To build or not to build...

Debate in many countries, Britain included, has recently turned to the future of electricity supply, and the argument that, however much we invest in renewable energy technologies, they will never contribute significantly to our electricity grids. In Britain in particular, there simply isn't the space for wind farms or the rivers for hydroelectric dams. Tidal power is a promising technology but it appears that it will also be unable to fill the energy gap. So... the debate is now all about nuclear power and, specifically, the value of building new nuclear plants.

For me, nuclear power is the only solution to the energy gap. It may have many problems of its own - nuclear waste, high initial costs, risk of meltdown - but these can be reduced through investment in research, something that has been lacking in recent decades. When these very serious problems are compared to those of fossil fuels - there won't be any left soon, to put it bluntly - and renewable sources - not enough generation capacity - it becomes apparent, in my eyes, that nuclear really is the least of three evils. By all means we must continue to build wind farms, where practical - off-shore if possible, and to develop new renewable energy technologies but, in the mean time, we must act now by commissioning new nuclear plants before our dependency on fossil fuels drives us headlong into World War Three.

The British Government is due to publish its "Energy Review" shortly. Many believe that it is a stunt designed to show that nuclear is the best option, and many anti-nuclear activists bemoan this as if it's bad science: it isn't. It will be no government whitewash (or indeed hogwash) to suggest that the commissioning of new nuclear plants is the best option in the medium term, it just makes sense:

1. We will reduce our reliance on fossil fuels dramatically within a few years.
2. We will be able to take our time developing new renewable technologies rather than rushing them through to solve short-term energy supply problems.

Having said that I strongly support nuclear power, I am equally strongly against nuclear weapons. Whatever Iran's intentions, it is certainly rich of Britain and America, et al, to demand answers from the Iranians when they are not only in possession of large numbers of nuclear weapons (to me, that is not the main problem) but they are destroying them - as required by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty - so slowly it beggars belief. Perhaps once the nuclear arms race is over, we can concentrate on the mass benefits of nuclear fission rather than its application as an agent of mass destruction.