Does Britain Need Nuclear?

CLOSE

Please login or register before reporting abusive content.

Click here to log in

Click here to register

Posted by: ooffoo

Please wait...

Vote registered, thanks

Voting has closed on this poll

Give us your opinion on our topical poll. Please note: only one vote (your first) will be counted.

Does Britain need Nuclear?

Yes			29%

No			71%

Don't forget to vote on the homepage

Whether Britain needs nuclear or not has to be one of the hottest recent debates and continues to be so. In order to lower carbon emissions it is argued that the simplest and quickest way to do this is to get more energy from Nuclear power. Opposition to Nuclear comes predictably from many angles: financial, security, personal health, environmental health etc. It is often said that if the government supported Renewables as much as it has Nuclear then there would not be a question. Would love to know your thoughts?

Don't forget to vote on the homepage

Listed In: energy , vote , nuclear , debate

Created on: 28/03/2009
Last edited on: 08/07/2009

The Ooffoo Latest:
If you like the above then you'll love being kept up to date with 'The Ooffoo Latest' email newsletter. Keep on top of the latest news, tips, articles, recipes, listings, competition info, debates, special offers and much more all happening on ooffoo.com - It's 100% FREE and you can unsubscribe at any time of course Signup here!

Comments about this listing

Until we are sure there is a safe and sustainable way of disposing of nuclear waste, I can't find it in my heart to support it...

And if there is a choice between something that creates waste (safely disposable or otherwise) and something that doesn't ... again, it's no to nuclear for me.

I also wanted to vote against nuclear on the grounds of the potential destruction associated with leaks / spills / explosions ... And yet, wind, water and the sun all have the potential to wreak havoc on people too.

CLOSE

Please login or register before reporting abusive content.

Click here to log in

Click here to register

Posted By: Clara
Date Posted: 30/03/2009 13:26

The short answer is yes, unfortunately - whilst renewable power is the way forward, these sources of energy are not able to supply national baseload power due to their intermnittant nature.

People also say that Power Storage is the way forward in order to balance this intermitancy and I completely agree - however there is no commercially viable industrial size storage solution available at present on the horizon. People also mention using electric vehicles to store overcapacity - however this would mean more vehicles on the road than we have in total at present - not an answer.

With regards to nuclear fuel waste - the industry is working very hard to recycle spent waste back into fuel, hence the rise of MOX reactors and this technology is proven.

The UK power industry will be facing supply crisis by 2015 - what other solution do you have?

So, at present, nuclear is the answer to baseload power, rather than building more and more coal and gas fired power stations. Hopefully the renewable industry can answer the problems of intermitant supply and we can phase nuclear out.

CLOSE

Please login or register before reporting abusive content.

Click here to log in

Click here to register

Posted By: James Vincent
Date Posted: 30/03/2009 14:03

James - I'm intrigued (I'm not very well read in this area) ... what is a MOX reactor?

Posted By: Clara
Date Posted: 31/03/2009 10:41

CLOSE

Please login or register before reporting abusive content.

Click here to log in

Click here to register

I've only 3 words to say on the matter.....no, no and no.

I know someone on the 'inside' of one such plant and the stories I could tell....

Eh, just to reiterate, 'NO'!

TS

CLOSE

Please login or register before reporting abusive content.

Click here to log in

Click here to register

Posted By: Tracey Smith
Date Posted: 30/03/2009 22:11

The short answer is NO. But will Britain have nuclear the short answer is yes. The paradox is explained by the low scientific knowledge in the governemnt and that they are dominated by a paradigm that looks at mass produced solutions driven by money and not by locally produced and owned solutions. Or alternatively by using the tidal power and off shore wind that is both reliabvle and sufficient. False figures and lobbying influence by teh nuclear industry give the lie that nuclear is the answer more potency than the poor array of opposition can muster against new stations being built.

CLOSE

Please login or register before reporting abusive content.

