Ask…
Share your views on hot topics
Green light for nuclear
Email 
Print
Are you for or against nuclear power or somewhere in between?
The government gave the go-ahead to a new generation of nuclear power stations on Thursday.
Nuclear operators say they could have new plants running in Britain by 2017, which would help the government meet its 2020 goals for cutting carbon emissions to fight climate change.
Opponents say thousands of years of toxic waste make nuclear power not worth the risk.
Polls say the public is divided on the issue, with 44 percent saying companies should have the option of investing in new nuclear power and 37 percent disagreeing.
What do you think? Send us your comments.
Comments RSSPost Your Comment
We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
I think this idea is really stupid! I dont want to be living in any area that has nuclear power in it!
I think if the government keep treating the country like a carpet to wipe their feet on the planet is going to start retaliating.
Not to mention if an accident happened, these so called radioactive professionals arent miracle workers, say if nuclear energy did break out? The government would leave quicker than we could and we would be here stuck to just die..
things are going to end very horribly if these stupid ideas dont stop now!
Give the public something for once… argghhhhh the government get right on my nerves… they disgust me.
How do we know that if the energy runs out faster than the government anticipated that the government wont screw us over further and cut off our energy supplies leaving energy for them to use. I can actually see that happening.. i hate the government…literally…i just dont know why the public follow government rules.. its the public thats really in control .. without the public the government wont mean a thing..thats all im saying..
Have read all the comments. Seems to me that change to a low fossil energy econmony is inevitable. If peak oil is right which I think one has, for risk analysis, to assume how much time do we really have? Some say we are already over the peak. So we need to conserve oil now for use as a chemical, not energy, resource.
Agro-chemicals are basic to our ability to support the population explosion that has occurred due to the last couple of centuries cheap fossil energy, without them starvation will occur in UK. Pre fossil fuel economy the population was a fraction of the near 60 million we now have.
All current available technologies are not as economic as fossil fuel so we had better all get used to the idea of a more restricted life style and if we get it wrong then be prepared for civil unrest poverty and starvation on a major scale.
we need a reliable energy source, so if you do not like nuclear power find a clean viable alternative that nobody will moan about!We can have them but no to Iran or North Korea ? oh dear we are so arrogant in the western world are we not? If there are so many anti nuclear people in our so called democratic society stand up and fight,if you are the majority you will be heard but I get the feeling the when i come in on a cold winters day in 2015-20 I will be warming my tootsies on an electric fire powered by a nuclear power station
This is one of those topics that is bound to polarise views. I’ve read a lot of comments about peoples ‘needs’ – the fact is you don’t ‘need’ electricity to survive, not unless you’re on a life support machine of some description. You ‘want’ it, in the same selfish way that this generation in particular seems to demand what it wants, when it wants it and damn the consequences.
There are some other rather amusing comments regarding the governments right to act on issues we as the public ‘don’t understand’ – how many members of the cabinet have qualifications or experience directly regarding safe nuclear energy exactly? All governments are innevitably bureaucratic machines that get things wrong, it’s one thing for an envelope with some disks in it to go missing, it’s quite another to ok a nuclear power station with a faulty design where contractors have looked to save some money. Look at the disaster that winscale so very nearly was!
All of these decisions are based on very short term and selfish views. Our descendants are going to look back on this time in disgust, and are going to be left with the legacy of trying to put right our mistakes.
I’m all for nuclear energy if it’s balanced by renewable resources (which can and do work by the way, they just haven’t been given the budget that even existing nuclear power has), and when a genuine intelligent plan for the disposal of the waste is put together, and furthermore as long as they are all based in London. Why is it that, if they are as safe as we are led to believe, they are still being built well away from major conurbations? Let’s see one in the heart of every city and then see how many supporters there are still for it.
It’s time we collectively started looking forward and thinking through where we’re going as a nation, and frankly as a race. We need to stop making knee jerk reactions to crisis which have plainly been on the cards for decades (1970s fuel shortages in the states, 1990s war in Iraq all for securing oil), grow up and take responisiblity for our individual and collective actions.
I am not a green ‘extremist’ (there really are some dreadful examples of stereotypes being dragged in here by some people), I’m merely someone encouraging ‘thought’. All you have to do is take a deep breath, look at all the facts and then draw your conclusion.
Many of the replies above show a real fear of nuclear power, and some people seem to believe it is a threat to the planet.
