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

Wednesday Update

From NEI’s Japan micro-site: NRC, Industry Concur on Many Post-Fukushima Actions Industry/Regulatory/Political Issues • There is a “great deal of alignment” between the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the industry on initial steps to take at America’s nuclear energy facilities in response to the nuclear accident in Japan, Charles Pardee, the chief operating officer of Exelon Generation Co., said at an agency briefing today. The briefing gave stakeholders an opportunity to discuss staff recommendations for near-term actions the agency may take at U.S. facilities. PowerPoint slides from the meeting are on the NRC website. • The International Atomic Energy Agency board has approved a plan that calls for inspectors to evaluate reactor safety at nuclear energy facilities every three years. Governments may opt out of having their country’s facilities inspected. Also approved were plans to maintain a rapid response team of experts ready to assist facility operators recoverin...

Fluor Invests in NuScale

You know, it’s kind of sad that no one is willing to invest in nuclear energy anymore. Wait, what? NuScale Power celebrated the news of its company-saving $30 million investment from Fluor Corp. Thursday morning with a press conference in Washington, D.C. Fluor is a design, engineering and construction company involved with some 20 plants in the 70s and 80s, but it has not held interest in a nuclear energy company until now. Fluor, which has deep roots in the nuclear industry, is betting big on small-scale nuclear energy with its NuScale investment. "It's become a serious contender in the last decade or so," John Hopkins, [Fluor’s group president in charge of new ventures], said. And that brings us to NuScale, which had run into some dark days – maybe not as dark as, say, Solyndra, but dire enough : Earlier this year, the Securities Exchange Commission filed an action against NuScale's lead investor, The Michael Kenwood Group. The firm "misap...

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...

NEI Nuclear Notes

Search This Blog