Four reasons why we don't want nuclear power.

1) Sellafield. has a long history of pollution. Ground water polluted from leaking tanks, the Irish Sea polluted causing fish mutation. Air pollution.

2) Three Mile Island. Nuclear power is still banned in this State. They remember and have learned it is too dangerous to use.

3) Chernobyl. The after effects of this little gem have left vast tracts of land in Russia unusable, and even our Welsh hill farmers are still affected.

4) Disposal of Nuclear waste poses more threats. We can't keep sticking it underground, hoping it won't cause problems and carting it about by road and rail isn't really an option.

The future has to be sustainable energy. Wind farms, tidal barrages, whatever it takes. A Nuclear accident in the UK would wipe most of us out. Where would the few survivors live? As with Chernobyl, how far would the pollution spread around the world? However "safe" the reactor, there is always "Operator Error".

Beryl Russell, Windsor, England

Tony Blair’s government, and their big business cronies, completely miss the point. Fundamentally, our problem isn’t energy supply - it is energy demand. We cannot build enough nuclear power stations - or indeed enough wind turbines or tidal barrages - to meet continuing growth in energy demand. Like healthcare, energy demand is ultimately infinite. Hence our primary task must be promote to energy efficiency and conservation, requiring local, grassroots work to improve buildings and change behaviour, not enormous, expensive building projects. In 20 years of working in energy efficiency, I have never seen it given true priority - perhaps because it directly counters wasteful global consumerism. We need to reconnect with values of thrift and economy and only when we have massively cut energy demand consider additional supply options. By following the nuclear rabbit down its dead-end burrow we waste time, money and precious intellectual effort – which our planet cannot afford.

Paul Jennings, Cornwall, UK

I am totally fed up with listening to self appointed, do gooding, scare mongers, like Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and the rest of them.
They do not speak for me and they do not represent my views.

Anyone with an IQ larger than their shoe size knows that we have to address our future energy policy and in all reality, however much this offends the so called green lobby, this has to include Nuclear Power.

There is no debate.

Could somebody ask the green do gooder, Zac Goldsmith, how often he flies by private jet to his late father's estate in Mexico?

G.J.Edwards, Gerrards Cross, Buckinghamshire

The terrorist threat does indeed exist but should not be exaggerated or construed to be more serious than it really is. The designs of the EPR and AP1000 reactors being proposed for new-build in the UK are inherently more compact and much safer than the previous generations of Magnox, AGR and PWR (Sizewell B). They have double containment structures around the reactor core which are designed to withstand a jumbo jet crashing onto the reactor building, and physically separate, diverse and redundant safety systems. New reactors will be built on existing NPP sites which are currently and will continue to be guarded and defended by the specialised and fully armed Civil Nuclear Constabulary (CNC). There is no such thing as zero risk, but the risks and consequences of nuclear power can be reduced as much as possible and then borne by society in exchange for the significant benefits of zero-carbon emissions and security of supply.

Andrew Whiting, Birmingham, UK

If the counties of east Anglia were covered entirely with wind farms there still would not be enough continuous energy for what would be left of London & the rest of the Home counties.
Nuclear is a necessary evil that will be needed as the innovators work out how to make the newer green technologies work at higher efficiencies and above all WITHOUT needing the current generator plant anyway, as a back-up for the ‘balmy days of summer’ when all the Air Conditioning is on at maximum!

The 25years of use after the 15 year construction will be enough time to allow new theoretical power sources be turned into reality. Such as ‘fuel cells’ seen in demo green cars used as we use batteries today; where that is the time frame required!

timothy lorkin, paris, France

LOOKS LIKE we are going to be working with the french
after-all seeing as they lead the world in this field so
nuclear Concorde here we come / go .whichever way you
look at it its better than working in the dark.

george william taylor, hull, uk

How many new reactors would have to be built to make a difference to global CO2 emissions (the measure that matters)? The answer is more than one a month - so long as electricity demand increases as predicted in the Energy White Paper.

Nuclear energy cannot make a significant difference to global CO2 emissions. In fact, we will struggle to build enough to maintain nuclear's current global share of electricity generation. If nuclear power could help reduce global CO2 emissions, then the security risks might be acceptible.

A nuclear energy policy would be a mistake for the UK and would encourage a global nuclear revivial, nuclear weapons prolifereation and heighten the risk of conflict and nuclear terrorism in the UK.

James Kemp, Oxford,

"Change our lifestyles"? Oh, really? And exactly how many people will willingly go backwards: consume less, travel less, entertain themselves less ... ? Not many is my bet. Not without serious political and fanancial upheaval, anyway.

This is just another example of a left wing anti-capitalist agenda latching onto the latest issue and hijacking the argument for its own ends.