The concerns relate to the long-lived nature of its wastes, to the risk of radioactive leaks, and to the riks of catastrophic accidents a la Chernobyl.
Nuclear power produces wastes which are dangerous if the radioactivity gets into the environment and is taken up by our bodies. By volume most wastes are of low radioactivity and this will decay to nothing within a hundred or so years. Some, small amounts will remain hazardous for tens or hundreds of thousands of years. (Note, though, that some conventional industrial wastes such as arsenic remain hazardous FOR EVER.) For the immediate future these wastes can easily be kept in a form, and in secure facilities, so as to guarantee that there will be no risk of the radioactivity leaking into the environment and causing harm or risk to people or wildlife. For the long term they need to be put into a place where they can be left without any human management. This is likely to be in deep geological formations. To be sure that they will then not be a risk to future generations we must be confident that they will not be accidentally encountered (eg by future mining or drilling operations)or geological changes, and that the radioactivity will not be brought to the surface through water leaching it out over the next 100,000 years or so. Geologists and other scientists are increasingly confident that suitable sites can be found where all this can be assured.
Leakages of radioactivity from nuclear plants are reported from time to time. Often these leakages are because of failings in old plant built 40-50 years ago when standards were different. Safety standards today are such that new plant is very much less likely to experience such failings. Moreover, even though such incidents are serious (they should not happen), any potential health hazard that results, either to the workforce or the general population is likely to be small in comparison with those from the toxic and other polluting emissions from all our other industrial activities. We should remember that we live in a (naturally) radioactive world – the ground is slightly radioactive, so is our food and so are our bodies. We happily expose ourselves to much greater radiation when we have our dental or hospital x-rays. The significance of leaks from the nuclear industry should be seen in this context.
Big nuclear accidents create fear. But the fact is that we have learnt so much that the likelihood of such an accident is now infinitessimally small. Regulation requires that no reactor can be built or allowed to operate unless it satisfies the most stringent safety requirements. These involve the following:
- that as far as possible the laws of physics ensure that whatever happens the reactor can be brought back to a safe state;
- that the reactor is engineered so that in the event of a fault it can be brought to a safe state without human intervention (the accident at Three Mile Island would not have developed had the operators done nothing!! Their attempts to correct a minor fault made matters infinetly worse);
- that in the event of these engineered systems failing, there are other systems that will achieve the same result;
- that if all fails, the reactor is so contained to limit the likelihood of any release of radioactivity to the environment;
- that operators are well trained, have the instrumentation to know what is happening in the reactor before any fault situation starts to develop, and have the management control to prevent the sort of irresponsible actions that led to Chernobyl (where safety systems had been deliberately switched off).
I would just like to agree with a previous person that wrote that we are living in a rip-off Britain. I come from Northern Ireland which is supposed to be part of britain yet when we are over anywhere in the UK we must make sure we have english money yet ours is sterling just the same and we are part of britain.
With education being so dire as this it is hardly surprising that the government want to kill us all. They seem to forget the past with certain issues regarding nuclear power.
Why do these people in power think they have the right. They do not own the country and frankly no matter who is in power they are all the same to some degree or another.
Lets face facts we all need something to continue the power but it has to be something that is almost 100% secure and will not cause any long term damage to peoples health. How will the government cope in years to come when there is a problem with one of the plants and radioactive material leaks out and lots of people are affected. The hospitals at present our overstretched as it is. Get your act together guys.
You went to was in Iraq to get the oil oh sorry thats not your version of events but yet we are still paying over the nose for to heat our homes. You don’t seem to realise that there is many householders out there now me and my partner one of them which simply cannot afford the bills that our coming in each month. Water rates our coming our way soon to but yet the water rates which we our paying at present through our local council rates will not be coming of so we pay twice now.
I think we should all as part of Britian have a say as to what is happening not just the pen pushers. What right have they to deal with peoples lives. Typical of the Governments one night you go to bed next day you wake up and they have decided how your lifes will be in the next 10 years.
Sack them all they are useless so and so’s. Start talking to the public who vote you in after all they are the people who put you there. Start listening to the people put out a public vote in matters like this in the future.
The UK government has, in typical fashion, left the decision on nuclear power to the last possible moment but has finally acknowledged the reality of the matter. We can have some measure of secure energy from nuclear power or we can pay protection money to Russia and have the lights go out periodically during the winter months to keep us aware of who calls the shots. Wind, solar and hydro power can never provide more than a tiny fraction of the reliable energy supply needed by a developed country such as the UK and large scale wave or tidal power projects are decades away. The real shame in yesterday’s decision is that due to the squealing of the “antis” over the past 30 years successive UK governments have throttled what used to be a world leading UK nuclear industry and we now have to rely on foreigners to build the new stations for us.