Click here to log in

Click here to register

Posted By: Markus Petz
Date Posted: 01/04/2009 05:02

I agree with Markus! I am so tired of the Nuclear industry patronising everyone by claiming to know 'the facts' - how convenient of them that the facts seem to support their case. If the government were willing we would be moving in the right direction at the least.

CLOSE

Please login or register before reporting abusive content.

Click here to log in

Click here to register

Posted By: EllyB
Date Posted: 01/04/2009 12:38

Definite NO! For all the reasons already mentioned as well as the risk of terrorist attacks and potential for the waste getting in the wrong hands and being used for wapons.

We need to put the money we are wasting on subsidising the nuclear industry into renewables so that all the different alternatives can get off the ground and become viable.

The money might be better spent subsidising new builds with the amount the renewables cost and insisting that this happens on all new housing projects, as well as encouraging small scale renewables in existing communities.
If we don't bite the bullet now and stop pumping money into the wrong industry (nuclear, coal, ..) we will always be in the same situation.

CLOSE

Please login or register before reporting abusive content.

Click here to log in

Click here to register

Posted By: Izzy
Date Posted: 01/04/2009 14:02

Firstly, I think that Fusion not fission energy would be the best, but its generally thought that we're about 30 or 40 years away from that unfortunately. So in the mean time what do we do?

I believe that some sort of non carbon burning alternative is definitely required as a stop gap. Of all the alternatives, i think Nuclear fission is the most appropriate solution. Wind turbines and solar are not yet efficient enough, tidal schemes will take far too long to get through the planning commissions and then built by which time the tipping point for a 4-6 centigrade global temp increase will probably have been and gone(and thats the show over kids). We have the technology and knowhow to create a lot of energy with nuclear tecnology so why not use it.

Yes there are side effects but containment of nuclear waste is vastly improving and its effects on the environment are a fraction of what our current carbon output is doing to climate systems and feedback loops.

I think nuclear has got a bad name from 1945, when used as a weapon it is no doubt devastating. It then became cool to be in the CND and all these types of movements, which blurred the lines between nuclear arms and nuclear energy, so that it is now perceived that nuclear energy is as just dangerous. Ok, Chernobyl, a clear case study of a system that failed with awful consequences. However, that was an out dated, poorly maintained plant in a crumbling Soviet Union. Would the same happen here? I doubt it.

I'm not saying its the perfect solution, its just the best one we've got. When your body gets cancer what do you do? Zap it with radiation to kill off the bad cells. It may not be the best solution and there are negative effects from it but eventually you get better (hopefully). If you were dying like the current climate system is would you try the radio active solution or just talk about what else you could do until you die?

CLOSE

Please login or register before reporting abusive content.

Click here to log in

Click here to register

Posted By: Paul
Date Posted: 02/04/2009 13:45

I'm not entirely convinced that nuclear power will arrive in time to fill this energy "gap", if such there be. Currently 2 third generation power stations are under construction in Europe, one in Finland, one in France. The Finnish one is two years behind and won't be finished (!) till 2012 and construction of the French one was forced to stop for a while because of problems with poor workmanship. So unless someone can conjure up these new nukes in the UK overnight, I don't think they are going to be contributing much by 2015.

CLOSE

Please login or register before reporting abusive content.

Click here to log in

Click here to register

Posted By: Bob Irving
Date Posted: 06/04/2009 15:05

NO, OMG, definitely NOT. It is not 'business as usual' as far as supplying energy is concerned. We need to be looking at reducing our energy consumption not scraping the barrel to supply more all the time. Renewables are the only way and every voice really does make a difference. Join/start your local transition town!

CLOSE

Please login or register before reporting abusive content.

Click here to log in

Click here to register

Posted By: claire
Date Posted: 06/04/2009 16:58

am ithe only one who is totally confused by this debate? I have always been really anti nuclear, however, the urgency of the need to cut emissions of co2 seems to me to be the most urgent imediate need therefore, if green technology is not up to our requirements right now, surely it is best to use nuclear as a temporary measure untill green energy can supply our needs?

CLOSE

Please login or register before reporting abusive content.