Just build the damn things. There really is no alternative in sight just now. Hair shirts and an austerity economy is never going to catch on.

David Hoggard, York,

This argument is basically the reason why I bought British energy shares years ago, and I have misgivings about the story behind the share price collapse, I cannot help wondering about the politics and manipulation.

Nuclear power is not a problem in itself, it is the human factors and management pressure which cause problems like Chernobyl and Dounreay, and these really ought to be manageable, like the dangers in coal mining.

If a nuclear power station produces two lorry-loads of dangerous waste, that can be handled, whereas there is no way to handle 200 million tons of CO2.

Rod Dalitz, Edinburgh, Scotland

Mr. Harris of Croydon suggests that he'd sleep better if we rely on wind farms rather than nuclear power stations. He wouldn't: he'd be too cold.

We can NEVER generate all the electricity we need in the future by renewable power, and wind farms in particular will be opposed all the way by people who quite reasonably don't want them nearby. Of course terrorists won't attack them: they're almost irrelevant to the well-being of the country.

The nuclear sites are there already. Re-equip them, get them back on line and yes, make them safe, but do it now, before the fossil fuels start to run out.

David Hoggard, York, N. Yorks

The truth is the Windscale accident took place 50 years ago, and happened in a low power / low temperature air-cooled graphite-moderated fission reactor being used to breed plutonium for the British A-bomb not for generating commercial electricity. The accident scenario involved the spontaneous release of Wigner energy built up in the graphite moderator which caused a fire. This cannot happen in commercial nuclear reactors because they are operated at much higher temperatures which precludes the mechanism that leads to build-up of Wigner energy. Nuclear reactors are extremely safe by design, and the latest EPR and AP1000 designs for new build in the UK are about 10 times safer still.

Andrew Whiting, Birmingham, UK

There is no case for nuclear power. It takes ages to come online and by the time it does the ore grade will have declined. Currently nuclear power stations use high grade uranium ore, as more is used up, we start having to use lower grade ores...ie more mining for a given amount of uranium....which means more emissions/energy....pretty soon you are not making any carbon savings, especially once you factor in the 15-year building of the plant itself. Wind, wave, solar, hydro and tidal are the way to go. Either we choose that path or fuel constraints will force it on us later.

Bob, Sydney,

To arrive at a responsible energy policy we need less talk about expanding supply and more about how to reduce demand. However, that means changing lifestyles and none of the political parties - other than the Green Party - has the courage to adequately address that issue.

Steven, Loughborough,

Great! It's only taken them 10 years to realise the obvious and come off the fence on the subject. I don't want nuclear power but common sense has to prevail eventually, even amongst a bunch of incompetents.

Paul Savage, Lambourn, UK

If one took into account all the costs associated with nuclear waste and decommissioning nuclear power stations and then invested that money into resolving the comparatively petty problems associated with coal-fired energy production there would be no need to consider nuclear power other than for military purposes.

We have already had one very serious nuclear incident in this country (the truth of which has still not been fully revealed). What would be the consequences if a local Windscale turned into a not so local Chernobyl?

Lee, London,

This is the first time I have agreed with any thing that Labour has proposed. If England doesn't do this it will be catastrophic in ten to fifteen years

Barry Holmes, Christchurch, New Zealand

It is amazing how both the House of Commons and the media conveniently avoid the mention of the terrorist threat when it comes to nuclear power stations. Has the Government written in a contingency cost for keeping safe these new facitities as they have already made clear that the threat is going to continue into the distant future?
Blowing up a windfarm wouldn't have the same effect and we could all sleep happier at night.

Simon Harris, Croydon, Surrey

Is there a case against the nuclear option? If so, is anyone making it?

Paul Flynn, Clear Water Bay, Hong Kong

if its the only way we can turn then it hast to be done

chris, newcastle,

Planning for nuclear power isn't an option if we want to preserve our environment, it's a necessity. Domestic wind turbines and solar panels are prohibitively expensive and show very poor return, tidal barriers will destroy an entire eco system, and wind farms are destroying bird poulations. So what other options are left?

Nick, Wycombe, UK

Lets build and get on with it, we all know that we need them, it's simple maths.

Special interest groups will soon start complining if they can't see, cook or heat their homes!!!

Mac Match, Bath, Somerset

France generates approx 80% of its electricity from nuclear. Why doesn't Greenpeace and their like stop whinging about nuclear before they have us all lighting our homes with candles to bridge the gap between electricity demand and supply which will be inevitable if they have their way (apart from the days the wind is blowing fast enough). Incidentally candles produce over 50 times the amount of carbon per useful lumen than does a compact fluorescent! So stop burying your head in the sand and get building nuclear is what I say - we just do not have the luxury of sticking to options that have no disadvantages.

Mike Thorpe, London, UK