Nuclear energy: the greenest source of power?

The nuclear industry has succesfully managed to portray atomic power as a 'greener' form of energy than conventional fossil fuels. The claim that nuclear power is 'climate friendly'  has been used as a powerful justification for the industry's rebirth and was reiterated today by business secretary John Hutton.

But does this argument really stack up? On one level, yes. Certainly, it's true that nuclear energy can provide large amounts of electricity with relatively low emissions of carbon dioxide. Government figures suggest the estimated full life cycle of carbon emissions from a nuclear power station are equivalent to between 2 per cent and 6 per cent of those of a gas-fired station for every unit of electricity generated. This includes all emissions from uranium processing, through construction and decommissioning to the management of radioactive waste.

But a green source of power? This, surely, is stretching the argument too far. Uranium mining and milling have a variety of potentially harmful environmental side effects including the creation of run-off and dangerous waste liquors that can pose serious hazards. Large numbers of fish are also killed because of the vast quantities of water required to cool nuclear reactors. Then of course, there is the issue of nuclear waste - much of which remains dangerously radioactive for hundreds of thousands of years.

None of this necessarily means nuclear energy is the wrong choice. After all, every form of energy including renewables such as wind and wave power have environmentally damaging side-effects. There are also ways of limiting the environmental impact of nuclear power through proper planning and long-term policies to handle waste and guarantee the safe mining of uranium. 

But this does not address what is is perhaps the most compelling argument of all against nuclear power - that by allowing the technology to proliferate we could usher in its misuse in the future by a rogue state or terrorist and that this could pave the way for a nuclear catastrophe - on both a human and environmental level.

This depressing argument is probably the only one that the UK government has not really even attempted to tackle in its current push for new build nuclear. What do you think?

Comments

[G]

While I am a proponent of nuclear energy as PART of an overall global energy solution I think it is worth pointing several things out.
1) The amount of time needed to approve the building of a new nuclear reactor is roughly 20 years give or take (taking into account the need for environmental assessment and political debate before construction even begins.
2)Stable, democratic countries who take the care to meet standards of nuclear development is one thing..........developing countries building nuclear reactors willy nilly is completely different and not the kind of world I'd like to live in.
3)All it takes is one nuclear accident to derail the modicum of public support that exists. This has to be taken into account when governments weigh the risks and benefits of relying heavily on nuclear development as an alternative energy source.

On the other hand:
1) there are new and interesting disposal methods - i.e. burying spent fuel rods in the Canadian Shield - a relatively safe option that also allows one to retrieve those partially spent rods if technology improves.
2)Aside from the 20+ year time span to build new reactors, nuclear energy really is the only viable alternative we currently have to replacing GHG intensive energy sources. And by viable I'm referring to the fact that it, unlike wind or solar energy (that at max can only currently replace about 10% of energy needs), nuclear can meet an enormous amount of our energy needs.

An interesting debate..............in the end, nuclear just happens to be one of many alternatives that are used in a wide variety of policy alternatives. Better to have a diversified energy portfolio rather than relying solely on one method.

[Christopher Reeve]

Alex | 15 Apr 2008 18:33:21 your example is not correct. If something has a long half-life it does not imply it is not very radioactive. It just means that it will decay at a lower rate and will be around for longer. For your example of a half-life of 250 thousand years just a hand full of such material would produce 10^10 Bq (ten to the power of ten counts per second). Ouch!

The calculation: Assume 10^23 atoms N in a handful (yes that many) then the rate is,
log_e(2) x 10^23 / 250000 / 365 [days/year] / 24 [hours/day] / 3600 [seconds/hour] .

I don't know all the quantities of the different isotopes, but personally I can't accept nuclear power as good option. It is too centralised, it is too complicated and has the potential of being too dangerous. Just like building taller skyscrapers, if something goes wrong it goes very very wrong. Lets push ahead with sustainable solutions.

