Voting for New Nuclear Build at the Daily Referendum

The U.K. Web site, the Daily Referendum, is holding an online vote on the future of nuclear energy:

A legally binding target to reduce long-term carbon dioxide emissions by 60% by the year 2050 has been set. The bill will establish a "Carbon Committee" to make sure targets are met. However the bill makes no reference to annual CO2 reductions targets. Opposition parties and environmentalists deem CO2 reductions necessary to tackle global warming.

The Queen told MPs and peers: "My government will publish a bill on climate change as part of its policy to protect the environment, consistent with the need to secure long-term energy supplies."

David Cameron said he was delighted to hear the proposals in the Queen's Speech. "I hope it will be a proper bill and not a watered down bill. Government has got to give a lead by setting a proper framework." That must mean an independent body with annual targets and an annual report from government on its progress."

The prime minister responded by pointing out that the UK was set to lose about 15% of its electricity generation capacity as existing nuclear power plants reached the end of their operating lives.

"We need to put nuclear power back on the agenda and at least replace the nuclear energy we will lose. Without it, we will not be able to meet either our objectives on climate change or our objectives on energy security."

Q. Should we invest in new nuclear power stations?

Click here to vote right now. For more on Tony Blair's latest endorsement of nuclear energy, click here.

Technorati tags: Nuclear Energy, Nuclear Power, Energy, Clean Energy, Technology, Environment, Electricity, United Kingdom

Comments

Anonymous said…

Hm - the results are in...

84% voted for yes.

This should speak for itself.

November 17, 2006 at 10:28 AM

Anonymous said…

That's encouraging, and more strongly positive than I expected, although I was hopeful of a Yes result. The other interesting thing is that 16% voted No, with ZERO Don't knows.

November 17, 2006 at 5:31 PM

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…

Nuclear Is a Long-Term Investment for Ohio that Will Pay Big

With 50 different state legislative calendars, more than half of them adjourn by June, and those still in session throughout the year usually take a recess in the summer. So springtime is prime time for state legislative activity. In the next few weeks, legislatures are hosting hearings and calling for votes on bills that have been battered back and forth in the capital halls.

On Tuesday, The Ohio Public Utilities Committee hosted its third round of hearings on the Zero Emissions Nuclear Resources Program, House Bill 178, and NEI’s Maria Korsnick testified before a jam-packed room of legislators.

Washingtonians parachuting into state debates can be a tricky platform, but in this case, Maria’s remarks provided national perspective that put the Ohio conundrum into context. At the heart of this debate is the impact nuclear plants have on local jobs and the local economy, and that nuclear assets should be viewed as “long-term investments” for the state. Of course, clean air and electrons …

NEI Nuclear Notes

Search This Blog