Most people who work in the nuclear industry or actually live near a nuclear station presently have no reservation about more nuclear station.
The people who work in the industry know the safe guards and the improvements that are in place for modern reactors and the likelyhood of a “chernobyl” type event is very unlikely.
The people who live near by a present reactor know the reality of doing so and are happy. I have personally have lived near a coal fired station and a nuclear plant and I would certainly pick nuclear everytime. They are inherently cleaner as coal stations emit far more toxic gases from there stacks than nuclear station in there day to day running. They are smaller in size generally and have less impact on the near by enviroment so these green peace people like to quote fact and figures supporting their case but it is so biased its untrue.
Like the recent case of a”bribe” for the local people of drigg for excepting the LLW repository. If it was a wind farm or solar plant it would be described as a grant or subsidy by green peace.
The claim the government use spin which they certainly do but certainly not as much as greenpeace do and the enviromentlist.
I saw one comment of almost 800,000 childeren directly affected by Chernobyl which is typical propogando and so far from the truth its not even on this planet
The argument is simple. Nuclear power is good because it is green.
Wrong. The output is green, but the method of extracting uranium in the first place is not.
Besides, the waste produced from the output, cannot be disposed in anything less than thousands of years and is radioactive until then.
How can that possibly be greener?
This is not the way to find solutions to the environmental crises we currently face. In fact, safety & terrorist attacks aside, it is still probably worsening the situation for the environment because of the former reasons mentioned.
I really need to point out some facts which don’t seem to be being discussed at the moment. These new generation Nuclear power stations are different from the ones we currently have. The technology is being developed in South Africa for example to make Pebble Bed Modular Reactors which produce waste which is safe in 100 years, not the tens of thousands currently being touted by Geenpeace. It is also cooled by gas so is not reliant on being situated by the sea or rivers. It is designed to be inherently safe and simply could not go into meltdown as Chernobyl did. There are vast differences between the old style and this new technlogy.
Its like saying a diesel and a petrol engine are the same. The forward motion of the vehicle is the only similarity, they both work on different principles.
At last.
They really need to get cracking as they will not have a skilled workforce to build and maintain these plants. The majority of skilled workers in this field are retired/retiring or changing to other types of work or going/gone to other countries or work like oilrigs due to the constant decommissioning in this country. As Nuclear had no future in this country graduates have not been studying this area anymore.
A good start would be to inform current decommissioning staff they are needed and provide insentives to remain in the field and start training again
More conservation, turn off lights, don’t use disposables, bring your own bags to the store, BUY LOCAL
“800,000 children living today directly impacted by Chernobyl 20 years after the incident” is not way off the truth. I know some of them personally as we have them over here in the UK to provide them with a respite from the unhealthy environment they live in. That number actually represents the total for the Ukraine only!! I didn’t want to overstate the case.
Please can some more of you join such organisations and see what risks we truly are taking. Try http://www.chernobyl-children.org.uk .It is something positive we can all do to improve our understanding of this complex problem and at the same time try and improve the lives of those innocent casualties.
Statements about reactors and reprocessing plants and waste dumps being “unlikely to suffer from incidents” in the future are not good enough; you have to be 100% certain and in my experience where there are people and computer systems involved that is just not possible or ever likely.
Nuclear power is preferable to darkness and dying from the cold.
Up with nuclear and down with the detractors who seem to think that the 50+ million people in the UK can get by without it.
Energy prices are going sky-high and many households cannot find anough money for their food shopping.
We must act now!
Right, First thing: Chernobyl nuclear power plant started operations in 1977. If you look more into the facts of the disaster you’ll come to realise that it was partially down to human error running an emergency test cutting off the cooling system on the reactor, aswell and the soviets cutting corners with the safety which they were given a report prior to the disaster saying that the nuclear reactor was unsafe as a minor mishap happened before with another designed soviet reactor.
There has only been one major scare which has occured which was three mile island in 1979 and that reactor was started in 1968 and that reactor is still running since the scare and is commisioned untill 2014.
If nuclear power is so awful why is three mile island still running and not to think about the strict safety protocol which would be in place 30+ years after these reactors were built, among with technology.
I understand the concern, but things have changed and technology and safety has advanced greatly.