[Alex]

Lots of interesting fact free comments here, like: "Waste has a half-life of 250,000 years" (grnwtch). If it really were 250,000, it wouldn't really be radioactive.

In short, no body wants nuclear, but we ought to want coal, Russian gas, and blackouts a lot less.

Steve Howard | 10 Apr 2008 09:41:13 presented some logical arguments against, which deserve to be countered:

1. Nuclear power can be made safe. (Making it safe for fish is a trivial in comparison.) Catastrophic melt downs are physically impossible and pressure vessel explosions can be contained. There is a very small risk of something like 3-mile Island, but that killed substantially fewer people than an average Chinese coal mine.

2. Waste: This should be stored securely on site for about 30 years and then deep buried, unless a better solution comes along in those 30 years. Deep geological disposal is perfectly safe for the required 1,000 - 2,000 years.

Besides which, waste is a problem we have now. Renewing our nuclear capacity will increase the amount of waste by about 10%.

3. Transportation - this is in highly secure flasks which need to be monitored closely. As long as sensible procedures are followed, stealing a cask is a lot more difficult than a securicor van.

4. Insurance - That is an issue because the insurance industry is not good with minute risks of major events. As with terrorism insurance, the Government steps in. Yes its a subsidy, but wind power is also (quite rightly) subsidised.

The argument of article about proliferation is a valid argument, but it really makes no difference what we do. Lots of Asian countries are building reactors, including some rather nasty regimes.

[Alex]

Lots of interesting fact free comments here, like: "Waste has a half-life of 250,000 years" (grnwtch). If it really were 250,000, it wouldn't really be radioactive.

In short, no body wants nuclear, but we ought to want coal, Russian gas, and blackouts a lot less.

Steve Howard | 10 Apr 2008 09:41:13 presented some logical arguments against, which deserve to be countered:

1. Nuclear power can be made safe. (Making it safe for fish is a trivial in comparison.) Catastrophic melt downs are physically impossible and pressure vessel explosions can be contained. There is a very small risk of something like 3-mile Island, but that killed substantially fewer people than an average Chinese coal mine.

2. Waste: This should be stored securely on site for about 30 years and then deep buried, unless a better solution comes along in those 30 years. Deep geological disposal is perfectly safe for the required 1,000 - 2,000 years.

Besides which, waste is a problem we have now. Renewing our nuclear capacity will increase the amount of waste by about 10%.

3. Transportation - this is in highly secure flasks which need to be monitored closely. As long as sensible procedures are followed, stealing a cask is a lot more difficult than a securicor van.

4. Insurance - That is an issue because the insurance industry is not good with minute risks of major events. As with terrorism insurance, the Government steps in. Yes its a subsidy, but wind power is also (quite rightly) subsidised.

The argument of article about proliferation is a valid argument, but it really makes no difference what we do. Lots of Asian countries are building reactors, including some rather nasty regimes.

[Christopher Reeve]

I'm sure we do have the technology to handle nuclear fuel safely, but there is no guarantee what might happen to our economy in the future so there is no doubt that maintaining their safety will not always be financially possible.

What concerns me more though is why we continue to think that we should have the right to use such a potentially risky technology when developing countries can't afford that option or we don't trust them with it.

Surely it is best to invest in technologies that will benefit the whole world, not just our local economy.

[Peace3000]

I don't like IT when you say nuclear energy is harmful because of the waste and at the end you paint some rosey color about IT...what am I missing here? Why can't you decide? wrong or right? Binary!

[Peter Ravine]

Although the nuclear lobby tries to make you believe otherwise, the UK has an abundance of renewable energy resources, mostly in its offshore waters. It does not need nuclear power.
Nuclear power provides technology and opportunity for nuclear weapons. They are a human health hazard. Can France’s preponderance of nuclear power plants be related to its penchant for nuclear weapons?
What the world needs now is to wean itself from nuclear weapons, sooner rather than later. To do so, successfully, it needs to phase out nuclear power stations as soon as it can and accelerate the deployment of renewable energy, together with appropriate renewable energy storage facilities.

