Home

Questions about nuclear

8 June 2005
In today's Financial Times, Tim Yeo of Britain's Conservative party calls for a cross party consensus in favour of nuclear power. Writing today on openDemocracy, energy specialists Michael Davies and Antony Froggatt disagree.

Yeo puts the issue in context:

"Far more effort needs to be made to promote energy efficiency, a politically uncontroversial subject but one that seldom gets the priority it deserves. Incentives for renewable energy need to be modified so that less advanced but more reliable technologies than wind, including biofuels, wave and tidal power, are encouraged. Investment in developing clean coal technology needs to be increased and gas storage facilities expanded. Of these essential actions, only the last is properly under way.

But even if all this is done there remains a big unanswered question over nuclear power"

(full text here).

Tim Yeo goes on to suggest there will be an increasing role for nuclear.

Michael Davies and Antony Froggatt argue there are three basic flaws in the arguments of advocates of nuclear power:

"One, nuclear power plays a small role in world energy production and would require an unfeasible expansion before it could make a meaningful difference. Two, nuclear power has particular problems that make the technology too risky. Three, there are better options, and this is where countries like Britain need to focus and lead". (full text here)

Also, in the forum, Jo Abbess outlines concerns about nuclear. She says a distributed power generation model is a better option. For more see here.

(Meanwhile, in The Guardian, Tim Yeo's soon-to-be-ex-boss calls on the Americans to be part of the solution - see here)

CH

Stop the secrecy: Publish the NHS COVID data deals


To: Matt Hancock, Secretary of State for Health and Social Care

We’re calling on you to immediately release details of the secret NHS data deals struck with private companies, to deliver the NHS COVID-19 datastore.

We, the public, deserve to know exactly how our personal information has been traded in this ‘unprecedented’ deal with US tech giants like Google, and firms linked to Donald Trump (Palantir) and Vote Leave (Faculty AI).

The COVID-19 datastore will hold private, personal information about every single one of us who relies on the NHS. We don’t want our personal data falling into the wrong hands.

And we don’t want private companies – many with poor reputations for protecting privacy – using it for their own commercial purposes, or to undermine the NHS.

The datastore could be an important tool in tackling the pandemic. But for it to be a success, the public has to be able to trust it.

Today, we urgently call on you to publish all the data-sharing agreements, data-impact assessments, and details of how the private companies stand to profit from their involvement.

The NHS is a precious public institution. Any involvement from private companies should be open to public scrutiny and debate. We need more transparency during this pandemic – not less.


By adding my name to this campaign, I authorise openDemocracy and Foxglove to keep me updated about their important work.

Had enough of ‘alternative facts’? openDemocracy is different Join the conversation: get our weekly email

Comments

We encourage anyone to comment, please consult the oD commenting guidelines if you have any questions.
Audio available Bookmark Check Language Close Comments Download Facebook Link Email Newsletter Newsletter Play Print Share Twitter Youtube Search Instagram WhatsApp yourData