a worker who was running late & so ignored standard procedure & tried to hurry things up; a bit like a chap thinking he could make his car go faster by dropping TNT in with the fuel, as, hey, it's a combustion engine, right? There's nothing wrong with the technology, just the idiots who are allowed to operate it. That such a disaster has already occurred, scope for human error will surely be an area that will be heavily scrutinised by a country adopting it as an energy source.

And, given that this is an industry, does anyone believe that there is no research being done into new methods of refinement & disposal of waste products?

Ros, Falmouth,

There are 3 good reasons to check a headlong rush for nuclear power:

Chernobyl
Chernobyl
Chernobyl

But, in addition; no-one has figured out how to decommission them yet. That the old ones are about to rot away is worrying enough!

Writing off all other options as 'beirdie-wierdie communist' ideas is hilariously moronic. Good stuff Jeremy.

T di Porcacchi, Syracuse,

What always worries me about Jeremey's articles is that there are people who take him seriously.

star, Manchester,

Put the waste in the Rainbow Warrior? Brilliant! That should have any Kiwis reading this up in arms and that's always good for a giggle.
As an ex-pat South African living in NZ the only better way to get them riled up than making jokes about the Rainbow Warrior is to mention the Rugby World Cup :-)

Cath, Palmerston North, New Zealand

The problem with not maintaining a nuclear policy in the recent past is that there is now a generation gap of nuclear engineers.
These engineers and their expertise would have ultimately led us to that holy grail of nuclear fusion (not fission) for energy production which produces no waste.

John, Rochester, UK

D Burton, Seneca, USA, 'another way to garner power and wealth for a few'.

Could not have been more consisely put!
A complete con-job even down to that Dutch bloke who pretended to cryat the last phoney agreements!

Patrick, Durham,

Three mile Island? Our own Calder Hall fire was much worse. So bad they promptly changed its name to Windscale, then Sellafield. Got to be overdue for another name change.

neil, waterford, ireland

Why not put a wind turbine outside the House of Commons. Enough hot air in there to power the country for years.

Tim Norris, Arundel, West Sussex.

Cheers, JC, it's nice to read a journo who not only makes sense but makes me laugh, too. You go, lad! (You've got far too much wisdom to be PM.)

Aunty Social, Pensarn, Wales

I live in north wales and welcome the news about nuclear power. I object to the wind turbines that our spoiling our coastline (and it makes it very windy on the beach!) The cost to the environment of building these whirlygigs is huge and they'd have to spin for 50 years to pay that back.

Cefyn, Abergele, Wales

Electricity produced by wind turbines is vry expensive & unreliable.If France can go nuclear why can't we?

phillip, stevenage,

You should take your family for a swim in the Irish Sea, matey, if you want to see them in the dark.

Marek, London,

There is no more beautiful a place than Dungeness, on the south east coast. The nuclear power stations are visually striking against the wild, stark landscape and yet it also has one of the most important bird observatories in the country. I doubt wind farms could make the same claim.

Ly, London, UK

Nuclear power could not survive without subsidy...? That's a laugh considering how much subsidy is required for wind and solar.

Richard, London, UK

Mr. Clarkson is a genius. Our demand for electricity increases at 2% per year, driven by population growth and new toys. In the US and the UK we need to start building new power plants. But, we are running out of natural gas. Wind and biomass are fringe technologies. Solar isn't viable in countries like the UK. Coal plants are impossible to build for environmental reasons. Nuclear power would seem to be the only answer but too many people have heard too many uninformed scare stories.

The strategy of leading environmental groups is just more renewables, but the numbers don't add up. A typical base load coal plant runs 90% of the time. We would need about 3,000 MW of wind, running at 30% capacity to replace a 1,000 MW coal plant. That's 2,000 turbines, The total installed capacity in the UK was 1,963 MW in 2006.

Given the lack of leadership from politicos, many people in the US energy industry believe that the lights will have to out before these issues are seriously discussed.

mike scott, ny, US

For every pound the UK consumer paid for nuclear electricity, the taxpayer paid another two. Without subsidy there will be no more nukes. That was before $100 crude oil, which ever rising in price will make the estimating of new build over 5-7 years from 2012 an impossible job. It will also make the mining of ever leaner uranium ores impractical. There is no escaping from the Second Law of Thermodynamics, not even the government's chief scientist could do that. There will be no more nukes!

