In recent years this has been a hugely contentious debate.

There is much public fear about nuclear energy, fuelled by accidents such as Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. It is, however, an issue which is becoming more salient as we approach a time when fossil fuel resources may run out, making it necessary to find other power sources. An interesting recent development in Europe was the erman government!s announcement in "une #$$$ that they will be closing down their %& nuclear power stations by #$#$. This debate therefore encompasses more than 'ust nuclear energy but the alternatives of fossil fuels and renewable sources. A brief summary of the different energy production methods currently available is listed below.(uclear (uclear fission is the splitting of large atoms into smaller atoms with the release of energy stored in the original nucleus. It produces no greenhouse gases or other such pollutants but does produce radioactive waste that must be stored safely for thousands of years. There is also the risk of a nuclear e)plosion *due to meltdown+ if the reaction gets out of control. *This is different from nuclear fusion a process by which small atoms are 'oined to create larger atoms, releasing energy in the process. This technology is currently some years off.+,ossil ,uels,ossil fuels are the remnants of prehistoric organisms now in the form of coal, oil and gas. -urning them releases energy as well as greenhouse gases and acid rain producing gases. Alternative .ources/ydroelectric power, a renewable energy source, which converts water falling through dams into electric power. eothermal energy is another renewable energy source, converting heat in rocks into power.0ind farms consist of windmill like structures generating power from the wind1 another renewable source..olar panels convert solar energy into electricity renewably.Electricity can also be generated renewably from the energy stored in waves.The definition for such a debate might be that gove

pros

cons
It is a curious fact that the number of further years that fossil fuel resources will last has remained unchanged for the last few decades3 It is virtually impossible to predict how long these resources will last because there are undiscovered resources and because the rate of use cannot be predicted accurately. There are still vast une)ploited resources in Canada and .iberia *to name but two+. In addition some estimates predict that the lifetime of natural gas is about 42$ years3 There is no need at the moment to search for a new power source. That money would be better spent on creating technology to clean the output from power stations. 0e can e)plore other sources of energy when it becomes necessary in the future. 0hen we do so it will be from a much more advanced basis making development easier.

The ma'ority of the world!s electricity is currently produced via fossil fuels. These are a finite resource and will run out shortly. Although estimates are very variable as to e)actly how long fossil fuels will last it is possible that oil will be e)hausted within 2$ years and coal within #2 years. It is therefore a necessity to find a new source of energy1 we must therefore start to convert to nuclear energy now *so there is not a ma'or crisis when fossil fuels do run out+ and invest in nuclear energy for the future.

In many senses nuclear energy is clean. It does not produce gaseous emissions such as greenhouse gases, which are harmful either to the population or to the environment. It is true that it does produce radioactive waste. .ince this is in solid form it can be dealt with much more easily and stored away from centres of population. The damage caused to the environment and populations due to the burning of fossil fuels is far in e)cess of the damage done to the environment due to the nuclear industry including even the Chernobyl catastrophe. It this sense nuclear energy is very much preferable to the burning of fossil fuels at the moment. ,urthermore, as new technology becomes available to allow the more efficient use of nuclear fuel, less

Even apart from the safety issues, there are a number of problems with nuclear power. ,irstly, it is e)pensive and relatively inefficient. The cost of building reactors is enormous and the price of subse5uently decommissioning them also huge. Then there is also the problem of waste. (uclear waste can remain radioactive for thousands of years. It must be stored for all this time away from water into which it can dissolve and far from any tectonic activity. This is virtually impossible and there are serious concerns over the state of waste discarded even a few decades ago. overnments have fre5uently resorted to dumping waste into the sea1 an action which it has been shown has lead to an increase in radioactivity along many

nuclear waste will be produced. *A recent e)ample is the development of the fast breeder reactor, which uses fuel much more efficiently.+ /owever, this trend will only continue with investment. "udging from the pace of development of nuclear technology since its inception it is fair to say that with more investment nuclear energy will become an even more desirable source of energy with many of its current drawbacks curtailed.

coastlines.

It is unfortunately the case that the nuclear industry has had bad reputation for safety. (ot all of this reputation has been deserved. The overwhelming ma'ority of nuclear reactors have functioned safely and effectively for their entire lifetimes. The two ma'or nuclear accidents, at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, were both in old style reactors, e)acerbated in the latter case by la) .oviet safety standards. In this debate, the reactors the proposition are advocating are new reactors built to the highest safety standards. .uch reactors have an impeccable safety record. 6erhaps the best guarantee of safety standards in the nuclear industry is the increasing transparency with which the industry is presenting itself. Many of the problems in its early days were caused by e)cessive control due to the origin of nuclear energy from military applications. As the gap between the two separates so the nuclear industry becomes more accountable.