Peter Ravine

[michael alderson]

I greatly opposed nuclear energy until I read "The revenge of Gaia" by James Lovelock. Now, i've got to admit i'm very impressed with the facts provided by one of the most respected ecologists in the world suggesting that Nuclear is the way to go. Just have a read and you'll know what i mean. GREAT BOOK!

[grnwtch]

Nuclear waste has a half-life of 250,000 years. What other argument against it is necessary? Don't create what you can't get rid of.

[grnwtch]

Nuclear waste has a half-life of 250,000 years. What other argument against it is necessary? Don't create what you can't get rid of.

[True Friend of the Earth]

Electricity can be missused by tyrants to power lathes to make AK47's and the like, lets do away with electricity altogether!! You can all have free power, I do and have done so for most of my life! And will someone please tell me how we are going to dispose of all those dirty wind turbines??

[Steve Howard]

There is no excuse for us not putting our efforts and money into wind and solar. The only reason we haven't to any large degree is the petrochemical, coal and nuclear money interests OBVIOUSLY don't want us to.

Now, as for a few things that should be obvious to some people posting support for nuclear but apparently isn't obvious here's just a handful of reasons not to support any nuclear power plants:

1) Accidents happen. Anything mechanical and anything involving humans can go wrong. Let's see how much you support it if there is an accident near you.

2) Production of the waste will safely be disposed of....where exactly? (Please remember it's going to remain dangerous for years after you are gone and I doubt if that waste becomes a problem that your kids will thank you for the mess you left them)

Which leads us to...

3) transportation of the waste is a perfect time for anyone that would like to get a hold of some for use in a dirty bomb.

and

4) The insurance industry will not insure a reactor.....that means WE subsidize the plant even more by having to insure it.

Now, all I said is logical and based in fact.

Which means nothing to a very many people, so either use logic and priorities, or get mad and sound like someone from Faux News and/or someone working for the nuclear power industry and/or your average gas guzzling truck driving too big a house buying non recycling person who thinks ANYTHING that is done or is proposed to be done is great and will believe any "scientific" paper as to it's safety and necessity without looking into who this or that expert is and who pays their salary and who would never consider doing independent research on their own.

How much does everyone here want to bet that the majority of the people supporting nuclear plants also blindly support the war on Iraq (which never attacked the US and had nothing to do with 911), blindly believe anything their Dr. tells them and thinks politicians and CEOs are all saintly and would never, ever, ever lie to us.

[Steve Howard]

There is no excuse for us not putting our efforts and money into wind and solar. The only reason we haven't to any large degree is the petrochemical, coal and nuclear money interests OBVIOUSLY don't want us to.

Now, as for a few things that should be obvious to some people posting support for nuclear but apparently isn't obvious here's just a handful of reasons not to support any nuclear power plants:

1) Accidents happen. Anything mechanical and anything involving humans can go wrong. Let's see how much you support it if there is an accident near you.

2) Production of the waste will safely be disposed of....where exactly? (Please remember it's going to remain dangerous for years after you are gone and I doubt if that waste becomes a problem that your kids will thank you for the mess you left them)

Which leads us to...

3) transportation of the waste is a perfect time for anyone that would like to get a hold of some for use in a dirty bomb.

and

4) The insurance industry will not insure a reactor.....that means WE subsidize the plant even more by having to insure it.

Now, all I said is logical and based in fact.

Which means nothing to a very many people, so either use logic and priorities, or get mad and sound like someone from Faux News and/or someone working for the nuclear power industry and/or your average gas guzzling truck driving too big a house buying non recycling person who thinks ANYTHING that is done or is proposed to be done is great and will believe any "scientific" paper as to it's safety and necessity without looking into who this or that expert is and who pays their salary and who would never consider doing independent research on their own.