John Busby, Bury St Edmunds, UK

We've already gone nuclear. We just import our power from France. Have you counted how many Nuclear power stations there are facing us along the Normandy coast - may be 90 miles away. Diepe's got 2 for starters - lets get real.

Geoff Sparks, Seaford, UK

Loved the article. However there are reasons why we have not gone down the nuclear route before and this is because of the danger of obtaining energy from nuclear power, I don’t think I have to remind everybody about the Chernobyl disaster. Also the process itself is not completely waste free, we have to seal the radiated equipment somewhere that is safe and finding somewhere may prove to be very costly.

Adam Coulson, Surrey,

I love you Jeremy I really do! I now kind of understand where your anti-environmentalist stance comes from - it's a class thing! Here's a thought - maybe you should get your Range Rover converted to nuclear power!

Lee Emerson, Woombye, Australia

Patrick Kirk - greenpeace says whatever it thinks will get it donations: during the Brent Spar debate they argued one case in Europe and the diametrically opposed case in the US (because that is the way the money sent them). They are no disinterested party, but an organisation with as many vested interests as any commercial corporation.

David, London, UK

"Seriously, good people, the argument is irrefutable - only nuclear energy is going to reduce the effect on the weather of hundreds of years of pumping smoke into the atmosphere. "

True, true, very true.

And we'll be stuck with nuclear waste instead. And I'm not mentioning the incompetence of the people who run these places (I live near Heysham and Sellafield, I hear stories all the time, often first-hand).

The Green lobby doesn't go "hey, let's make people's lives miserable!", you know. They just look further than next week.

starling, Lancaster,

I still can't trust the judgement of a man who'll print his own bank details in the paper then be surprised when someone robs him.

If you're as wrong about something as obvious as that, why would I think you know anything about anything.

Richard C, Edinburgh, UK

Jeremy's tirades against political correctness are always enjoyable. But he really must distinguish between the wilder claims of the more naive environmentalists. and pay attention to the scientists. They overwhelmingly point out that climate change is real, that we are probably mainly responsible, and the results could well be catastrophic.

It is not 'left-wing' to have concern for the environment. Conservatives should be even more concerned about conserving our environment and its eco-systems. If for no other reason than that our lives & our future depend on them.

Dave, Wrexham,

Another good reason to have JC for PM

Garry Webster, Norwich,

"If it were not for The Simpsons, we would have had additional nuclear plants long ago." says Doug from Denver.

And Chernobyl perhaps?

T Kitchin, Bedford,

Hooray for nuclear. Down with Greenpeace.

John Hutton, London,

WEll said Jeremy......Clarkson for PM and Archbishop of Canterbury

NATION OPEN YOUR EYES

john, durham,

Jeeremy Clarkson is a most amusing car journalist.

It is worth remembering this, I feel. After all, would you listen to Johnathan Porrit's opinion on the new BMW?

H Moll, Hamburg,

Sigh so many bits of fallicious reasoning so little time
anyway anybody interested in the security of uranium?
the phrase out of the frying pan into the fire springs to mind

merinoj, Scotland,

Jeremy, I am your worst nightmare - a ginger bearded cyclist! But I am also an Engineer with many years working in our safe Nuclear Industry.

And, I agree with you. Up yours Codpiece!

I know you are 'challenged' as far as engineering is concerned, but tidal power is THE alternative energy solution that WILL work.
Around our shores in the Alderney Race, The Severn Estuary, Anglesea Race, The Hurst Narrows and the bits between the Scottish Islands. Tapping tidal power at these places will provide substantial amounts of clean energy, and since the tides at all these places maximise at different times thus provide a constant predictable and reliable new energy source. And, we could be world leaders in this new industry!

If I were you Jeremy, I would take some Engineering lessons. You spout all the gobledygook about cars without having a clue what you are talking about, but your piece on Isambard went down quite well with us Engineers

As Mr Toad said - continue with Toot Toot

Nuclear Al, Lardyland South, UK

Going to Nuclear Power will never happen in the UK. Why? Because France already does it and you certainly wouldn't want to be agreeing with "them", now would you?

