How did Bobby Tran of Enfield get his amusng contribution past your 1000 character limit?

And am I permitted to do likewise?

Peter Lloyd, BLACKER HILL, South Yorkshire

The map of Britain in Fridays Times shows a multitude of hydroelectric schemes in Scotland, yet there were none in the Pennines or Wales - why?
The same map shows an estuary barrage scheme planned for the Severn. With so many estuaries around Britain, why aren't there more such schemes?

Peter, Okehampton,

This is ridiculous. Does no-one remember the effects of Chernobyl? The people who it still affects do! In the long term this is highly dangerous. The nuclear waste we already have has not been buried as no-one has found a safe place for it to go. Sort one problem out before you start another!

Anneka, Leicester,

Nature worship will not provide the answer to our future energy needs. Nuclear power will. Those who disapprove can always sit in the dark.

Derek, Taunton, UK

How dare the Iranian also want Nuclear power! One we have the right.

Andrew Baker, Harrow, UK

A brave decision and a good one I think. The population of the world is too great and growing at an alarming rate, with much of that population heading towards our shores, I fail to see a better way of generating the electrical power needed to meet the growing demand. Objectors fail to advise a better alternative. None of the other sorces of power can satisfy future demand and I don't like the thought of relying of imported power. With luck another way of making the power we will need will be discovered one day but until that day we need Nuclear power. Well done the Labour Government!

RayB, Newcastle, UK

When you put all the blame on carbon dioxide you end up with "solutions" like nuclear power and carbon sequestration. When these don't work it will be realised that energy consumption has to be reduced in order to counteract the effect of anthropogenic energy use.

Steve Sunderland, Widnes, Cheshire

Not before time. This decision should have been taken years ago. Now let us also have a decision to build the Severn barrage.

Jim Alison, Gloucester, UK

At the moment there are people taking out trillion dollar law suits against the authorities over the New Orleans' hurricane. I think that someone should start the same against the present UK government on behalf of the future generations who will have to deal with this absolute lunacy. As for now the political fall-out will lead to Gordon Brown having to step down - unless he eats his words - but then maybe he'll glow in the dark like a transgenic rabbit - of course like Tony he wouldn't care - some bank or energy concern will pay him handsomely to pontificate on how he destroyed the UK environment for a quarter of a million years.

Stephen Pain, Odense, Denmark

People worry about the long-term storage of nuclear waste but the volume is tiny by comparison to the amounts of fuel used in fossil plants and the waste from coal. I am far more worried by the environmental impact of climate change than burying a few tonnes of waste underground.
Also if the UK leads the way with recycling and fast breeder technology as they have in the past then the waste problem goes away and we put ourselves in an excellent position with technology and services to sell to other countries which are all heading towards nuclear power.
The next point is that one next-gen nuclear plant is the equivalent of 1,000 wind turbines… that is a huge investment and blemish on the landscape not to mention that this would have to have an alternate (most likely fossil source) as backup for when it is not windy!

Charles h, London, UK

Well done to the government for listening to the engineers and ignoring the social workers and lawyers of the "Green movement". Well done for seeing through the real agenda of the Greenies: deconstruction of the industrial society and a return to a peasant existence for us all.

No longer do we need to worry about losing lighting, heat, and power as a result of Russian political blackmail, Middle Eastern dictators or Dead Calm weather.

Bravo!

J wade, london,

There is enough energy in a comparatively small amount of matter to provide electrical power for every person on this planet. This power could also provide all the necessary heating and cooling plus a never ending supply of clean and irrigation water. We already have the know-how; the only thing we now need to discover is how to reprocess the waste so that it can be recycled for the next generation. For Friends of the Earth to believe that we can reduce the amount of power this planet needs to generate - simply proves how green they really are, and that is not the environmental shade of green. It is the likes of Friends of the Earth that are in reality the Enemies of its People.

Brian Christley, Abergele, UK

I hope the French are grateful for the opportunity that's being offered to EDF...

DickW, Aberdeenshire, Scotland

In the year 2008 the Lord came unto Noah, who was now living in England and said,

'Once again, the earth has become wicked and over-populated, and I see the end of all flesh before me.
Build another Ark and save two of every living thing along with a few good humans.'

He gave Noah the CAD drawings, saying, 'You have 6 months to build the Ark before I will start the unending rain for 40 days and 40 nights.'

Six months later, the Lord looked down and saw Noah weeping in his yard- but no Ark.

'Noah!' He roared, 'I'm about to start the rain! Where is the Ark ?'

Forgive me, Lord,' begged Noah, 'but things have changed. I needed Building Regulations Approval and I've been arguing with the Fire Brigade
about the need for a sprinkler system. My neighbours claim that I should have obtained planning permission for building the Ark in my garden
because it is development of the site, even though in my view it is a temporary structure.

We had to then go to appeal to the Secretary of State for a decision.

Then the Department of Transport demanded a bond be posted for the future costs of moving power lines and other overhead obstructions to
clear the passage for the Ark's move to the sea. I told them that the sea would be coming to us, but they would hear nothing of it.

Getting the wood was another problem. All the decent trees have Tree Preservation Orders on them and we live in a Site of Special Scientific Interest set
up in order to protect the spotted owl. I tried to convince the environmentalists that I needed the wood to save the owls - but no go!

When I started gathering the animals, the RSPCA sued me. ..........They insisted that I was confining wild animals against their will.