How much does everyone here want to bet that the majority of the people supporting nuclear plants also blindly support the war on Iraq (which never attacked the US and had nothing to do with 911), blindly believe anything their Dr. tells them and thinks politicians and CEOs are all saintly and would never, ever, ever lie to us.

[Steve Howard]

There is no excuse for us not putting our efforts and money into wind and solar. The only reason we haven't to any large degree is the petrochemical, coal and nuclear money interests OBVIOUSLY don't want us to.

Now, as for a few things that should be obvious to some people posting support for nuclear but apparently isn't obvious here's just a handful of reasons not to support any nuclear power plants:

1) Accidents happen. Anything mechanical and anything involving humans can go wrong. Let's see how much you support it if there is an accident near you.

2) Production of the waste will safely be disposed of....where exactly? (Please remember it's going to remain dangerous for years after you are gone and I doubt if that waste becomes a problem that your kids will thank you for the mess you left them)

Which leads us to...

3) transportation of the waste is a perfect time for anyone that would like to get a hold of some for use in a dirty bomb.

and

4) The insurance industry will not insure a reactor.....that means WE subsidize the plant even more by having to insure it.

Now, all I said is logical and based in fact.

Which means nothing to a very many people, so either use logic and priorities, or get mad and sound like someone from Faux News and/or someone working for the nuclear power industry and/or your average gas guzzling truck driving too big a house buying non recycling person who thinks ANYTHING that is done or is proposed to be done is great and will believe any "scientific" paper as to it's safety and necessity without looking into who this or that expert is and who pays their salary and who would never consider doing independent research on their own.

How much does everyone here want to bet that the majority of the people supporting nuclear plants also blindly support the war on Iraq (which never attacked the US and had nothing to do with 911), blindly believe anything their Dr. tells them and thinks politicians and CEOs are all saintly and would never, ever, ever lie to us.

[David S]

My suggestion would be to let the "greens" have their way:
Shut down the coal, oil and gas fired plants because they all produce CO2.
Shut down the nukes because of radiation concerns.
Then sit back and watch as the lights go out. Watch the refrigerators shut down, the furnaces stop running, the air conditioners stop, all appliances stop, and most businesses too.

A year or two of that should convince most folks that those evil power plants aren't so bad afterall.

[Greg]

We should be making advances in real renewables such as solar and wind. Both Britain and the US are getting left behind with both of those promising energy sources.

[D K]

"Perhaps the most compelling argument of all against nuclear power - that by allowing the technology to proliferate we could usher in its misuse in the future by a rogue state or terrorist ..."

Oh yes ? Here is the basis for the deeply political opposition by so many in the inherently hard-Left 'green' movement, who are happy to abandon or distort environmental solutions when they conflict with their primary ideological motive of viciously undermining the West.

Just as the old 'Peace' Movement with its calls for unilateral disarmament joined cynical Communists with pathetically weak, naive liberals, so their successor 'Greens'
of the same combined ilk demand that the West accept responsibility for countering the alleged human causes of 'global warming'; and also work towards a 'worldwide' abandonment of nuclear power.

Even if (I say IF) 21st century marxists & liberal pacifists were right, would China and the many Muslim countries actually disarm ? And if they did, how would we withstand the enormous conventional forces they can muster instead ?

Better Red than dead ? Better Muslim than dead ? I can hear their bleating voices already.

[Educated]

I think the real shame is that we've known about free energy for 400 years, but its only being used by those who can afford to know about it. The common man isn't allowed to know about free energy because that means the economy will freeze up.

Seeing this article just reidirates my impression that pure evil has such a mighty hold on everyone. To think of nuclear power as "green", is false and total propaganda. When we rip atoms apart, they don't go back together, the wander dangerously for thousands of years.

This is just another of the millions of articles that the higher powers use to control the many. Let's start to convince the public that nuclear power is safe, then we can just do whatever we want.

