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

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

We need both. We definitely need to expand renewables, but the power output of renewables is highly variable and we don’t have adequate battery technology to store enough energy for low points. Therefore we also need nuclear energy as a stable base load. Also the concerns about meltdowns and nuclear waste are hugely overblown (nuclear reactors that aren’t bad, cheap designs like RBMKs or having tsunami-prone backup generators are extremely safe, and nuclear waste can be dealt with via deep geologic disposal)

We absolutely should be investing in nuclear energy. This argument is not sound at all because thorium is also nuclear power, not just the traditional uranium reactors. Nuclear power is very low carbon (there is some carbon in building the plant. Nuclear power is safe now. The measures put in place in a pwer plant today and exceptional in terms of saftey. This is further reinforced by the fact the UK doesn't lie on any fault lines like Fukishima. The risk of a radioactive release is minimal.
In addition to its saftey, nuclear power is efficient. Nuclear fuel is the most energy dense fuel…  Read more type. This means that we can harvest massive amounts of energy from a small amount of fuel.
Waste is not as big an issue as its made out to be. Nuclear fuel can be recycled and fission products can be used to create more energy. The reason this is not done today is the governments fear of proliferation. However security measures would minimise this risk.
Thorium reactors would be a fantastic techology. Thorium is much more abundant in the earth and its easier to mine. It doesn't need enriched like uranium does and it is much more energy dense. The fission products also mean less chance of proliferation. More funding should be put towards thorium reactors.
The main barriers to nuclear energy now are public and government fear which need addressed with facts and real education.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

They are not mutually exclusive. We should not be dependant on any one type of energy, and investment and research in to nuclear will likely get it to the point where it is sufficiently clean

Nuclear energy produces relatively little waste and is a highly effective energy source, which will provide reliable power and is not dependent on the supply of water sources or geysers as hydroelectric and geothermal are.

Nuclear energy is the most efficient and clean form we have it isn't an inherently bad system and is much cleaner than other sources.

It is not the right time to begin prioritising environmental energy. The country is not in a fit state to move to renewable energy and climate change is a hoax.

The cost and time of cleaner sources is unrealistic. Sources such as wind or tidal are excellent, especially in the hands of the UK which has immense potential for utilising both renewable. However, as of now it is impossible to be completely reliant on them. To supplement the supply of energy and, more importantly, reduce reliance on France, nuclear fission would be a highly effective means of meeting needs until fusion, wind and tidal are developed to a point at which fission can be retired, particularly as the UK was a former world leader in nuclear power.

we as a country use far to much polluting resources to generate electricity
I hope in the future we take advantage from solar and wind and alternative energy.

Nuclear encourages technological development, and provides a reliable backbone to the energy grid, particularly while renewables are still being developed. Once renewables can handle all energy demand, fission plants could be phased out, at least until other energy sources become available further in the future to replace renewables, like fusion or orbital beamed solar power. Nuclear plants also cause many fewer deaths per unit of energy produced than fossil fuel power, and, in normal operation, release less radiation than a coal plant.

no because nuclear energy is clean, efficient and can generate high amounts of power quickly and green

Since Germany banned nuclear energy, prices and efficiency have fallen - nuclear energy is efficient, the risks are almost fully diminished and it doesn't use much space

Nuclear energy is far safer than many people think, and it is far more efficient than all other methods.

Nuclear Energy is undeniably a cleaner energy alternative to fossil fuels and should be compared alongside these renewable options rather than as another negative option.

Nuclear energy is the most efficient power source we currently have that is renewable. It is also a lot safer than it used to be, and you can build a plant basically anywhere. All the other alternatives rely on having to have a specific location/natural mechanism in order for them to work. Nuclear energy is also the fastest and best way to combat fossil fuel usage and coal power plants, and ultimately climate change. It's a proven and constantly advancing field that has not been embraced enough.
Nuclear waste is stored and managed extremely efficiently these days, and isn't even if concern anymore.

Nuclear is the cheapest, safest, most effective form of energy that should be used as our primary energy source

Nuclear energy provides the most efficient energy source + waste can be recycled into other reactors/purposes.

Handle Nuclear well. Best energy source atm. Fusion in the future is preferential to fission once tech allows.

Nuclear is less harmful the the environment than fossil fuels. We should use every technology we have to become carbon neutral.

Nuclear Energy is the cheapest way of getting clean power and we must invest in it as much as possible to deal with the climate crisis.

