1.  
   Graham from Wirral says:

   Feb 1, 17:52

   A.S.A.P. otherwise we will be back in the dark ages.

   Should Britain invest in nuclear power?

   Yes
2.  
   JTR from WEST MIDLANDS says:

   Jan 31, 23:24

   REGRETFULLY YES, BECAUSE THERE ARE NO REALISTIC ALTERNATIVES
   ALL THESE SMART ARSE GREEN TYPES SAY NO WITHOUT SAYING WHAT THEY WOULD DO.
   PERHAPS WE SHOULD ALL HAVE A HAMSTER TYPE WHEEL IN OUR HOMES INSTEAD OF ARMCHAIRS.
   COME GREENIES GET REAL.

   Should Britain invest in nuclear power?

   Yes
3.  
   Jonathan from London says:

   Jan 29, 15:13

   Richard, I didn't say nuclear was renewable, I said the fuel could be recycled. If uranium does become more scarce fast reactor and reprocessing technologies could get 10-100 times more energy out of the same uranium. Uranium availability isn't going to be a stumbling block.
   Fusion - nice in theory, but it will be several decades until we know if it is even possible, from an engineering point of view, let alone affordable.
   Plutonium - if a country really wants to get its hands on it, an internationally safeguarded civil power programme is a really dumb way of doing that.

   Should Britain invest in nuclear power?

   Yes
4.  
   Richard from London says:

   Jan 29, 14:33

   Still remain a don't know Johnathan. It is not correct to say nuclear energy is renewable. U235 may last longer than the coal / oil reserves but it is still dependent on finding U235. once you run out of U235 your just as stuck as if you run out of coal. I've read lots of estimates of how long coal / oil would last at the current rate of consumption, but nobody seems to have an estimate of the amount of U235. There is not plenty of it, there is only a very small amount in the Earth's crust as its a rare eath element. Fission is very efficent in a mass to energy sense so I accept that small quanities of U235 will keep you going for ages. But that is a somewhat misleading figure because its not factoring in the energy and finacial costs of setting up and decomssioning nunclear reactors. Fusion is much more efficent and dead easy to do. Just bung a load of hydrogen together and there you go. Unlimited clean energy. The trouble is the amount of energy you have to put in to get the reaction going in the first place and of course containing somthing as hot as the sun, which is why although we know how to do it, its not ATM a viable way to go. Also, there's not much point in Britan alone doing it. If its going to make any difference then all contries would have to do it. How long would U235 last if rather than using nuclear energy for a minsicule faction of the world's energy needs we were using it for all of them. Then there's the problem that anybody who has a nuclear reactor has plutonium. How happy would we all be with every country in the world having nuclear weapons?

   Should Britain invest in nuclear power?

   No
5.  
   Jonathan from London says:

   Jan 29, 14:15

   Stephen - the Government's been clear the taxpayer won't pick up the tab for waste disposal this time. If it does make a fortune it must be pretty low cost to run. The waste harms no one when looked after properly.
   Richard - 3 Mile Island harmed no-one. It was the worst accident outside of the old Soviet Union, can the same be said for most industries (think of the thousands dieing in Chinese coal mines). The uranium can be recycled if we do start to use it up, but there's plenty left.
   VirginMedia - good to have the debate, but it should be nuclear and renewables against fossil fuels, not each other.

   Should Britain invest in nuclear power?

   Yes

Comments page 8 of 111