I wish that people would stand for what they believe in, but society has disabled true revolution, it's no longer possible, control over every aspect of our lives is electronically possible and those in power take such horrible advantage.

Freedom is dead.

[Mark Bushell]

There is a nuclear power plant a few miles up the road from where I live. It is much smaller than coal fired power stations with their huge cooling towers and has minimal impact on the surroundings. I don't have any concerns about it and consider if far preferable to a coal or gas powered station which would almost certainly be the alternative.

[Matt Hall]

Nuclear power replaces the problem of CO2 with a more distant and dangerous problem - radiation.
Do we really want to stave off global warming, just to leave future generations with a problem of "Global Glowing?"

There are less dangerous alternatives.

[TashaL]

Firstly, How many times do you want to pay for your electricity? With almost any other power station, you will be paying twice, with nuclear - FOUR times. Tax subsidies to build it, tax subsidies to maintain it during useful life, electricity bills, and tax subsidies to decommission (those taxes will be paid by you, your children, and your grandchildren) - the government may say that it will be paid for by private industry, but if they receive any tax subsidies at all, YOU are paying.

Secondly, even if construction started today, the power stations would still not be built in time to have a significant impact on our CO2 emissions by 2020 - the government's reasons for building are a lie. It won't generate a great deal of new business or jobs, in this country, and it won't help us hit CO2 targets. Plus they'll all be owned by EDF or EON, so profits (and therefore taxes) will be going out of the country too.

Thirdly - Jeffery, I think you'll find that scientific consensus is that all the WTC buildings were brought down by controlled demolition - NOT the aeroplanes that hit them. Check out Steven E. Jones - a physicist who can lay it all out for you.

[TashaL]

Firstly, How many times do you want to pay for your electricity? With almost any other power station, you will be paying twice, with nuclear - FOUR times. Tax subsidies to build it, tax subsidies to maintain it during useful life, electricity bills, and tax subsidies to decommission (those taxes will be paid by you, your children, and your grandchildren) - the government may say that it will be paid for by private industry, but if they receive any tax subsidies at all, YOU are paying.

Secondly, even if construction started today, the power stations would still not be built in time to have a significant impact on our CO2 emissions by 2020 - the government's reasons for building are a lie. It won't generate a great deal of new business or jobs, in this country, and it won't help us hit CO2 targets. Plus they'll all be owned by EDF or EON, so profits (and therefore taxes) will be going out of the country too.

Thirdly - Jeffery, I think you'll find that scientific consensus is that all the WTC buildings were brought down by controlled demolition - NOT the aeroplanes that hit them. Check out Steven E. Jones - a physicist who can lay it all out for you.

[Bob Irving]

Mysteriously no one writing on this page makes any reference to the nuclear power station which is being built in Finland at the moment and, after some 2 years of build time, is about 18 months behind schedule, despite having the undivided attention of some giants of the engineering world..... And if someone wants a nice place to put a power station, there's a big useless building at Heathrow! Just please, please, get someone else to commission it...

[Wes Byrd]

While I do not necessarily think that nuclear is a long term solution, I do think it is a short term solution that needs to be available once oil starts to get scarce. There also needs to be emphasis on using and developing alternative energy sources. They may not be efficient now, but, continued development is the only path that will make them so. I guess I am saying that we need to use all sources while looking at alternatives to the status quo sources. I'd love to see a relatively clean alternative energy source that isn't nuclear. I'm saying it's coming down the turnpike if we keep working on development, but, we might have to use nuclear as a source while it gets here.

[William White]

Something that has always puzzled me, if scorched earth is a fact of nuclear waste, why are people walking around in downtown Hiroshima today?

