Nuclear Energy
Posted by Tony Cunningham, MP for Workington, at 16:11, Tue 10 October 2006:
The Government published the conclusion of its Energy Review this July, the proposals of which are designed to reduce the demand for energy, to secure a mix of clean, low carbon energy sources and to streamline the planning process of energy projects. The Government believes that nuclear – as a low carbon energy source - has a role to play in the future UK generating mix alongside other low-carbon generating options. What do you think?
Comments
Commenting on this message is now disabled.
Posted by Darren Warrd, 16:34, Tue 10 October 2006: (Is this post abusive?) #
I agree with the reasons and the aims but I do have serious doubts as to whether nuclear is the right solution. Before we go down the nuclear path legislation should be passed to reduce or even remove candescent bulbs from the shops replacing them with low energy types. If every household stopped using candescent bulbs and replaced them with compact flourescent ones how many power stations would be become unccessary? More than you may think. I have always advocated a simple solution to problems when they exist - the nuclear solution offered in this instance is far from simple and only to be used as a last resort. We are not yet at that stage and there are many simple alternatives to the environmental and energy crisis that we see looming large.
Posted by Victor de Quincey, 16:35, Tue 10 October 2006: (Is this post abusive?) #
Until we can find a way of producing power at the same capacity of nuclear energy we have no option to keep the present nuclear power stations. Filling Cumbria with wind farms is not a solution, also where will Cumbria be without Sellafield. When will the Government treble the amount of money it is putting into Bio-fuels?
Posted by Simon Boniface, 17:27, Tue 10 October 2006: (Is this post abusive?) #
We need to remove the emotion from the nuclear debate. Even if we erect the tens of thousands of (say) wind turbines - we need base load stations to cover times when wind does not supply our needs.
A blanced approach is called for with nuclear taking the lead, supported by a massive investment in bio-techology to help reduce our reliance on oil. Failure to build nuclear power stations now will cost us dear in the long term - being pragmatic, even 1-2 severe nuclear accidents in the next 100 years will be nothing compared to that which mother nature will subject us to.
Posted by Darren Warrd, 19:03, Tue 10 October 2006: (Is this post abusive?) #
Rather than just patch up an existing wasteful energy system, we should be looking at ways to easily reduce power need. I have recently, through my job, experienced the ridiculous contradictions that come from local statutory bodies. Earlier this year new energy efficiencies were introduced for new buildings, which is laudable, although rather ham-fistedly introduced. However, when wanting to utilise solar panels to boost hot water production to 4 new houses - and thus help achieve lower carbon emissions as is required by law - I was prevented from doing so by the planning authority who refused categorically to allow 4 simple panels to be installed. Until government departments ‘sing from the same hymn sheet’ how can we ‘on the ground’ actually make a difference where it matters.
Posted by Peter Hargreaves, 23:02, Thu 12 October 2006: (Is this post abusive?) #
Whilst I would favour alternative methods of energy generation ... particularly wave and tide, there is insufficient time to develop anything like the capacity we need in order to avoid catastrophic levels of global warming. In the circumstances, I see no option but to pursue the nuclear path ... and quickly!