skip to nav

A new generation of nuclear power stations

ARGUMENTS FOR:

If we are serious about tackling climate change we must have new nuclear power stations. Only nuclear can reliably free us from continuing reliance on fossil fuels and the consequent carbon emissions.

Renewables (wind and solar power), being dependent on weather conditions, cannot deliver the baseload power required for an energy grid. Nuclear can and does.

The reliability of nuclear power will reduce our dependence on natural gas from Russia and oil from the Middle East, delivery of which cannot be guaranteed.

The nuclear industry in Britain and Western Europe (France gets 70 per cent of its energy from nuclear power) has a proven safety record. Nobody in Britain has died as a result of a radiation-related accident in 35 years.

Nuclear power is affordable and the problem of storing spent energy and decommissioning plants is much less serious and expensive than opponents pretend.
The First Post guide to the issue of the day

ARGUMENTS AGAINST:

Nuclear power is an unnecessary risk. By the time any new plants could be built, developments in renewables (including carbon-free biofuels) will have rendered the nuclear option obsolete. It is yesterday's technology.

The long-term health and environmental hazards associated with nuclear power are unquantifiable.

The nuclear industry may have a good safety record, but it requires only one accident for the consequences to be devastating and long-lasting.

Nuclear power stations are obvious targets for terrorists, and their security cannot be guaranteed.

Opinion polls regularly show a majority of people opposed to the building of new nuclear power stations. Public opinion should prevail in a democracy. This is one instance where 'the gentleman in Whitehall' doesn't know best.

FIRST POSTED FEBRUARY 16, 2007