Click here to log in

Click here to register

Posted By: Wren
Date Posted: 06/04/2009 20:33

I have voted "yes" in this debate because I believe that nuclear power generation is the only practical way to reduce greenhouse gases whilst maintaining current standards of living. We, as a nation, should also be doing what we can to use hydro, tidal and solar power to minimise the need for nuclear. If our nuclear power industry were to be revitalised then I believe research into waste disposal and fusion technologies would increase and then better solutions than fission would be available. The argument about safety ignores the awful history of the coal mining industry and the loss of life in the oil industry and alternatives. I sometimes think we should just accept a lower standard of living by doing without the level of electricity usage we now have. Then I realise that many safety and medical aspects of our lives depend on power and that populations as a whole would not tolerate a deliberate move in this direction by any government. Meantime I insulate my loft, use double glazing and high efficiency bulbs, keep water and heating to a minimum and run a hybrid car. Do you?

CLOSE

Please login or register before reporting abusive content.

Click here to log in

Click here to register

Posted By: Steve
Date Posted: 08/04/2009 13:00

@Steve - I wonder whether there is a way of deciding what is "indulgent" use of electricity and what isn't ... I often think we should accept a "lower standard of living" too (although I'd argue about the terminology) ... And yet I'm with you on medical technology I think.

Re your "do you" question ... did you see Edwin's piece on the Big 5 things that are really worth changing to do our bit?

http://www.ooffoo.com/listing/The-Big-Five.aspx

Is anyone here "off-grid"? (Should that be OOFF-grid if you're here?!)

CLOSE

Please login or register before reporting abusive content.

Click here to log in

Click here to register

Posted By: Clara
Date Posted: 08/04/2009 22:40

I am voting NO!
We need Nuclear power like we need a hole in the head.

But we do need many Renewable sources of power NOW. What we should be doing is decentralising our power generation and reducing our CO2 output. They are doing it very effectively in Malmo Harbour, Sweden. New office and domestic buildings are provided with 98% of their energy needs through Combined Heat and Power [CHP] and renewable energy sources..

CLOSE

Please login or register before reporting abusive content.

Click here to log in

Click here to register

Posted By: Stuart
Date Posted: 11/04/2009 17:45

Nuclear is not the way forward. We are heading for major Earth shifts/changes and existing installations will have to be decommissioned ahead of this. (Don't panic). Installing solar panels on all new buildings would be a step forward. Unfortunately solar is too expensive for most current householders to install. Government grants towards the cost don't go far enough.
Renewables help greatly but they are not the long-term solution. We need to think way out of the box. Please check out www.theorionproject.org for what is to come (sooner, I hope rather than later).

CLOSE

Please login or register before reporting abusive content.

Click here to log in

Click here to register

Posted By: Moira
Date Posted: 12/04/2009 11:14

Nuclear Power is classic capitalist thinking: Yes it is a carbon neutral process and yes it will meet our needs and yes it will reduce our emissions and we may even meet the Governments targets for reducing those emissions.

But the mining and transport alone cause more pollution, albeit in another country, so the Global emissions go UP, climate change gets worse, the poor suffer more, the rich survive and don't take the blame because they invested all that money in nuclear power stations!!

The waste from the nuclear power stations is less of a problem, as the Government are pushing ahead with the illegal Trident project, so at least we'll be well defended when the refugees start flocking to our lands because we destroyed theirs!

No more time wasting, renewables now!!

CLOSE

Please login or register before reporting abusive content.

Click here to log in

Click here to register

Posted By: Steve
Date Posted: 20/05/2009 17:51

Please login or register before adding comments.

Click here to log in

Click here to register

Preview of Comment ( )

This was printed from www.ooffoo.com

The tags listed below are a great place to start browsing or why not click the 'View All' button to see the Top 500 tags.

CLOSE

What are tags? Tags are essentially categories and are the key words that people use to describe their listings or articles. Any word can be used as a tag except for ones that are naughty and would probably not be repeatable in polite company.