Do you think we need Nuclear power stations in The UK?

Answer 1

Yes. UKs existing nuclear power stations are now coming to the end of their useful lives and will soon have to be shut down.

In the long term, we cannot rely upon fossil fuels, oil, gas and coal, to give us the energy we need.

Not only should UK update it's ageing nuclear power stations it should go for as much wind power and other renewables as possible.

All of the above is being and will continue to be done, no matter which party is in government.

Answer 2

Their is a great misconception about what nuclear power actually is and that can be seen from the answers.
It is not some magic technology but a simple but dangerous means of creating heat to boil water.
A nuclear power station is the same as any other thermal power station (oil, coal or gas) except from the means used to boil the water to make the steam to drive the steam turbines.
In a nuclear power plant the means used to generate the heat to boil the water to make the steam to drive the turbines is by nuclear fission (creating the heat).
The problem with NP is the decommissioning costs are more than the station build cost and the nuclear waste has a 1000 year deadly poisonous life that we must store.
NP is bad news and is primarily required by politicians and the military to remain an independent nuclear power by having a domestic source of plutonium.
NP is a bad, difficult and misused technology and is not in the interests of the public or the next generations.
The last NP station built at Hartlepool took 20 years to build and get on line with major technical difficulties.
The answer to your question NO, NO, NO.

Answer 3

I think we do because what are the alternatives?

Wind - fine when it's blowing but cold spells when we need the power more are often characterised by high pressure and little wind. Remember that recent cold foggy patch we had just before Christmas.

Fossil fuels - All of these produce greenhouse gases and in some cases like coal are very polluting. Gas is cleaner but that means relying on Russia AND the countries in between.

Others such as wave/tidal power - may be useful in the future but at the moment they're so small as to be negligible in this country. Same for hydroelectric.

Answer 4

It is, given current technology, the ONLY efficient means we could have of producing electricity, but that doesn't enter into Government thinking. Thus, they are going to desecrate our estuaries and countryside with hugely expensive, both actually and environmentally, wind generators.

What they need to do, if they want these to work efficiently, is build huge coal-fired fans to produce enough wind to make them work properly!

We currently get a lot of our electricity from France, and they use nuclear for 80% of their generating needs. No huge health issues, no accidents, but efficient energy production.

Fewer people have been injured or killed by nuclear power than any other means. It is comparatively safe, highly efficient and for ever sustainable. What could be better than that?

The worries are accidents and terrorist attack. That can be dealt with to a large degree by assessing and dealing with the risk.

The other issue is what to do with the waste. The French store it ABOVE ground in secure storage areas. There it will remain until we find a proper final solution for dealing with it.

Answer 5

Clean fuel fusion reactors are probably the best form of energy we have right now. I know, solar, tidal and wind are great but only if you live in the correct area and the efficiency ratio is poor. I think that we should have nuclear power plants in every country in the world so that all people could have energy. We could dump the waste over in the Middle East where they have all of that sand. This could be their answer to their oil running out.

Answer 6

Absolutely. Nuclear Power is the cleanest, safest most effficient way to generate electricity. If there is any hope of slowing down the imminent global environmental catastrophe, then Nuclear Energy is pivotal in this quest.

Answer 7

Sure why not, so long as we are responsible for our own waste and not shipping it to some 3rd world country for them to dispose of. Nuclear power is clean and safe providing the government do not penny pinch when it comes to safety standards

Answer 8

Of course we do, the renewables apart from tidal and water generation are intermittent and in the case of wind totally unreliable. The greens will oppose anything that would keep the lights on as they would rather we went back to the middle ages and went nowhere, unless rich, rather as the some Muslim mullahs would like.

Answer 9

Yes .
despite the shortcomings there is no viable alternative.
A resurgent russia ,beginning to dominate central europe via its huge reserves of gas has shown that a leopard doesnt change its spots.I would hope that we dont become reliant on such a country.

Renewable energy sources are something that we obviously should continue to research.Unfortunately,at the moment ,they cannot anywhere need sustain our levels of consumpmtion

Answer 10

Yes... until someone comes up with a better way of powering all the HD Widescreens, just to watch Eastenders....