Why is nuclear power back with a vengeance? - The long awaited Energy Review said nuclear power would make a "significant contribution" to securing the UK's energy needs for the next generation. The report finds that Britain would become over reliant on foreign energy imports and would fail to reach its CO2 emissions targets if the current status quo is allowed to continue. As energy issues continue to dominate political agendas worldwide, the report suggests that building a new generation of nuclear reactors would be the best option for the economy and the environment.
What about the nuclear power stations we already have? - The handful of nuclear power plants still in operation provides the UK with 20% of its electricity. However, these nuclear plants have a finite lifespan and current estimates suggest only one will be fit to continue operating by 2023. No new reactors have been built since the 1980s as a result of public concern, accidents and the potential for accidents, the costs of decommissioning and above all the problem of how to dispose of nuclear waste.
Can nuclear power really benefit the environment? - To some extent, yes. Nuclear reactors do not burn fossil fuels to create electricity; therefore they do not release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, a real bonus that pro-nuclear lobbyists are always keen to illustrate. However, building new reactors and dismantling the old ones requires a lot of heavy machinery which in turn requires a lot of fossil fuels so we’re back where we started. And of course, there’s the eternal problem of what to do with the nuclear waste…
Hang on, what about these safe, clean renewable energies I’ve been hearing all about? - Renewable energy options include wind farms, solar power, geothermal energy and hydro-electric power. These currently provide only 4% of the UK’s energy supply. These technologies are still in their infancy and even with continued development and funding, best estimates suggest renewables may only provide 20% of the UK’s energy supply by the year 2020. The pro-nuclear lobby argue that building a new fleet of nuclear reactors would provide a reliable, relatively clean source of energy for at least another 50 years, giving ample time for renewable energy technology to be developed into a realistic alternative.
OK, why don’t we just stick with what we’ve got? - You mean coal and gas? Well, there’s the rub. Natural gas currently makes up 40% of the UK’s energy supply, but estimates suggest that supplies of gas from the North Sea will run out in the next six years. At this point we will need to import all of our natural gas from countries such as Russia, who let us remember, turned off the gas supply to the Ukraine practically overnight at the beginning of 2006. In a world that grows more volatile and unstable by the hour, can we really afford to allow ourselves to be over-reliant on other countries? As for coal, forget it. Coal currently provides 33% of the UK’s energy supply but it is also the biggest producer of those nasty CO2 emissions that threaten to destroy the planet once and for all. In order to meet emissions targets, coal production is expected to rapidly decline. New anti-CO2 regulations which stipulate that coal plants must be upgraded to reduce sulphur emissions will force the closure of many coal stations.
OK, back to nuclear then? How safe is it? What are the chances of a Chernobyl style event or a terrorist attack? - The pro-nuclear lobby claim that developments in technology and security mean that new reactors are far safer than the older ones. The design of reactors in France (which currently provide the French with 78.5% of their electricity) are held up as beacons of reliability. However, the spectre of another Chernobyl and its devastating impact can never be erased. As for terrorist attack, the line from the nuclear industry is that rectors are a very difficult target for terrorists as they sit low on the horizon and are usually spherical, which makes a direct hit from an aeroplane almost impossible. Anyone who has seen the footage of a novice pilot skimming a 747 just a few feet above the ground before smashing it into the walls of the Pentagon may take umbrage with this suggestion.
But surely David Cameron, the crusading green guru will save us? - I wouldn’t bet on it. David Cameron’s green veil has become increasingly threadbare of late. The Conservatives under Cameron have so far been “open-minded” on the nuclear debate – in other words they’ve been sitting on the fence. The Liberal Democrats are the only one of the big three to vociferously oppose new investment in nuclear power.
What about public opinion? - Public opinion is usually split quite evenly on the issue of nuclear power. Ask four people at random and see for yourself.
Nuclear power, it’s something of a conundrum isn’t it? - You’re not wrong.
Also on MSN News
MSN Environment blog
MSN's environmental blogger discusses the burning issues that are affecting our planet.
Natural wonders feel the heat
From fragile coral reefs to indigenous peoples, some of the world's most spectacular natural wonders are feeling the heat of climate change - with potentially catastrophic results.
What's in a name?
MSN UK News looks at whether it is acceptable for the rights to name 10 new marine species to be auctioned off to the highest bidder.
Have Your Say
Have you noticed the effects of global warming? Are you changing your lifestyle to help save the planet? Is recycling overrated? Join our green debates.
What is climate change?
Learn more about global warming - measurable increases in the average temperature of Earth's atmosphere, oceans and land masses - with MSN Encarta.