Arthur Keble, Washington,

Mr Luke from Merseyside - Greenpeace is a charity that gets its money from donations. Gordon Brown this week indicated his government's support to build more nuclear power stations (as the article mentions) . As this being 'the truth at last' - it's not. These are Jeremy Clarkson's wittily expressed opinions, but just because they are printed in a newspaper doesn't make them any more or less true than the views of the environmentalists he opposes. Environmentalists are not a single group with one set of views - some are in favour of nuclear, some not. Some of what these groups say is exaggerated, alarmist or foolish. Much of it is not. How much of our hostility and resistance to what they say is based on a simple unwillingness to even consider the possibility that we may have to change a few aspects of our privileged, resource-intensive, luxurious (by historical standards), consumption-driven lives and desire for instant gratification. We attack what threatens us & shows us we're wrong

Patrick Kirk, London, UK

If capitalism cannot be defeated by outspending it, which communism could never do, then defeat capitalism by depriving it of its energy source.
The fear that greenhouse gases contribute to global warming may have had some merit, but to reject nuclear energy as well, which does not contribute to global warming, only indicates that the struggle has nothing to do with global warming and everything to do with discrediting capitalism.
The big red lie is now also the big green lie.

Roy Weston, Vancouver, Canada

Seriously, good people, the argument is irrefutable - only nuclear energy is going to reduce the effect on the weather of hundreds of years of pumping smoke into the atmosphere.
The Green lobby are a pathetic bunch. One minute they advocate wind power, the next they bemoan the environmental impact of all those beautiful propellers turning gracefully in the breeze (when it blows).
One minute they champion tidal power, the next they bemoan the alleged negative impact of tidal barriers on wetland wildlife.
And so on. They are just a bunch of puritans who hate the modern world and want everyone to live in huts lit by candles (but don't candles make smoke too?)
Except that they are hypocrites. They are more than happy to use electricity, ride in motor cars and fly in planes when it suits them. I know. I'm related to one of them. The humbug is mind-boggling, and insufferably superior to boot.

JF, Canterbury, UK

At least the nuclear industry is able to collect its waste and bury it!
-Quite a contrast to the coal-fired power industry who merely send their mercury, heavy metals etc etc out through tall stacks and distribute it over the widest possible area.

David Pilling, Rossendale , UK

There's already available technology, that should have been
included in the building reg's, that would reduced our bills
by over 40%. But governments don't want to do that.

Of course, its president gas again isn't it ?

Perhaps we should re-name you.

M walker, Nr Bromsgrove, worcs

We have a nuclear power plant, and when suddenly shut down for unsheduled maintenance, north america's supply of medical isotopes became critical in a couple of weeks. It is not just power that these reactors supply. It does however supply more power than 40 coal plants and produces LESS harmful waste. If you want some radioactive waste to complain about take a look at the effects of depleted uranium munitions that are being used in Iraq every day. Nuclear power is safer and cleaner than coal, and is the only way to generate enough power for north america.

Mike, London, Canada

Jeremy, I salute you. The man speaks sense, guys. We need you to sort this country out.

Clarkson for PM!

Steph, Wolverhampton, England

Um, Mr. Clarkson. I have a question? If there are no "emissions", what are the nuclear power plant operators trying to bury in Yucca mountian across the pond here? Just because there aren't any CO2 emissions, doesn't mean that the byproducts are better for the environment.

Does that mean that you are volunteering to host the burial of all that waste in your back yard? Good on you, sir!

Michael, San Diego, California, USA

Don't kid yourselfs with nuclear power as answer to anything. It's getting harder and harder to get the source for the raw material (it's not endless as some may think and actually faces the same problem as oil!) for the fuel, it takes a decade for a power plant to pay off just it's construction costs and then there is radioactive waste which isn't taking part in natural recycling - instead it's getting 'sold' to poor countries so they pollute themselfs for centuries for the benefit of the 'first world'.

So the 'green' energy isn't as reliable (or permanent) and the traditional energy reserves are not endless. What's the solution? I don't know and I don't think anyone does.

I guess the first man who figures it all out may become the richest man on the planet...

Serg, Eindhoven,

What a delightful read on a cold Wisconsin morning. From the first Earth Day in 1970 to now the movement can almost be considered a failure. The man made global warming whackos are their last hope. It will be seen for what it is, another way to garner power and wealth for a few. I live in an area called the Driftless region - when the glaciers melted and created the Great Lakes "the largest freshwater lakes in the world" they split and the entire region is pre ice age. My first question in a debate is how and why did the glaciers melt THOUSANDS of years ago??? Not one damn car, power plant or civilized society could cause it or stop it! 210 years of weather records in a world millions of years old.