They argued the accommodation was too restrictive, and it was cruel and inhumane to put so many animals in a confined space.

Then the County Council, the Environment Agency and the Rivers Authority ruled that I couldn't build the Ark until they'd conducted an environmental
impact study on your proposed flood.

I'm still trying to resolve a complaint with the Equal Opportunities Commission on how many disabled carpenters I'm supposed to hire for my building team.

The trades unions say I can't use my sons. They insist I have to hire only accredited workers with Ark-building experience.

To make matters worse, Customs and Excise seized all my assets, claiming I'm trying to leave the country illegally with endangered species.

So, forgive me, Lord, but it would take at least 10 years for me to finish this Ark. '

Suddenly the skies cleared, the sun began to shine, and a rainbow stretched across the sky.

Noah looked up in wonder and asked, 'You mean you're not going to destroy the world?'

“No” said the Lord.

"The British government beat me to it."

bobby tran, enfield,

Our politicians for once have taken a tough but correct decision, the majority of today's pampered generation have never sat around a candle when the power's been cut off. Without the nuclear option, they had better get used to it in another 10/15 years.

John Davies, Preston, UK

Farrukh, throwing large amounts of money into wave, wind and solar power is not going to solve the problem. As recently as 2004 The Royal Academy of Engineering produced a report which estimated that such alternatives were being subsidised to the tune of around £485m year through the Renewables Objective. it also pointed out that 'The Government was also planning to offer further subsidies in the form of reductions in transmission charges- this may run counter to the spirit of the new European Electricity Directive aimed at promoting competitive energy markets.” Calculations indicate that it costs 2.3p/ kwH to generate electricity from Nuclear/Gas turbine stations (including the cost of decommissioning old stations), compared with 3.7p/ kWh and 5.5p k/Wh from onshore and offshore generation. New Npower stations will be much smaller, cheaper and more efficient than the old generation. Wind power etc, is fine, but if consumers can't afford to boil a kettle it's not much use.

Pw, Sutton, Surrey

For those who love wind turbines. The subsity of £53 per megawatt hour doesn't sound much, but, if the present nuclear power stations were replaced by wind turbines it would cost the taxpayer 10 billion pounds a year, thats right £10,000,000,000 a year. So next time you see a wind turbine, nominal output 3 megawatts, sit and watch it for a hour because its just cost you and me £159. make a day out of it then rises to £3816, for your two weeks anual holiday you will not have any change out of £53,424, now if you take in a whole farm of ten turbines it come out at cool half million, not bad if you are on the recieving end, but it leaves a hole in my pocket.
Give me an unsubsitised nuclear power station any day.

Anthony J, Alton, UK

Yet again the 'NIMBY's and greens are on the march. I would be among the first to condemn this government for not attaching a few more actions to its words in past years to avert the panic building program we're seeing now. But nevertheless the energy gap is looming over us and in the absence of a viable and realistic alternative we need nuclear power. Or would the green lobby rather we sat in the dark and cold when the Russians turn off the gas and the French decide to price their electricity out of our reach?

Steve Plows, Peterhead, UK

Congratulations to the CO2 campaigners, you have created the circumstances to allow this.

The politicians fed you, arguably, "bad science" (see C4 The Great Climate Change Swindle, for example), and you bought it.

As is usual, particularly with the Labour spin machine, this science was used to camoflage the bad news - the government believes that to keep the lights on in the UK long term, we're going to have to have nuclear power stations.

W Smith, Oldham,

What realistically is the alternative? While renewables can make a contribution, there is no other non-fossil fuel technology to generate the quantities of electricity that are going to be needed, just to maintain existing supply, let alone meet new demand.

Richard Madge, Bexhill, UK

It's about time, while i am a self confessed environmentalist i fully support nuclear energy i believe it is the only way currently to significantly reduce our CO2 emissions. in my view of the future electric cars/plug in hybrids will be very popular and demand for electricity will boom and so having large amounts of stable energy produced from non co2 fuels is critical. However i also believe we should exploit our potential wind power but realistically i know that it wont even come close to providing the energy the country will need. Energy efficiency is also important we should continue setting demands and standards for electronic goods to avoid wasted energy.

With north sea gas running out (we were an exporter of gas about 4 years ago and now will have to import 75% by 2015 from unfriendly countries politically) it is essential we replace our gas fired power plants with nuclear (uranium is abundant in Canada and Australia)

Jessica Martin, Bristol, England

Mainstream politicians facing down the environmentalist lobby. You don't see that very often. The Government is to be commended for finally recognising the reality of the situation. Perhaps the environmentalists could be more candid about their implicit agenda of forcing a reduction in energy consumption by seeking to undermine responsible actions taken to reduce the energy gap.

Mark Demmen, Bath,

If money went instead into wave, wind and solar - the cost of such technologies might just drop making them more affordable. This nuclear option seems to be nothing more than a cop out.

Farrukh, Woking, UK

One more knee-jerk reaction, added to bio-fuels and GM. All this because we refuse to get WISE.
The "green revolution" in the 70s has done nothing but compounded our environmental woes today (and allowed the world population to expand and expand further) and so we go on and on until we have destroyed the planet - as long as its some time in the future it doesn't matter though does it ? - oh what if my generation still reaps what it sowed WE DESERVE IT - Teenagers of the world unite against those cretins robbing you of your future. They have put the environment on your school curriculum but are too daft to change their own ways!!!!!

Esther Phillips, Leatherhead,