What do you think of Hutton%26#039;s plan to start building nuclear power plants again? - in order to reduce global warming and reduce reliance on foreign oil?

Additional Details

7 months ago

LOL - Same the skeleton thinks its a good idea.

Sure, wind and solar, maybe hydrogen too.

If we think that global warming/climate change issue is one of the biggest challenges facing humanity this century then we have to start biting the bullet.

I%26#039;ve given up my car and driving - but I don%26#039;t see many others doing it. I%26#039;d have more respect for the alternatives argument if FoE hadn%26#039;t objected against the Severn Barrage when first proposed and when even modest proposals for wind farms in the Lake District meet such unanimous objections from %26#039;environmental%26#039; organisations.

Yes, concrete produces CO2. (Glad to see that recognised.) Yes, there are issues about disposal of waste. I think safety wise another Chernobyl is unlikely. But lets face it nothing we humans do seems to be without risk of some sort, we need energy, we are not moving forward fast enough so for the time being I do see nuclear (and associated risks) as an acceptable option.

Yes, bring on the alternatives. A lot is being done, a lot is being invested - no it can never be enough - and I hope to live to see another technological revolution. But for the time being I can and will support the nuclear option in western countries.

I know the contradictions about proliferation in the third world, but its the time factor that persuades me. I hope its short term, a few decades, but read Lovelock, he convinced me. http://www.igreens.org.uk/lovelock_on_nu...

I think that anyone who advocates the building of any type of nuclear facillity should be imprisoned for treason against the people, the state, and the world for the destruction and death that these ticking bombs have created, continue to create and will continue to create, in the future, unless people come to their senses.
Everybody and his mother seem to have nuclear weapons these days and what do you think their favourite targets are going to be, the desert?, no, it%26#039;s going to be the nuclear power stations in your neighborhood, do you want your familly to live in such a hot area, do the owners of these facilities live near them or send their kids to school there?
No matter how much propaganda the pro nuke loby pump out they cannot change the fact that nuclear power creates a waste that takes over ten thousand years to degrade to the state where it becomes someone elses problem, every country that uses nuclear power is sat on millions of tons of radioactive waste that they don%26#039;t know what to do with, why do you think that all of the amunition used during desert storm and the iraqui invasions, afghanistan was stuffed full of radioactive material?
I wonder how many tons of nuclear waste are being redistributed to the deserts and cities of those foreign shores, as we sit? and don%26#039;t forget redistribution is big business.
In the UK they disolve the rods in acid and then pump it into the North Irish sea and their tame eccologist sees no evil and the government hears no evil and the scientists speak no evil.
the corruption goes deep.
and don%26#039;t get me started on the water and the air pollution it causes.
No to nukes, theyre nasty.

Good one Gaby. But the envirotards will never see it that way. They%26#039;re too busy having %26quot;feelings%26quot;

I%26#039;m afraid that it is the only realistic solution despite the dangers of radiation pollution and waste disposal. Imported oil and coal supply are likely to be too unreliable - held to ransom by the Russians - I think not!. Wind , wave and hydro are not going to be anywhere near enough - unless we destroy the environment totally by covering everywhere with windmills and tidal barriers. It doesn%26#039;t matter what you suggest - there will always be those who oppose it .

With current technology, the cost of power from new nuclear plants would probably be less than tha tproduced by burning coal--and we know how to deal with the safety issues now.

That%26#039;s actually been true for years--the problem isn%26#039;t the technology. nor is it environmentalists--unless you are naive enough to think the environmental lobby has all that much influence with the neoconservatives that controlled Congressfor 12 years!

But the coal companies don%26#039;t want the competition--and they are the ones who have been blocking new construction of nuclear power plants.

good, about time one of them had the guts to stand up and say lets get on with the building program.
We are never going to get all the power we need from wind turbines

Inevitable given the competence of this administration

Beg to differ on the wind turbines front. Lots of oil platforms offseas with no oil underneath them anymore and lots of sea winds flying over them. There%26#039;s nothing wrong with nuclear power, I just think wind%26#039;s an option that needs to be heavily explored as well.

To coin a phrase, it sucks the sweat off a dead dog%26#039;s [parts].

People keep touting nuclear power as %26#039;zero carbon%26#039;. Absolute rubbish. What about all the embedded carbon in the concrete used to construct the building, shield the reactor and, let%26#039;s not forget, encase the spent fuel for the next x00 years? Concrete production requires huge amounts of heat (more than can be generated on an industrial scale using electricity?) and generates enormous amounts of atmospheric carbon dioxide.

Why, if it is as commercially economically viable as we are led to believe, are customers going to have to pay a premium on each unit of electricity to cover the costs?