Nuclear Energy IS, in fact. very clean. It is a zero-emission energy source. For each kilogram of radioactive sources such as uranium or plutonium, nuclear fission releases 3 million times more energy compared to one kilogram of any fossil fuel. This makes nuclear energy highly efficient, and it would drastically reduce our expenditure on energy as a whole, whilst also cutting down on carbon emissions completely. Yes, it IS a non-renewable energy resource, but we have enough radioactive material in our Earth's crust to sustain us centuries. Renewable energy sources like wind require us…  Read more to create wind turbines; this process itself requires us to use energy, and currently this form of renewable energy has very poor efficiency. We should utilise nuclear energy now, which can then in turn be used to facilitate the renewable energy you speak of, rather than using fossil fuels to facilitate renewable energy. You may argue that the infrastructure to build nuclear reactors is too expensive, but the extremely efficient nature of nuclear energy would result in saving massive amounts of money in the long term. You may also argue that nuclear energy is too unsafe, and that too many people will be harmed; but majority of severe radioactive spills that have occurred in the past, occurred when the technology itself was in a very recent stage in development. Our infrastructure and understanding of the risks involved have improved. Not to mention the fact that our usage of fossil fuels for the last 200 years has resulted in far, far more deaths than nuclear energy ever will, by ruining air quality worldwide and the concentration of carbon in the atmosphere. And it will; in the long run our current use of fossil fuels will be far more deadly than nuclear energy can ever be, because it will literally destroy the entire ecosystem and planet itself, a feat that nuclear energy cannot achieve.
All I'm saying is, we should absolutely use renewable energy, but we should also use nuclear energy INSTEAD of fossil fuels, because renewable sources are currently too inefficient for our entire country to rely on.

Nuclear should be invested in as much as cleaner alternatives. Nuclear is safe and extremely effective.

It's worth making sacrifices for effective energy resources. Considering the usefulness of nuclear energy, we should use it until we can phase it out with other viable sources.

Windmills do environmental damage when decommissioned, there should be no regulation on Nuclear Energy, Nuclear Energy is also more efficient and there's a very small chance it will fail

Although this would help our planet, many people would suffer financially in the interim due to the accessibility issues and set-up costs.

we already have a good understanding of how nuclear energy can function, it is relatively low risk, only large scale events have caused major damage and loss of life which are much more preventable in the modern day. the possible yeild of renewables is relatively low. there is no reason we cannot invest in both.

Nuclear energy is a clean alternative and to produce the same amount of energy takes less land space and resources. It requires less rare earth minerals and it becomes safer every year, it is the most stable form of energy generation.

These are all potentially viable contributors to the energy mix, but nuclear is a proven and effective technology.

All of these options require specific circumstances in order for them to even be built correctly, yet alone used for power. Nuclear on the other hand runs 24/7 and can be built virtually anywhere, though it’s naturally better if it’s built near a large body of water. Nuclear has emissions comparable with any of these other renewable forms of energy, while producing more energy, on a more consistent basis.

Thorium is in my opinion the exception out of the list provided, that being said, it is also a form of nuclear energy.

Space is a key factor in the renewables debate, and Nuclear is by far the clear winner in this category. While Nuclear waste is harmful, the impact of this is weakened somewhat in the face of animal deaths from other forms of power. However, I would also like to stress and emphasis on Thorium as the way forward over Uranium.

The more investment and time spent on Nuclear Energy will increase the incentive structure to deal with the waste.
It is also the most cost effective method for mass production of energy that is mostly environmentally friendly.

Nuclear Energy requires far less initial investment and, with modern technology, can be far safer than previously thought. In addition, using nuclear energy is more reliable with regard to energy output, not relying on batteries as much, as well as taking up far less natural space.

Nuclear energy is arguably a renewable source of energy due to the fact that there is such an abundance of this resource it would take an incredibly long amount of time for it to run out

I suppose it would be that the current cost of living crisis is hitting families hard. Food bank usage is up, people can't afford the weekly shop and drivers cannot afford full tanks of fuel. Due to the cost of revolutionising the energy industry. We need to stick with fossil fuels for longer and draw these fuels from the UK in order to gain independence from foreign dictators like Putin. Once the cost of living crisis dies down then we should look at cleaner alternatives.

Nuclear is safe, much more efficient and would actually solve our electricity and heating needs ball of the above cannot actually solve anything and would barely cover 2%.

Those options don't provide the level of energy needed. Those options should be used in conjunction with nuclear energy

The more time that people spend arguing against nuclear and renewable clean energy sources, the more co2 and ommisions are released.

Thorium is nuclear energy. Other "cleaner" alternatives are less efficient, nuclear energy produces a lot more energy than most of these alternatives and is still not as dirty as petroleum and coal.

Look how it went in Germany when the greens (in coalition) abandoned nuclear energy on the onset of the invasion of Ukraine

Nuclear Energy is efficient, has good output, clean in comparison to standard technologies used nowadays, and can be easily enough set up.

