We've all seen plenty of evidence of the nuclear power industry's campaign to put their product at the front and center of the debate over clean power. Now, those opposed to relying on nuclear power to fight climate change are openly questioning the nuclear industry's claims. From the Guardian, an article on a New Economics Foundation report that claims renewable micro-generation provides "a far cheaper way of meeting the UK's energy needs and combating climate change than nuclear stations..." An article from ICWales also focuses on this report, and highlights the claim that "as a response to global warming, nuclear power is too slow, too expensive and too limited..." This British focus is in response to news that Prime Minister Tony Blair is warming up to nuclear power...
All of this underscores my own much-less-scientific notion that nuclear power isn't a panacea -- it's expensive, it takes a long time to build reactors, and there are still those issues of mining and waste disposal that tarnish the bright green glow proponents want to cast on nuclear plants.
Technorati tags: nuclear power, opposition, Great Britain
The Guardian digital edition – a new way to read your daily newspaper online, without the need to install special software