[Jeff Eerkens]

The clichet "What about nuclear waste" shows great ignorance. It amounts to one aspirin tablet per year for nuclear electricity users and is a non-problem for engineers. Only anti-nuclear fanatics make it a phantom problem. Regarding nuclear proliferation concerns, we don't stop building airplanes because terrorists can use them to destroy skyscrapers as they did in New York on 9/11/01. For us to return to living in mud huts does not stop a rogue country from developing a nuclear weapon. The nuclear fuel used in reactors, if stolen, requires a billion dollar reprocessing installation to extract useful weapons material from it. Solar and wind power are great for supplying power to remote regions but can never economically produce the terawatts of energy needed for heavy industires and to make synfuels to replace oil when the oil-fields are depleted. Read: "The Nuclear Imperative - A critical look at the approaching energy crisis", published by Springer, ISBN-4020-4930-7.

Jeffrey

[Laura Amlie]

Paul Pickering invokes the name of Greenpeace in reference to its co-founder and former member, Patrick Moore and his current support of Nuclear energy, but he neglects to say that the Greenpeace organization itself is unequivocally opposed to it.
I applaud Jack Alpert's observations about huge corporate profits and control being threatened by the resourcefulness of decentralized power sources playing a larger role in decision making and funding than ecological concerns.

[edward Corbett]

James Lovelock has got it absolutely correct,Gaia will decide what happens to those who people the Earth.If we do not listen ,learn and act Gaia will.Q.E.D.
ed corbett

[Jack Alpert]

While most of this article (and most others) is to find ways to deliver energy at the rate of current use or greater, the true predicament of humankind is total human footprint approaching carrying capacity. This collision threatens to cause a social conflict so tragic as to topple civilization, precipitate a dark age, and potentially end the human experiment.

Since total human footprint is the product of per capita human footprint and population, lowering the total human footprint, (need for electrical power or any resource) in the face of ever growing per capita footprint will be ever rapid population decline.

For example, limiting births to one child per family for the foreseeable future might be our only option to achieve a viable human community.

In discussions like this, where we are trying to decided between coal and nuclear electrical power generation alternatives, we demonstrate that we just do not see the whole picture. I suggest you might look at http://www.skil.org/position_papers_folder/HumanviabilityRPD.html
and other articles at http://www.skil.org to get a feel for the parts of the problem we overlook and the cognitive limitations we all share that cause this blindness.

Jack Alpert

[Philpei]

We can debate (and probably will) the safety/hazards of nuclear power until the Hopi prophecies come true and the world goes up in a ball of flames, and humanity is saved by the techno wizards who transport us all off to some genetically manufactured homeland in a galaxy far, far away.
Until then, whether we use coal, oil, nukes, wind, bio-gas, or solar the real concern should be who owns it. Nukes will never be community owned.
Solar and wind hold the promise of decentralized, secure, resilient, diverse sources of energy that will free us from the neo-con, "free market" control of the globalized economy.
Since the 70's we've been waiting for solar to have its day. The technology for PV's has advanced rapidly. Industry stimulus programs equal to the scale of big oil and nukes would be enough to make solar energy commonplace.
We'd create more long term jobs, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, end the worry of wide-spread blackouts, defuse the threat of terrorism, keep our money in the community and maybe save a few fish.

[Richard 'New Clear' Green]

Can I urge everyone to read "The Revenge of Gaia: Why the Earth Is Fighting Back - and How We Can Still Save Humanity" by James Lovelock, the founder of the 'Gaia' theory.
In it he explains lucidly that the only viable solution to the problem of 'global heating' is nuclear power,and stresses that we are probably already past the 'tipping point' and it is now just a matter of damage limitation.
We need to act and we need to act RIGHT NOW and drastically. Please, read the book and let's kick out all this present shower of idiotic, ignorant and irresponsible politicians. WE MUST ACT NOW.

[Brett]

There is a lot of nuclear fuel available. Beside the conventional reserves, you can extract it from seawater (at a significantly higher unit price, but the price of Uranium is a minuscule percentage of the price of a nuclear power plant), and you can actually recycle the used fuel in breeder reactors for use again. Or you can branch out from Uranium, and use Thorium.