D Burton, Seneca, USA

"10 miles from TMI, the site of the worst nuclear disaster ever in the West."
I understand that the only damage was to the power plant itself that was well desgned so that ther was no enviromental damage.
The real disaster was the consequent damage to the enviroment caused by the 20 year delay in the implimentation of nuclear power and all the deaths of coal minors, oil plant production workers and those who have suffered from climate change.

Peter Marchese, Maidstone, Kent

Jeremy. If it were not for The Simpsons, we would have had additional nuclear plants long ago.

Doug, Denver, Colorado

Does the Times allow Jeremy to post stuff like this so they can all have a good laugh?

starling, Lancaster,

Spot on old boy, spot on!
You may be colourfully over the top and gratuitously provocative (to some) in the parallels you draw and the examples you cite, but your grasp of the underlying essentials is profoundly accurate and prescient.
No doubt, the vested interests you castigate will focus on your unique style to belittle the undeniable substance of your case. I expect a sheaf of indignant complaints from the usual suspects, in the letters page of next week's Sunday Times. Any chance you could provide a running commentary on these published squeals, next week?

ROHAN, Solihull, UK

The truth at last, I have long suspected that green peace were "iffy" for example where do they get their money from?
These concrete windmills were abandaned years ago because they were "useless" The windmills cost a fortune to build, install and maintain, in energy terms as well as money and their production figures are rubbish, but they look good!!!! "to the politcians" whose message is "we're doing something!
Brown will never build a nuclear power station he has not the courage.

Bill Luke, St helens, UK merseyside

I assume Tom from Perth has a beard (and also difficulty reading), because I cannot see where in this story, Jezza promotes the use of oil. In fact, right at the beginning he touts the new coal station as a beginning to reducing dependence on Johnny Foreigner for our power. He doesn't argue that research into alternative energy should be stopped, merely (and quite rightly) that there is NO viable source at the present time.

Besides, the less oil we use for our power, the more we have for our sports cars.

Andy, MK, UK

I live in Pennsylvania, 10 miles from TMI, the site of the worst nuclear disaster ever in the West. I am still alive, and even the vast army of ambulance chasing lawyers in this country has been unable to prove that any of us are more likely to die of anything than we were before the accident. Clarkson may be a bit abrasive, but how should one counter nonsense?

David, Lancaster, USA

Privatised as in 'Will need subsidising by the Govenment or all the lights will go out'?

We seem to be un-developing by the week!

Jeremy, please become PM, get rid of the do-gooders, mentalists & Mr HiVis, and get us back on track.

JezzaBelle, Somerset, ENGLAND

Clarkson for PM!!!!

Daryl Evans, Melksham, Wiltshire

Why when someone (in this case Mr Clarkson) make a statement that is just common sense does it attract so much attention

Stephen, Banbury, UK

Anybody who advocates the building of these thousands of windmills I read about off the British coast should be compelled to visit near where I live, Tarifa, S.W. Spain where they have wrecked the environment - it is nothing short of a disgrace that the ecoloonies have been allowed to do this in an area which was once wild and quite beautiful. We do have one plus though the wind seemingly always blows there - quite unlike (say) Norfolk.

Ripsnorter (ex-pat), Malaga, Spain

Spot on, Jeremy.

Peter Smith, Durban, South Africa

Jeremy, the only problem with nuclear power is - who would be running it? It would be the same breed of phone-number salaried administrator that currently keeps the health service and the railways running so efficiently. The only difference being that when a nuclear power station is run on lies, prevarication and creaming off profits the likelihood of the surrounding countyside becoming uninhabitable goes up exponentially.
Let's have one stipulation at least: the top two levels of administrators (which should ideally be the only two levels of administrators!) must live full time on site. Junkets and holidays only - say - four weeks a year. So that the rest of us can sleep easy.

Rosemary Roberts, Germany,

So its finally been revealed. Clarkson is simply another cheer leader for big oil, spinning Frankensteinian horrors to dissuade research into alternative energy. Change is coming Clarkson, and it's not you.

Tom, Perth, Australia

He knocked down an entire army of straw men! How mighty he is!

E Carpenter, New York, USA

Hooray for Clarkson !

tom, cambridge, uk

Might be a bit tongue in cheek but makes a lot of sense for a petrol head. With nuclear power eliminating the need for coal I'm sure Jeremy's influence could get us all into rechargeable battery driven cars; or perhaps they should be nuclear as well.

Mike Fraser, Sydney, Australia

You're a good lad Clarkson. You'll do.

HowardHughes, London,