This is one Manifesto pledge the Government should feel good about not meeting, that is the ruling out of nuclear power as a means of electricity production. The U turn in policy since 1997 I strongly welcome.
If we as a country want to reduce our carbon footprint provide reliable energy, reduce out dependence on unstable or unfriendly nations then Nuclear power is the way forward. The government has for a change taken steps to act in the nations benefit and whilst this may be controversial it is correct.
With oil fast disappearing and Russia’s supply of gas becoming increasingly unreliable Nuclear gives us a clean, safe and advance fuel source.
There are concerns however which I feel are valid. The nuclear industry has never been one that is profitable, with huge clean up, maintenance, and running costs. They also cause a lot of fear because of the memory of Chernobyl (it was run by communists remember!). Two of these are valid worries, the waste and profitability. Both need to be addressed if nuclear fuel is going to be a success.
Renewable energy could potentially power up to 40% of our energy needs I think it should, in tandem with nuclear. There is so much potential in this country for renewable energy that at present we squander, it is also a huge niche for a new high tech manufacturing industry to grow, and that should be here.
It is only with the sustained knowledge and development of nuclear energy that we will have the scientists capable of researching new methods with hydrogen and fission.
Nuclear power is right for Britain’s energy needs, I hate to say it, but the government has got it right. This time.
24/05/2007 at 13:24 |
Ryan i simply cannot agree with you on this one – nuclear power has proven, as you rightly mentioned, that it can cause simply devastating consequences as in Chernobyl in Belarus in 1986. It is something that can never be 100% safe in my opinion, even in this country, there have been concerns about the levels of radiation around certain plant sites. As a family, we support the Chernobyl Childrens’ Lifeline charity and the link in my area hosts 12 children for a month in summer, 2 for each family involved and we are looking forward to hosting for the fourth time in July.
The children arrive with a number of health problems despite being born well after the disaster. Their average lif e expectancy is 30 years of age. The areas where they live in Belarus are so contaiminated by radiation that the majority of what they eat is detrimental to their health. I could on and on about this, it is something that I am very passionate about, but the safety issue above everything makes me firmly disagree with the government’s decision.
It is simply too great a risk.
24/05/2007 at 15:55 |
The Soviets never ran their power plants correctly, there has never been a disater in a western country. this country has safely produced nuclear power for 4 decades now. whislt what happened was a horrific tragedy it is not the rule. i would be interested to know how you would power us if not with nuclear and maintain out pledges to reduce carbon emmisions.
24/05/2007 at 18:01 |
Three mile island, that was a partial meltdown in USA, a western country. Fact is if people will fly a plane into a tower block they would try blowing up a nuclear power plant.
24/05/2007 at 19:38 |
Please explain to me then how you would power Britain, whislt reducing our dependency on Fossil fuels. the threat of terrorism is not higher on a new power plant than on existing ones, and i think it not a valid reason to not choose nuclear power.
24/05/2007 at 21:31 |
what will you do instead of nuclear? renewables simply wont suffice, and there is danger in becoming reliant on russia for gas. there are moral, political and society arguments, but “its the economics, stupid”(sic)
24/05/2007 at 23:12 |
I do appreciate Laura’s point, it was a complete travesty, but on the up side at least Ryan has finally grasped the use of paragraphs.
This is a topic of conversation that I have often debated down the pub and my friends try and explain to me each time how Chernobyl won’t happen again. I never quite get it something to do with cannisters being the right way round now or something.
Furthermore, it is impossible to break in nuclear plants, again I am not quite sure of the logistics of this, something to do with it being positively charged if my memory serves me correctly, which means that terroists cannot attack it.
I am by no means advocating the use of nuclear power I am just putting some of the arguments out there I have been told.
It could be a good temporary measure until we finally have got to grips and begin to maximise some of teh enourmous potential of re newable energy though.
24/05/2007 at 23:57 |
As i believe the energy produced in the reactor is a good way of reducing the amount of carbon based fuels that we use. However, what most people fail to recognise is that carbon based fuels are being used in parts of the process of creating nuclear power.
Furthermore, nuclear power plants do produce their own radioactive waste which is arguably more dangerous than CO2 emissions, certainly on a local scale anyway.
Although what happened in Chernobyl is not ‘the rule’, saying that nuclear is 100% safe is like saying that trains never crash and the security checks never allow terrorists throught at airports and politicians dont’t lie…
25/05/2007 at 00:03 |
Perhaps i overplayed the point, nuclear is not 100% safe, nothing is in this world, but the minimal risk is worth taking. many other European countries have chosen Nuclear power, we need to follow suit to meet an ever increasing demand. nuclear with renewable is our clean energy future.
02/06/2007 at 20:52 |
Don’t forget that another way to produce sustainable renewable energy is by Anaerobic Digestion of organic waste materials and there are lots of these wastes, plus they are mostly at the moment being sent to landfill.
Use Anaerobic Digestion in your waste disposal techniques and you also reduce volume/mass going to landfills.
Not only that. Anaerobic Digestion removes the readily degradable portion of the organic matter in municipal wastes, so that even if these materials were then sent to landfill the landfills would be much nicer, and far less damaging to the environment.
I hope you don’t mind me talking about what I think should be the next “big thing” for renewable power generation.
Interested? Visit our site about Anaerobic Digestion which is all about creating renewable energy from waste materials, here.
Our Anaerobic Digestion web site is all about renewable energy from waste materials here.