So have you got the candles ready?

  Cymro. 12:40 11 Sep 2009

click here
Personally I have always been a big supporter of nuclear energy. Yes I know it has its problems but all in all it is I think a better answer at the moment than the other alternatives.

So how would you solve the problem then?

  Jak_1 12:51 11 Sep 2009

I would say yes to more nuclear power stations, I feel it is the way forward. It has been shown to be relatively safe method of producing sustainable power so long as the spent fuel is reprocessed in a safe manner. We have had nuclear power stations for quite some years now and rarely have they hit the news! Much better than those unsightlyand noisy windfarms that are a huge blot on the land/seascape!

Nuclear power for peace!

  oresome 13:10 11 Sep 2009

Nuclear energy requires a fuel source, Uranium. Would we have enough of that to go around if every nation adopted nuclear power on a wide scale?

At least wind and tidal power is sustainable and fairly benign, although it clearly won't support all our needs based on present life style.

  crosstrainer 13:16 11 Sep 2009

Because the nuclear option comes with huge expense, and equally huge waste disposal issues. It would seem to be the only way forward though, and whilst I'm reluctant to admit it, probably the only one.

Wind and wave power will only supplement an already failing grid. If Hydrogen fuel cell cars such as the Honda Clarity:

click here

Were available, and public opinion could be swayed, then perhaps emissions could be drastically reduced.

Problem is, you then need the infrastructure to produce hydrogen in sufficient quantities, and to have an "At the pump" availability.

The car is not a pipe dream...It is currently on sale in the USA, and will do 260 miles on a tank of Hydrogen.

Would I give up my Thirsty petrol car if this was available in the UK?

Yes. Would you?

  wiz-king 13:59 11 Sep 2009

Unfortunately extracting hydrogen uses electricity and is not efficient thus the total 'energy' use of hydrogen powered cares is greater than petrol, tax is the only thing that makes it a cheap option - at the moment!

  Chegs ®™ 14:03 11 Sep 2009

I had a little chuckle reading a 3 week old report in our local paper,concerning the massive costs of the decommissioning of Dounreay/Sellafield,etc.Apparently,they have discovered that Cillit Bang cleaner is effective at cleaning radioactivity from metal surfaces. :)

  crosstrainer 14:27 11 Sep 2009

Short term, yes...Strange that the most common of elements in the universe requires such a lot of "Detaching" from it's other molecular compounds.

In the long term though, if we all drove fuel celled cars, the system would work, and the price would drop.

Like I said, if we give up our high performance (and I'm as guilty as the next man) cars to save the earth for future generations, then I'm all for it.

Truth is, what politician would be electable on that precept?

  cream. 15:11 11 Sep 2009

I'm also keen to expand the nuclear stations.
France has around 58 that produce 80% of their needs.

  Forum Editor 18:36 11 Sep 2009

"Would we have enough of that to go around....."

As you might expect, it's a complex subject but broadly speaking the world's known reserves would be sufficient to supply the industry with enough uranium to keep it going for about a hundred years at current consumption rates. Just under a quarter of the total is under the ground in Australia.

The fission energy contained in the world's uranium reserve has been estimated to exceed that of all the world's fossil fuel reserves put together.

  crosstrainer 18:44 11 Sep 2009

Cold fusion is very much an experiment at the moment. We need to think about future generations, and not of ourselves, and we need a worldwide consensus...Now.

Human nature being what it is, many will be of the opinion that "Technology" will fix this later.

It won't.

And can the West dictate to India and China when the Industrial revolution started here?

  SB23 19:35 11 Sep 2009

The way I look at it is the simple fact that the electricity that we all rely on has to be produced in some way.
I am not opposed to Nuclear Energy, neither any other way of producing it, but I do like the more natural ways, ie, wind, wave and solar.
I have always said that I would love to have a wind generator in my garden, or solar cells on my roof, but I think my Housing Association may have a few objections.
But another thing to add is the initial cost of the equipment to produce this electricity, (for the average household), that would stop me, personally, in my tracks.

Bring on the Nuclear Powerstations, surely we have too?

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Elsewhere on IDG sites

Alienware 17 R4 2017 review

These brilliant Lego posters show just what children's imaginations are capable of

Mac power user tips and hidden tricks

Comment réinitialiser votre PC, ordinateur portable ou tablette Windows ?