No, we should invest in cleaner alternatives such as wind, hydroelectric, thorium, and geothermal

Nuclear energy is more efficient and functions well with the national grid but should be used alongside other alternatives as technology will improve the efficiency of them.

We are not at the point where it's feasible to invest in cleaner energy other than nuclear. It's too expensive. Rather make the population richer first so it is easier to adapt. Many studies have shown that fossil fuels are the best way to make a population happier and richer. Rising energy costs are affecting the middle class and lower class greatly and we just cannot sacrifice them for the weather gods.

Evening with strong renewable options, the UK energy network requires a consistent base source of electricity. This is currently being provided by gas (ca. 50% energy) which should be phased out to reduce carbon emissions.

These sources of energy are great but are not reliable for a nationwide use, they could be used in smaller communities but for nationwide main energy nuclear energy is reliable and has been made so much safer than it was many years ago. It is also produces no carbon emissions and greenhouse gases. The only downside to nuclear energy is the waste. In the future if nuclear fusion could be used to generate even more energy which would make it even more efficient.

For a national power source, thorium should be an alternative to be invested in, however wind and hydroelectric energy as national power sources would not be very efficient. For smaller communities these alternatives would be very useful.

Nuclear Energy causes very low carbon emissions whilst providing massive amounts of power, so it is still a viable strategy as long as very strict measures are taken whilst building and maintaining them.

Nuclear is clean and is also on demand. We have no ability to store any of that energy created by wind or hydroelectric. The other 2 I'd have to look into.

Other renewable energy supplies cannot currently meet the demand, the energy density of nuclear energy is sufficient to supply the UK.

Disagree, as Nuclear Power can absolutely work in conjuncture with these, and will help form the foundation of a transition to sustainable energy.

The more developed the civilisation the more energy it uses. The great leaps forward in human technology have come about by discovering sources of energy that are orders of magnitude more energy dense (wood to coal, coal to oil, oil to nuclear fission, then maybe fission to fusion). Renewables are very energy diffuse and are a backward step. Human fluorishing in the future is dependent on going big on nuclear.

I think we would be naive to assume those will solve the issue on their own. We, as a country, have to compete with the world and not just a set of ideals. Nuclear is safe, if managed correctly and has many benefits.

In the long run certainly however we need to get to a point where our energy baseload is taken away from coal and gas, thorium and geothermal could achieve that in theory but the technology is either not there or not prepared for upscaling to the required amounts.

Those alternatives are less efficient than nuclear energy, and have their own downsides such as visual and auditory pollution and unreliability. Additionally, the potential of fusion energy is the principal energy goal of the modern era.

The more time spent messing around on talking about how 'unclean' low-carbon nuclear is, the more genuinely unclean carbon emissions are released

Yes we should invest in those, but in the meantime while we build out the technology we should use Nuclear as it’s incredibly efficient and works a base energy. Net 0 is the goal

Nuclear energy has one of the lowest mortality rates in the electricity generation industry. It is arguably better for the environment than a lot of "cleaner" alternatives and produces far far more energy without issues such as noise pollution or a large amount of land being required

I belive that Closely regulated use of Nuculer energy with the support of Natrual spaces of energy is the cleanest and fastest route to a healthier earth

Nuclear energy is cleaner, and more compatible with the energy grid. It’s the best replacement for coal and gas plants and should be used alongside renewables

we already have the technology for nuclear energy, which is clean, and can be used to help research other means of energy production over time. Nuclear power is a solution now, not in 25 years

Nuclear is cleaner, cheaper and produces more power for cheaper and doesn't damage the environment during the construction or operation of nuclear power plants.

Nuclear energy is safe. The accidents have occurred due to improper funding and incorrect safety measures.

nuclear energy should be used as a transitory stage as it has lower emissions than fossil fuels and will immediately provide energy as the appropriate infrastructure for cleaner alternatives are built

Current technology exists to develop nuclear to be a reliable source of baseload while other solutions are developed (ideally tidal)

We can do both but it will take time for cleaner energy to catch up and not realistic that it can meet demands

Investing in Nuclear stands to provide the quickest and most sustainable path out of the envrionmental catastrophe we're hurtling towards. By investing in nuclear temporarily, it will buy us the time we need to be able to improve renewable technologies to the point where they can become our main source of energy.

So that we can become more self sustainable and be sustainable to the environment we can also use the energy to trade with other countries giving us more money whilst the money is green and good uncorupt money

Investment in these forms of energy have large effects on the surrounding environment and wildlife. Thorium is something that should be invested in more however.

By investing more into nuclear energy research we can make the process more efficient and safer. Additionally research into fusion energy could see a huge increase in energy production

We should invest in all of them to help transition from oil and gas. We need a good reliable mix of clean energy.

I also agree that cleaner alternatives should be incentivised, however nuclear is far more efficient

Nuclear has a proven and effective history. Should be developed in conjunction with other cleaner alternatives.

Ridiculous nuclear if invested right will provide next to free energy for all if nuclear submarine engines where placed in every town.

Nuclear energy is cleaner and safer than any other form of energy (nuclear is renewable). Though renewables are still cleaner and safer in general.

Net Zero can be arrived at quicker with Nuclear Energy as part of the mix and as such it is silly to remove it from the strategy as it's environmental risks are manageable.

we should be moving in a direction of increased sustainability, whether that be wind, hydroelectric, geothermal or nuclear - progress is progress - so if there is an opportunity to move towards nuclear power it should be taken as a step in the right direction

Nuclear is proven to be the safest form of energy generation. We need to ensure we are able to generate from nuclear energy in a safer way.

Nuclear energy has a better ratio of energy output to energy input to produce it compared to other production methods.

We should do that as well but nuclear energy provides a clean and consistent form of energy which renewables do not - we will solve the crisis with all of these solutions, not just one.

We should invest in those aswell, but nuclear provides a constant baseload that renewables can't. Geothermal wouldn't be scaleable in the UK and thorium isn't proven yet. Nuclear energy is safe and disasters have only been caused by cost cutting corporations who ignore saftey reports, that's why I think it should be nationalised.

Nuclear energy is highly efficient, predictable and has a long track record of safety. Furthermore, funding of basic research may lead to further breakthroughs in nuclear energy production (ie fusion).

Energy security requires a reliable and long term solution, which renewables cannot (yet) guarantee.

Nuclear energy should be considered an interim solution to providing base load until reliable renewables have sufficient capacity.

Nuclear energy currently produces far more energy, and possible future advancements would increases this even further, such as nuclear fusion

It is cheaper, more reliable the only issue we had in the past was the waste it produced, but with newer technological advances we're finding use of that toxic waste.

Our society has been raised on fossil fuels and it's forced into almost every aspect of life by the industry that profits. There's too much profit to squeeze out the populace

Nuclear energy is significantly more efficient at generating energy than those other options, and the waste is minimal. Nuclear safety is at an all time high and the technology nuclear plants use is always advancing. At the very least, nuclear energy should be used to replace all fossil fuels as soon as possible to prevent worsening climate change.

I fundamentally believe that the problem of nuclear waste has already been solved, with deep-earth containment and advances in reactors that can use nuclear waste as fuel, and the number of deaths per terawatt/hour is far lower than any other form of energy, except solar and wind; but it is a much denser form of energy production (per square kilometre) than any other.

if it's costing the government even more money then we should spend that money looking after the people who live here that can't afford to eat all 3 meals a day or heat their homes.

We should invest in all of them as intermittent renewable generation needs to be complemented by the constant flow of nuclear energy to help us transition away from fossil fuels