Social: Would you vote for closing down of nuclear stations(electricity)?

Answer 1

I support nuclear power once a safe way to deal with the waste is found.

Answer 2

those that vote to close nuclear power stations and say we should use wind and solar power should be the first to have the power cut off to their homes when there is only enough to run about 10 percent of the country due to their total lack of grasping the enourmous energy requirments of this country.20000 bloody windmills to produce the same energy as a small plant and what happens on a calm cold day do we all bloody freeze. Wake up and smell the roses eh!

Answer 3

The problem with wind or solar power is that they are unreliable. The wind doesn't blow or is too strong, the sun doesn't shine at night when it is cold. Hydro electric is fine but we have few places it can be employed. Maybe tidal flow would be good but costly to implement.
Just remember that burning coal needs the fumes to be washed before they exit to the atmosphere and produces CO2. Gas is fine but produces CO2 and is running out under the north sea and leaving the UK dependant on unreliable - to put it mildly - sources.
Also burning coal produces MORE radio activity than nuclear stations!
Nuclear power is fine SO LONG AS ITS SAFETY SYSTEMS DO NOT ALLOW TWITS TO TAMPER WITH THEM AS THEY DID AT CHERNOBYL.
France produces about 90% of its energy from nuclear and the UK buys it from them once again putting us in the hands of others.
If one of their stations went up remember the 20 miles of channel are nothing compared to the distance Chernobyl was from us!
Nuclear for now - fusion for the future.
RoyS

Answer 4

Yes, we have only really considered solar power in the last 30 or 40 years and not that seriously at that . Like any relatively new science there is a lot to learn and improvements to be made and this will only come with development and funding. Nuclear power represents to much risk to our environment if something should go wrong. it happened in Chenoval Russia (hope thats how you spell the name) and that means it can happen anywhere.

ATB Red

Answer 5

The people in my county voted to shut the one down nearby where I live. The only down thing was that some people lost some jobs. Our energy bill only went up about a dollar a month so it didn't even save us that much money and now we can rest knowing there won't be any meltdowns or hazardous nuclear waste.

Answer 6

Of course not.

Even though fossil fuels are harmless ("man-made global warming" being absolute poppycock!), we are running out on them and dependent on countries such as Russia and Iran for them.

Nuclear is the only option.

Renewable energy is too unreliable and expensive.

Nuclear is clean and safe, bar a couple of anomalies.

However, when it goes bad it goes very bad, and the Nuclear waste is a problem.

It is a shame there is no other option, but nuclear seems like the most sensible was of producing efficient and independent energy for most fossil-fuel-less nations

Answer 7

NO. We need more to become self reliant for a primary energy source. Just wait till the Russians turn off the gas again.

Answer 8

No. Wind and water power are the product off fantasy, they will never produce enough power for all our needs (U.K.) We cannot continue to burn fossil fuels, because of the pollution involved and they will run out. We need more nuclear power stations.

Answer 9

Yes, I think we can make up for it with new wind and solar energy technology. It takes 17-19 years for a new nuclear plant to catch up to the energy it took to make it.

Answer 10

asked by a person probably using nuclear generated power to run their computer?