courtney, there is no need for such a hysterical tone. the SDC are not trying to force us to live in yurts and raise goats. in any case they are advisers and will not make the final decision. here is a quick summary of their reasons for advising against nuclear power: The SDC conducted eight detailed studies covering safety, waste, economics and climate change. The advantages of nuclear power as a safe, low-carbon technology are outweighed by disadvantages such as uncertain costs, long-lived radioactive waste and an increased risk that nuclear weapons will proliferate. The SDC's research also shows that even if the UK's existing nuclear capacity were doubled, it would only deliver an 8 per cent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions by 2035. Increases in energy efficiency and renewable energy generation could reduce emissions faster, it concludes. (source:http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/mg18925423.400.html)

courtney, we've already been through this in another thread. high level waste is the problem, and all the papers you pointed to on SSD currently only recommend it for short-lived mid-level waste - which happens to be fairly easy to dispose of already. subductive disposal might one day in the future be suitable for high level waste, but its currently a very thinly outlined proposal that needs a ton more of research done on it.

Like many old fashioned Marxists, CH just has an unjustified and really rather amusing ideological paranoia about environmentalists... The SDC is really not very powerful on this issue, nor is New Labour particularly 'green' or interested in sustainability other than its use as a catch-all term for niceness (just have a look at how the term is used in documents coming from the Sustainable Communities initiative for example). I think the arguments coming from the DTi and Treasury will be far more important in the end. In fact the financial argument about nuclear is the REAL controversy at national policy level, not the environmental argument. The fatc is that the state has had to subsidize the nuclear industry to a massive degree without a huge amount to show for it. Until nuclear fusion arrives as a practical power source (and I think it is worth investing plenty of state research money there) I think we'd be better off investing in energy efficiency, clean coal technologies, continuous sources especially solar (which is becoming more cost-effective all the time, and with more investment in research into things like solar paint and other non-intrusive generation technologies could become a simple addition to every home, office and factory that could cut outside consumption by enormous amounts) and wave and tidal power, hydrogen and fuel-cell technologies. It's probably worth having some conventional nuclear too as a back-up because it's pretty reliable in terms of actual power generation... but it has been an enormous drain on the nation's financial resources so far. It DOES make sense to be sensible about consumption - for one thing efficiency one of the cheapest and easiest way of dealing with this whole issue. Just because environmentalists say there are limits it does not mean one has to take some kind of silly knee-jerk opposing position and say 'no, no, we must keep consuming more'... progress in technological development means more efficient processses and devices and innovative ways of using less energy and less waste to acheive the things than we need to do. Progress is not defined simple by using more.

Still haven't heard any good arguments against nuclear power yet. http://neo-jacobins.blogspot.com/

(1) Global warming. We need to reduce emissions and be, at least, carbon neutral. Nuclear power provides this. (2) Fossil fuels will run out. Well actually they will just get more and more expensive to extract until someone decides it isn't worth the effort. We can argue when it will happen but not that it is a certainty at some point. (3) Alternatives of wind and solar power are simply not viable except as a back up source that can make some contribution. (4) There is progress towards nuclear fusion but it is still a long way off being a commercial proposition. At least 50 years I would say unless there is a technical breakthrough. (5) Some countries can harness geothermal power but the UK, for example, can't. (6) Hydro-power could be used more but there is not much opportunity to expand this in the UK and it causes social unrest in flooding suitable areas. (7) Someone, I hope this government, needs to make a management decision. Procrastination, we cannot afford. The time to build and commission nuclear plants is long. If it comes to that, so are most alternatives. It is imperative that we do something soon. (8) The green alternative, of not using so much power, is also a way forward but, again not short term. And cutting back power to the extent needed will simply not be acceptable. (9) We are right to be concerned about nuclear waste management but this is a problem that can be solved, if maybe at some cost. But, simply put, doing nothing now because of a problem that may or may not be there in the future is not as important as fixing the tangible problem we have coming now. France is 80% nuclear and exports power to the UK. The UK is about 20%. France is close by and the UK (obviously) does not control the French industry. If there were a "Chernobyl" in France it would hurt the UK. This is very unlikely I should add as the French reactors are a much safer type. We sould just get on and build the things now. At least they would be a modern safe design. I am sure the issue of terrorist attack will come up. Why people think this is more likely with a nuclear power plant than a hydro power station (say) or where there are nice big reservoirs to poison I am not sure.

Before the automobile was introduced to London, thousands of tons of horse manure need to be cleaned off London streets every single day. Huge manure piles were growing all around London. For the people living near them, it must have seemed ironic to have their taxes funding the maintenance of massive festering manure piles that rendered acres of land unusable. What came to the rescue was the automobile. These new mechanical beasts were demonstrably cleaner and more hygienic than horses. Manure piles shrunk all over the land. At their introduction, automobiles were a powerful force towards living in a greener and cleaner world. Today, we have long since passed over the critical point where automobiles stop being green and clean and start becoming a problem. Most people are no longer even aware that another possibility exists. The greater truth is that cars can be both a green force and a polluting force in varying degrees, depending on what is going on around them. Today, most people accept that global warming is man-made and has the potential to bring unimaginable destruction down on us. There are people who want to stop global warming at all costs but not give anything up. One result is that nuclear power plants have been put back onto the agenda with a vengeance. With enough nuclear plants not only could we vastly cut down on greenhouse gas, we could also create a cushion for humanity when the oil supply and demand equation crosses over into another potentially lethal crisis. However, if we build enough nuclear power plants to replace the dirty power sources, we will manufacture nuclear waste on an industrial scale. Unprotected proximity to nuclear by-products creates lethal damage to DNA, the underpinning of all known life. Accident prevention a matter of percentages, so building more nuclear plants is similar to having several draws on the same lottery ticket; it vastly increases our chance of experiencing an unlikely event. Radioactive oil, the oil drained from the machines tending reactors, is rarely addressed. What do we do with it? Fluids have an amazing ability to work themselves into the most unlikely of places, no matter how deeply they are buried. Trying to dodge global warming or an energy crisis by building nuclear reactors is simply replacing one lethal global problem with another. There will be a critical point where nuclear plants are suddenly recognised as the single biggest danger facing life on earth. And, once again, humanity will have designed and manufactured the possibility of its own destruction. Nuclear power is not renewable, creates the most toxic waste known to life, and is not compatible with the environment (meaning that we have to ensure it remains contained). Basically it is a selfish shortcut for a society that does not want to take responsibility for any of the consequences produced by its desired lifestyle. We are like teenagers who run up $1,000 phone bills and demanding our parents pay for it because we just have to be ourselves.

The answer is to stop squabbling over which technology to go for and get on with a pluralistic approach. This should include a nuclear option because we know how to do it on a sufficient scale already. If we did this there would be plenty of Uranium available for 100 years. I think estimates suggest there is sufficient for 50 years even if the whole world went nuclear. The great hope would be nuclear fusion but my guess would be 50 years before this is a practical viable energy source. About right I guess.

Rhysw5, "I am constantly surprised that the UK debate, perhaps with our customary arrogance towards Europe, consistently ignores the French experience. That experience contradicts virtually every argument against nuclear." Indeed, this is an excellent point, I'll remember that in future debates.