The Economist Debate
Nuclear power
Sep 25th 2006
From Economist.com
Link to the debate:
http://www.economist.com/audio/displaystory.cfm?story_id=7959969
“We must embrace nuclear power to solve global warming”
Chair: Vijay Vaitheeswaran, Correspondent, The Economist
Speakers: Paul Domjan, Stockholm Network Energy Fellow; Tim Jackson, Professor of Sustainable Development, University of Surrey; Caroline Lucas, Green MEP for South-East England; Dr Patrick Moore, Greenspirit; Rick Nye, Director, Populus
Venue: Telford Theatre, Great George Street, London
Date: September 18th 2006
Among Britain's political class there is an emerging consensus: climate change is the challenge of our time. But each party proposes different solutions, and none is more divisive than nuclear power. In the battle to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, nuclear power certainly trumps coal and gas every time. And unlike fossil fuels, uranium can be purchased from friendly and reliable countries like Canada and Australia. But at what human, environmental and economic cost would such carbon-cutting and “energy security” come? Nuclear fission was itself once considered to be a grave threat to humanity. While some prominent Greens now support nuclear power as the pragmatic answer to global warming, others argue that the associated toxic waste may prove an enduring environmental nightmare. Perhaps the most controversial aspect of the prospective nuclear renaissance lies in the economics of the technology. While the nuclear industry argues that new designs will make plants safer, cheaper and faster to build, sceptics are keeping a watchful eye on the various hidden and explicit government subsidies.
|