[Dave Edgars]

Is there an unlimited supply of nuclear fuel ?

[J A Desoisa]

I spent all my working life in the Nuclear Industry and consider the article poorly researched and verging on rubbish. The odd fish that is sucked into the reacto cooling ducts is nothing compare to the number of hedgehogs run over by cars. On the contrary, the warmer discharged cooling water resulted in bigger sized fish; to the delight of local fishermen.

Nuclear reactors constitute a very expensive and devious way to make a bomb; remember that Hiroshima and Nagaski came before any exploitation of nuclear power. If rogue states (Iran?) are determined to make nuclear weapons, the means are already available and it is up to the UN to prevent them; nothing to do with generation of power by nuclear energy.

As has been aleady been pointed out, alternative means of power generation are unreliable and cannot hope to provide the Nation's needs. They are also short-lived. Wind farms will have to be replaced within ten years (that is if they survive the next unpredicable storm). Nuclear power stations can last for forty years and are built to withstand even earthquakes.
wd sli

[Sixupman]

This very day, HMG are likely to a deal with France where their greatly more efficient nuclear industry will take-over development within the UK. HMG Treasury is broke, they had to sell Westinghouse as part of a cash raising exercise, underwritten by a complete lack of faith in BNFL competence - also Westinghouse would be cash hungry. The new breeds of reactors will be greately more efficient than those currently operating and also easier to decommission. However, the issue of waste disposal is the 'elephant in the room' - such is, de facto, unfunded regardless of that which the balance sheets may show. The "assets" covering waste disposal are merely a 'promissory note' for redemption at some future date. Witness how the NDA are unable to proceed with projects, if the said "assets" were real such delays would not occur. If NDA enter into contracts, they will be irrevocably committed to a programme of expenditure which the Treasury are unable to meet - hence a de facto moratorium on the contracts. The costs related to waste and decommissioning waste on future reactors will be less onerous - because the prime costs related to any repository will already have been met and the liability will be restricted to the additional space required. But, as been known for many years, double costs of disposal is involved - initial storage, thence ollowed by inal storage [deep repository]. The problem for the latter is lack of consistency in the UK geology and a 'blank cheque' commitment related to any construction of a respository.

[Brett]

If you get really paranoid about proliferation, you could always use Thorium Reactors instead of or in complement to Uranium Reactors. They are more experimental, but the technology and designs are there.

[Brett]

Why we should adopt Nuclear Power en masse has nothing really to do with "hype" and everything to do with cold calculation. Realistically speaking, renewables are not going to replace a sizeable fraction of energy needs until decades from now, and they will probably never be able to completely displace or offset a majority of our energy needs. Without nuclear, we are seeing where countries are going - they are reverting to the old default, Coal. Witness China, and increasing demand for American coal.

That's not good enough. We need to take action to stop Global Warming and CO2 emissions NOW, while making the change to a significantly reduced emissions regime. Nuclear has a history of solid production, tried-and-true ways of setting up plants and distribution networks, and expertise on how to build and run these things.

Since real conservation short of emergency rationing and greater efficiency is a joke in today's increasingly energy-hungry world, that means we effectively have three power sources to choose from, and they are Coal, Gas, and Nuclear. Coal has all the issues with global warming, to say nothing of its multitudinous other bad environmental effects (amusingly, more radioactive material is released into the atmosphere from the burning of radioactive coal every year than is produced as nuclear waste). Gas means that all of the yonder Europeans are going to have to go begging to Russia. That leaves Nuclear.

[Nicholas Carton, USA]

The only statements I have concern Nuclear systems I have worked on in the U.S. ONE, the water that is recieved, has to be cleaned etc, before use in any stage of the system. Grates screens etc are necessary to refrain from ingesting trash into the pumps etc. TWO, when 'finished' with the water, again it is cleaned and cooled, usually to temperatures close to or below intake temperatures. No fish, no trees etc are acceptable because they would foul are break the pumps involved.
Thank you for the article, and hope things move forward on ALL possible energy sources.
Nicholas Carton, Saint Louis, Missouri U.S.A.

