All existing nuclear power plants will be replaced over the next 40 years as they meet their service lifetimes (Back to the future, G2, October 4). The cost of replacing them is an unavoidable expense but also an opportunity to install sustainable alternatives. Nuclear power is unpopular mainly because few people know of recent developments which have dramatically altered the picture.
Nuclear power is 20% of EU capacity but supplies up to 35% of actual electricity. Dirty coal stations run at a 30% load to comply with emissions regulations, which is comparable with wind farms. We are heavily dependent on nuclear power and it is a huge error to abandon it. Only wind is able to contribute to the new energy regime.
International studies of new nuclear reactors are focussed on recycling, fuel breeding, transmutation and burning of high-level wastes to reduce the waste decay times to only 1,000 years, and many other applications. The other contenders for advanced nuclear capabilities are under design and construction in France, Russia, China, South Africa, India, Japan, and Korea, often with US collaboration.
The paucity of effort within the US and the EU indicates a massive political failure. There is so much more to be shown to the public. There is not yet a real debate on nuclear power, only a reprise of old history. The UK has steadily closed research institutions and laboratories, regulated against nuclear power, and is now apparently divesting itself of all remaining assets, including any vestiges of independence.
Both the National Audit Office and the Parliamentary public accounts committee conclude it is far cheaper to reduce consumption than invest in conventional new power sources.
Director, Association for the Conservation of Energy
The new requirement for power companies to inform their customers as to how they generate their electricity (Report, October 5) means that, for the first time ever, the public is being given the opportunity to influence the national supply mix through exerting the power of their choice. In the UK electricity market, which has been liberalised since 1999, over 50% of consumers have switched supplier, mainly on the basis of price. Now, with greater transparency of information, consumers will be able to choose electricity on the basis of its environmental impact.
The introduction of this legislation comes at a crucial time given the ongoing debate about a new generation of nuclear plants in Britain. Everyone throughout the country now has the chance to take part in this debate by harnessing the market forces and voting through their choice of electricity supplier - sending a message that the government and suppliers cannot ignore.
Environmental Change Institute, University of Oxford
James Meek repeats a common misconception about nuclear power - that nuclear power stations generate almost no CO2 after they are built. In fact, the whole life output of CO2 from nuclear, including decommissioning and fuelling, may be very significant indeed, depending on the grade of ore used to produce the fuel. The known supply of rich ore is only sufficient to power 1,000 large stations for about 20 years, and nuclear stations powered with fuel from weak ore may be no better than gas, or worse. Huge amounts of conventional power are required to convert weak uranium ore to fuel. In the unlikely situation that Britain goes nuclear unilaterally then this may work, but if there is a large worldwide programme, then the amount of rich ore will rapidly disappear, and nuclear will be a millstone on humankind.