Energy: A new nuclear age?
Nuclear energy is championed by some as the best way to meet rising power needs while protecting the environment, but others are anxious about the risks. Could nuclear power create a more resilient energy system and bring energy to the developing world, or is it a disaster waiting to happen? The panel of speakers at this Battle of Ideas debate includes: journalist Paul Brown; physics professor Sandra Chapman; science author and researcher Joe Kaplinsky and life sciences research fellow Dr Alexandra Penn.
Recommended links:
- Article by Joe Kaplinsky, Times Online: The world needs more energy
- Article by James Kanter, The New York Times: In Finland, Nuclear Renaissance Runs Into Trouble
- Article by Rob Johnston, Spiked-Online: Ten myths about nuclear power
- Article by Louise Gray, Telegraph: Environmentalists change minds over nuclear
Related topics: Debates, Science & Progress
Subscribe to our newsletter
Comments
Leave a comment now
J Norton said:
Is nuclear power good in it own right aside from if its clean or not
Joy said:
This is not what we are taught in school we are taught that the long term hazards from nuclear accidents are huge and last for hundreds of years and people are still dying from cancer due to Chernobyl
B Mantkas said:
Joe Kaplinsky argues nuclear is safer than coal but that seems to be a limited argument, I would like to know what a base load really means if that is essential and how much nuclear really costs
Imlovinit said:
Interesting but accidents such as Chernobyl have not really been dealt with here and do we really need to go down the nuclear road at all if there are less risky ways forward
S Kelly said:
A huge percentage of people still live in the dark shouldn’t that drive us to do whatever we can to create more energy-it doesn’t seem today that nuclear is more risky than anything else. Not having the massive amounts of cheap energy we need already kills a lot of people – from lack of electricity for cooking and refridgeration accross subsaharan Africa and consequent disease and from hypothermia in a few places. What people need doesn’t seem to be made the issue it should be.
Gemma said:
Is the problem with nuclear just that it is man-made or is that being crude
Misha2 said:
But who are we supposed to believe in now, we can’t trust industry people, we can’t trust anyone making any money does that mean we should just be scared into living in the dark?
John Horintz said:
i agree this debate is more balanced than usual but I still wouldn’t want it in my back yard
Sarah G said:
I thought the key issue was that the waste problem hasn’t been resolved
Brian2000 said:
The argument against nuclear seems to focus on the risk of it all going wrong, yet it is the one of the only energy sources that we could keep all our lights on and provide so much more. Why does risk loom so large these days – it seem to stop so much technological innovation that could really transform our lives?