The nuclear industry has a shameful safety record. 0e can discern a number of separate problems. There is always the risk of a meltdown or e)plosion. At Three Mile Island we were minutes away from the former and at Chernobyl the unthinkable actually happened. The fall out from Chernobyl can still be detected in our atmospheres. The effects on the local people and the environment were devastating. It is perfectly true that modern nuclear reactors are safer but they are not perfectly safe. There is always that chance of a disaster and if we build more reactors then sooner or later there will be another Chernobyl. It is 5uite simply not worth the risk. The dumping of nuclear waste, as e)plained above, also presents a host of problems. There have also been a number of !minor! accidents in nuclear power stations recently. 7eprocessed fuel from the 8nited 9ingdom was recently re'ected from "apan after it emerged that test results had been fabricated. The (uclear Inspectorate in the 89 has also been very critical of safety standards within the industry. 0e have been told by the industry that these are problems are being ironed out and that they will not happen again. Time and time again, however, these same problems reoccur and we have to conclude that the industry is not to be trusted. It is too dominated by the profit motive to really care about safety and too shrouded in secrecy to be accountable. In addition, the nuclear industry has had a terrible cost on the lives on those living around power plants. It cannot be a coincidence that the rate of occurrence of certain types of cancer, such as leukaemia, is much higher in the population around nuclear plants.

It is also imperative to look at the alternatives when assessing in what form of energy to invest. ,or the reasons e)plained above *diminishing supply, environmental damage+ we can rule fossil fuels out immediately. 0e also see enormous problems with every form of alternative energy. The most efficient source of renewable energy has been hydroelectric power. /owever, this usually creates more problems

The proposition lists a number of problems with alternative energy. It is perfectly true that alternative energy is not efficient enough to serve the energy needs of the world!s population today. /owever, with investment all these methods could be made efficient enough to serve mankind. It is also true that initiation of alternative energy schemes, such as the Aswan dam, have caused problems. -ut the opposition are not

than it solves. -uilding a large dam necessarily floods an enormous region behind the dam which in turn can displace tens of thousands of people. There are also enormous ecological costs to dam building. A classical e)ample is the Aswan dam in Egypt along the (ile. (ot only did many thousands loose their homes but the yearly inundation of the (ile, which fertilised the surrounding land for thousands of year, was also stopped. The subse5uent silting up of the river destroyed much wildlife. A similar story of ecological destruction and human homelessness surrounded the more recent Three orges dam pro'ect in China..olar energy has never lived up to e)pectations since it is hugely inefficient. A solar panel the si:e of Europe would be needed to power a city the si:e of ;ondon3 0ind energy is only marginally better with an unsightly wind farm the si:e of Te)as needed to provide the energy for Te)as alone. The worst performers of all have been geothermal and tidal energy which have been hopelessly inefficient because no rocks have been found that are hot enough and no waves have been found that are strong enough3 The great irony is that not only are most renewable sources inefficient but many are also ecologically unsound3 The opposition to the building wind farms in certain areas has been 'ust as strong as the opposition to nuclear power because wind farms destroy the scenery, being so unsightly and large.

advocating a blanket solution to every problem. Many dam pro'ects, for e)ample, could have been replaced by solar power had the technology been available, without the downside to the dams. In addition, there is almost always one renewable resource that a given country can e)ploit1 tides for islands, the sun for e5uatorial countries, hot rocks for volcanic regions etc. and so any given country can in principle become self< sufficient with renewable energy. The global distribution of uranium is hugely uneven *much more so than fossil fuels+ and the use of nuclear power therefore gives countries with uranium deposits disproportionate economic power. It is far from inconceivable that uranium could be sub'ect to the same kind of monopoly that the =6EC *=rganisation of 6etroleum E)porting Countries+ places on oil. This prevents countries from achieving self<sufficiency in energy production.

The nuclear industry is a ma'or employer. It creates numerous 'obs at the moment and with investment will create even more.

It is entirely fatuous to suggest that nuclear power is the only employment provider. There will always be roughly the same number of 'obs in energy production. If spending on the nuclear industry were redirected to renewable energy then 'obs would simply move from one to the other.