1.  
   Russ from Hants. says:

   Oct 3, 18:20

   The uk power base load should by now be about 60% or so generated by nuclear power. Probably very few actually want any form of power plant on their door step; however if it has to happen to keep the lights on then nuclear power is certainly cleaner & safer than burning fossil fuels. The uk had the worlds leading nuclear power industry in the 1960s, since then it has been underinvested in continually, & in many ways trashed by successive uk governments. Much of the latter was in response to powerful lobbying by various green groups who confused nuclear power with nuclear weapons in the minds of the general public (intentionally ?).
   No power generation is ever absolutely safe or devoid of problems. Undoubtedly there will be problems in any power generation system in the future as there always have been in the past. The new nuclear build must be well managed, & be responsible to a powerful & totally independant regulatory body. The lessons of Chernobyl & Three Mile island must never be forgotten.
   In times of heavy base load it is surely now embarasing that the uk has to purchase electric power, generated largely by nuclear power from France to make up the short fall. The uk may well be doing this again this coming winter. The generation of scientists & engineers who designed & built the uks present aging nuclear power stations have mostly now retired. It is surely now doubly embarasing that the uk must now turn largely to French expertise for the new nuclear build, particularly as EDF is still partly state owned by the French government.
   There is currently a health & safety issue at the Tricastin plant in France. There will always be such events in all power plants, nuclear or otherwise. Fossil fuel plants in the past have always had such issues. The public do not like statistics, but living with nuclear power is much safer than for example going to work in our cars. The new nuclear build is very long overdue.
   (PS - I have no vested interest in any form of power generation.)

   Should Britain invest in nuclear power?

   Yes
2.  
   hannah smith from wolverhampton says:

   Sep 10, 14:36

   if we do need nuclear power then we need to know the risks of what we are doing. if the is a problem with the building then it could kill 100's of people . it wouldn't be fair to all those who didn't what these staions in the first place

   Should Britain invest in nuclear power?

   No
3.  
   gary from bedfordshire says:

   Sep 6, 00:14

   Unless something better can be thought up,there is no other way to go for mass energy consumption. The bigest problem is not producing nuclear power ,but what to do with the waste products. May i sujest that as we have been able to go to the moon that we should send all the waste up there. At least then it will keep shining!

   Should Britain invest in nuclear power?

   Yes
4.  
   dai from by yer says:

   Aug 27, 13:51

   of course we should, if labour carried on developing it when they came into office we would be one of the leading nations in nuclear power. instead we now have to spend billions to by if from the frogs, who incidently have us over a barrel with the amount of the power industries that labour sold them for a song

   Should Britain invest in nuclear power?

   Yes
5.  
   Jeanne from Leicester says:

   Aug 17, 14:16

   Why not invest in gym equipment to generate electricity. People power much better than Nuclear power, which I am against. Get fit and help your community to generate electricity. Just need someone to create the equipment the gym's can buy. This must be a cheaper option and it has its benefits too. Keeping the nation fit. Would this create cheaper gym membership and cheaper electricity?

   Should Britain invest in nuclear power?

   No

Comments page 4 of 111