Why does Tony Blair want the UK to go nuclear for energy?

Question

There is still debate about how to handle the little bit of nuclear waste that we have, so it's not so efficient as what I was told at school - that one lump of uranium can power a city for years on end.

Answer 1

He doesn't want to be shown up by the Iranians.. seriously - Teacher's ..they should keep their personal opinions to themselves and teach the facts...it's all to do with the depletion of the Coal & Oil & Gas reserves... plus its a wee bit cleaner.. know - the Green thing..

Answer 2

Because we're running out of oil and gas. He's convinced that it's the way to go. Even though nuclear energy is not really worth it. The Energy Returned On the Energy Invested is small. EROEI an important concept when thinking about energy.
We need to decentralise energy production. Every household should be producing energy (here in Scotland every house should have a wind turbine on the roof and contribute to the national grid). but there is little money for big companies in that. Blair has to please his big money friends! Plus power stations have a limited use...they don't last for ever...just a few years.

Answer 3

Waste is an issue, but I don't think there is another alternative to fossil fuels which offers the energy potential of nuclear. If you don't go with nuclear, your most viable choices are wind, solar, hydroelectric, and geothermal (is that an option in the UK). If people could just let go of their fears, I think nuclear has a lot of potential.

Also, nuclear is much safer today than it was 20 years ago. Think of all those ships running under nuclear power and how often do you hear of one having a problem.

Answer 4

Blair is concerned about us being reliant on Russian oil and gas supplies. The Russians have already shown they have no problem with switching off the energy supply in response to criticism of their policies. Nuclear energy would give us real energy security and independance. The biggest supplier of Uranium is friendly Australia and Australia might even be willing to take all our nuclear waste from us. Former Australian PM Bob Hawke thinks it would be a good idea because a large part of Australia is uninhabited and geologically stable.

Answer 5

Nuclear power has the huge benefit over fossil fuels of being a low carbon technology. However, there is no safe way to deal with the waste. It is also very expensive, and often the costs of decommissioning and waste storage (thousands of years) are not taken into account. Studies have shown that if the UK invests in nuclear power less investment will go into the real solutions of climate change - renewable technologies. The view that renewable technologies are a green PR exercise is nonsense. For example, biofuels are already being used to power vehicles with conventional engines, solar heating has made central heating systems unnecessary in well designed buildings, and hydrogen technology will allow us to store renewable energy effectively in the future. I would suggest reading 'Heat' by G. Monbiot for the full answer to your question.

Answer 6

Good question, it's inefficient, dangerous and the potential energy shortfall is being caused by the shutting down of our existing nuclear plants. The only positive is relative lack of CO2 emissions, this is short term thinking as the new plants will have life spans of a couple of decades at most.
I suspect the Labour Kleptocracy has it's fingers in someone's pockets on this issue.

Answer 7

Because the Oil is running out. North Sea oil is almost finished. It is generally agreed within the oil industry that we have passed the point where we have used more oil than there is left in the ground.

The result of this is that the price of this precious resource will only go up.

Nuclear energy becomes an attractive prospect when this reality is grasped.

Answer 8

ultimately, the amount of radiation is the only problem with nuke technology, we in the USA made it almost impossible to build new plants, even though it is still the cheapest form of power (if kept under control). we are doing more damage to our world by our dependance on fossil fuels. But ever since Hiroshima, the world cringes when you say nuclear power......we are all afraid of going boom.....Look at Chernobl as an example of poor reactor design, maintenance, and a real stupid test that was going on where they turned off a bunch of safeties and lost control of the reactor....it is still melting a hole in the ground....

Ultimately, nuclear is cheaper, but has more "death potential" short term. Long term our dependance on fossil fuels is ruining our world, both ecologically and just look at the middle east...

Answer 9

What are the alternatives? Fossil fuels will not last forever, and we will be (are?) reliant on foreign powers - mainly Russia and various middle-eastern states.
Solar and wind power are more a green PR exercise than a realistic power generation option (do you only want to be able to boil a kettle when it's windy?)
Yes, there is an issue over radioactive waste, but if handled sensibly the risks are minimised.

Answer 10

Partly he honestly thinks we can't just rely on fossil fuels and it's the most mature alternative.

Partly he may have been influenced by his old pal and former cabinet minister Lord (Jack) Cunningham, now a spokesman for the Nuclear lobby.

Partly I think he just enjoys winding up the party's Old Labour members!