Do you support nuclear power?

[LucidEnergy]

I don't, because how ever small the risk per station is, we've seen far too many accidents. They were saying "oh chernobyl will never happen again in this day and age" then in 2011 Fukushima had a meltdown on par with chernobyl. So I have no faith in safety anymore, especially with the current terrorism threat,

[allegrif]

[quote author=LucidEnergy link=topic=217.msg557#msg557 date=1449240781]
I don't, because how ever small the risk per station is, we've seen far too many accidents. They were saying "oh chernobyl will never happen again in this day and age" then in 2011 Fukushima had a meltdown on par with chernobyl. So I have no faith in safety anymore, especially with the current terrorism threat,
[/quote]
Terrorism would be a small concern for me, but general safety isn't. Chernobyl was a long time ago, and in a country notorious for its less than glorious health and safety laws. As for Fukushima, well I do think it's a bit daft building a fission reactor on a tectonically unstable region - and on a coast prone to tsunamis no less. We don't have the same issue here, so I think that point's moot. On the whole I think nuclear power is a good thing. Roll on fusion though, that'll be far better if we ever crack it.

[St Rhenium]

For me it's not the immediate safety concerns, it's the dumping of radioactive waste. We should not be investing in a process that produces waste that is so hazardous to its local environment. All it takes is one major mishap and we have a serious situation on our hands.

[JamesH]

Yes, at the moment. Although eventually I would like to see nuclear phased out in place of completely safe renewables. For now I think the benefits outweigh the risks.

[LucidEnergy]

[quote author=allegrif link=topic=217.msg566#msg566 date=1449242957]
Roll on fusion though, that'll be far better if we ever crack it.
[/quote]

Can't disagree there, at least the waste won't take 100 years to clear.

[GemmaRowlands]

I'm not saying that I am actively campaigning against it by any means - but I can't bring myself to support it, either. I believe that there are other avenues that can be explored, and for this reason the risk to life just isn't really justifiable for the most part when thinking about this type of energy.

[freedom-spire]

I agree, I'm not fully decided on Nuclear power yet, I think we could probably develop a newer paradigm which focuses on genuine innovation as opposed to relying on 50 year old technology, maybe harnessing solar, wind and other renewables and making them more efficient through distributive networks and energy storehouses, Information itself as power? A radical idea but one that needs to be explored.  Not sure what that means or could mean yet, just brainstorming thoughts, online...

[ggdavis]

In the current climate (economic and physical) why on earth are we not backing Nuclear Power to the hilt, it is not something we can take half measures with! Hinkley Point is a huge commitment, but most of the revenue goes to French and Chinese Companies.
We seriously either back this or walk away, the middle ground makes no sense.