[Frances Follin]

Would the correspondent who favours waiting 50 or 100 years for fusion care to spend winter evenings for the duration lighting his house with candles and going to bed very early to keep warm? Those who reject the nuclear option seem to think that we can all go on much as we are, with the adoption of a few low-energy bulbs and a bit of loft insulation. The reality is not wind farms but more imported gas - perhaps from those selfless Russians who would never dream of cutting off anyone's supply.

[howard keal]

While the green card is being played in favour of nuclear energy the mist appears to have formed a dense fogbank around the reality.

Wildly over-optimistic forecasts of the cost of producing nuclear electricity abound and the massive decommissioning costs are being overlooked.

There is also the continued problem of disposing of nuclear waste - again at vast expense.

Vastly better, safer, and cheaper, to pour money into improved conservation and renewables instead of this half baked green wild goose chase.

[Frank Upton]

We need to hang on for maybe 50 to 100 years until fusion power comes online.

[Kevin V]

Weapons proliferation is the only thing that really worries me about it. However, the preventative maintenance records of some countries would be a cause for concern too.

[phil]

The real issue is the lack of alternatives:

[1] conservation. Yes people will conserve, and some measures like removing sleep modes etc on appliances will help, but can you ever conserve enough to make a real difference with a growing population and probably a greater reliance on electricity given the exhausting of gas and oil reserves (or if not exhausting, the continual price hikes). Will people accept that their lives have to become worse than their parents in order to conserve?

[2] renewables. What happens when the sun is not shining or the wind is not blowing?

[3] coal. Chuckle. It probably will happen in the short term but again resources are finite.

[4] nuclear. This is not my mother's nuclear industry. Things have come a long way, and personally, if the choice is between living in a mud hut and living in close proximity to a nuclear power station then i'd probably choose the latter.

[Jeff Perren]

In fact, spent fuel from nuclear reactors makes a very poor choice as a starting point for making bombs. It's not the route a knowledgeable nuclear engineer would take, and even 'rogue states' would have to employ such people to carry out their evil plans.

No source of energy is entirely without risk, as the author is honest enough to point out. But the risks of nuclear are lower than any other large scale source.

No technical expertise or expert analysis is required to prove this. Simply observe that France gets nearly 80% of it's electricity from nuclear reactors, Switzerland 40%, and Japan about 60%, and have for decades. Yet none suffer the problems that opponents keep presenting in fear mongering scenarios.

[John Davies]

How does killing fish cool a nuclear reactor?

[Paul Pickering]

Highly radioactive waste is so because it is decaying very quickly. Therefore, highly radioactive waste DOES NOT last for hundreds of thousands of years. It is the low level waste that lasts a long time. But this is not harmful, unless eaten!

Large numbers of fish get killed in all industrial processes that take in substantial quantities of river/estuary water for the purposes of cooling. This includes conventional power stations and refineries.

This article is ill-informed and only serves to perpetuate incorrect perceptions about nuclear power.

[Tomas]

You would be well to read the below article from the founder of Greenpeace:

http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Magazines/Bulletin/Bull481/htmls/nuclear_rethink.html

Which provides a far better insight into the current state of affairs than your article. Nuclear fuel has come a long way and your article is misguided, misinformed and poorly researched.

[rh]

"Large numbers of fish are also killed to help cool nuclear reactors. " How does killing fish cool a reactor?

[Dominic]

Modern reactors create waste with a life span measured in decades, not millenia.
How does the UK building the 90 Nuclear generators it needs to get off fossile fuel for electricity generation provide tyrants with nuclear weapons?

What next, nuclear power actualy works and wont force humanity back into the 1400's, or is telling the truth about their motives beyond greenpeace?