Voters split over nuclear power

[Clara T]

Voters split over nuclear power

ICM poll reveals task facing Blair to persuade public of need for more plants

David Adam, environment correspondent
Tuesday December 27, 2005
The Guardian

Almost half of Britons say no new nuclear power stations should be built in the UK, according to a Guardian/ICM poll which comes as ministers consider whether to restart Britain's controversial atomic power programme to meet growing energy demand.

The poll finds that neither the pro- nor the anti-nuclear lobby can rely on a clear majority of public support: 48% of people oppose expanding nuclear energy, while 45% support it. The findings show the scale of the public relations exercise required. About 19% of the UK's electricity is generated by its 14 nuclear power stations, but this is expected to drop to 7% by 2020 as older reactors are switched off.

A review of Britain's energy policies was announced by Tony Blair last month and a report is expected in the summer. Sir David King, the government's chief scientific adviser, told the Commons environmental audit committee last month: "I do not think that any government could proceed with nuclear new build if there was a sense in which this was unacceptable to the public. Taking the public along is absolutely essential."

The poll reveals sharp gender differences: 57% of men but only 33% of women supported building new nuclear power stations; 57% of women and 39% of men were against. For the over 65s 47% approved (39% against) compared with 42% of the 18-24s (57% against). Conservative voters were most likely to be pro-nuclear (56% for and 38% against), with 49% of Labour supporters (48% against), and 41% of Liberal Democrat voters - despite their party's anti-nuclear policy.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/nuclear/article/0,2763,1674052,00.html

[Conservativesux]

1. So heavy-metal laden coal power is "better" then nuclear power?

Sounds like both have huge problems to overcome until the oil runs out, that is :(

[depakid]

2. No choice, really

Britain has to build new generation breeder reactors. The sooner they get on with it, the better. It's not like they can create relatively "safe" plants over night... and there will be an energy gap- and quite possibly a larger one than current models predict.

btw, here's the 2005 supplement to the white paper that the Guardian referred to:

http://www.dti.gov.uk/energy/inform/energy_indicators/index.shtml

I hate even having to think this- I've been against nuclear power all my life, until I started clueing in to long term energy issues a few years ago.

[cmdrzog]

3. Reducing energy consumption

is of course an unthinkable option.

[NickB79]

4. A 12% energy reduction while maintaining economic growth?

12% energy reduction is a bit much even for aggressive energy conservation programs.

Of course, a recession or full-blown depression would cure their energy problems.