Nuclear energy is clean, safe and efficient. The risk of meltdowns is so low that there is almost no risk and nuclear waste is a far easier problem to deal with than climate change in 10 years.

Why don’t we explore all options of green energy and step away from the use of fossil fuels? Nuclear has been proven by France to have been amazing for their energy sector, it’s known to work, why not use that while we explore the viability of other options?

Why stop at just “clean” energy production and use every possible one we can and nuclear should be included in that

if nuclear power is invested in as much as programs such as gas, coal and renewables then we will be able to produce enough energy to power the uk with only a tiny amount of uranium/plutonium compared to the thousands of tons of coal and gas used every year.

Only investment along one axis is insufficient. In modern times, nuclear energy is safe, and by far the fastest way to a solution for the climate crisis.

We should do both. Nuclear, takes a long time to get up and running, but will benefit us in the long term. The longer we take to get the ball rolling, the longer we'll be stuck with fossil fuels.

Nuclear is incredibly safe, efficient, carbon-low and the infrastructure and technology already exists. Cheap, safe and clean

Use of Nuclear energy is more reliable and provides much more power than such alternatives. However nuclear energy does not have to be the only source of energy we use, suggested alternatives can be used in conjunction.

All for renewable, and all for nuclear, both compliment each other. However nuclear is the most sustainable and boasts the greatest yield per square metre of site used

Nuclear energy is a low-carbon, reliable alternative to carbon-rich energy resources & unreliable green energy solutions.

While completely clean energy sources are the eventual goal, it will take a long time for R&D to make it efficient and cheap enough to run the whole country on. I am fully pro-environment but I definitely believe investing on making more fission plants will greatly reduce our effect on the environment until we can switch over to the cleanest sources.

Nuclear energy is the most reliable clean energy source as proven therefore to move away from gas we should be making use of the options available to us now that will cover the high and low energy use points and invest in renewable energy when we have a clean stable energy base to work off of.

these forms of energy arent as reliable as nuclear energy which is the cleanest and most reliable form of ebergy we have at our disposal to fight clinate change

We should however nuclear is both clean (when disposal is managed correctly) and produces no carbon... the utopia is obviously fusion and more funding should be put towards this.

Nuclear scales far better than these alternatives. We should likewise invest in these as well however.

Nuclear is the easiest to implement and highest capacity available option, we should invest in that in addition to the other options

While nuclear may not be as clean as those alternatives, it is a lot more reliable and feasible in this country than most of the others. I believe we should be using all the methods in conjunction with each other in order to reduce reliance on fossil fuels

It should be obvious to anyone with a minimal understanding of both science and economics that the only way to use those types of energies would be a drastic and permanent reduction in energy consumption.

One counter argument to this stance could be that while investing in cleaner alternatives such as wind, hydroelectric, thorium, and geothermal energy sources is important, they may not be able to fully replace the energy output provided by nuclear energy. Nuclear power plants can generate large amounts of electricity consistently and reliably, making them a crucial component of a diverse energy portfolio.

Additionally, nuclear energy has a much smaller carbon footprint compared to fossil fuel sources, making it a more sustainable option for addressing climate change. By investing in and improv…  Read moreing nuclear technology, we can continue to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and transition to a cleaner energy future.

Nuclear is relatively clean and we need a grace period to build the required infrastructure to go fully green

Nuclear power as been proven to be the safest energy while also being the one producing the least amount of CO2, the security standards held are also often reviewed and the nuclear waste already disposed of properly. More research is always ongoing to dispose of those wastes in a safer or more durable manner

Thorium and geothermal are fine if they are economical, the primary function of commercial power is to provide reliable power to consumers and industry and using an intermittent source such as wind has challenges which are best addressed through a nuclear base load in my opinion.

Nuclear is an old and tested technology that provides safe and reliable energy. The only issue is with nuclear proliferation but since we already have nuclear weapons and nuclear power we should definitely be using this technology.

Nuclear energy is safe and we are not currently in a position to be completely reliant on clean alternatives

Nuclear energy is safe, when implemented with modern regulations which are adhered to strictly. All nuclear energy plants should be maintained and upgraded.

Nuclear Energy is one of the safest energy production methods available to us, and offers the only method available to use to provide base load that doesn't rely on fossil fuels.

A diverse energy mix is the best way to decarbonise whilst keeping costs lower for consumers - it's the only proven baseload technology we currently have.

I also agree with this statement. I believe that investing in renewable and nuclear will help diversify and protect the national grids capabilities

These are less efficient and more expensive. The belief that nuclear power is inherently dangerous is backwards and old fashioned.

Nuclear energy is predictable making it great supplements to the renewable energy sector when the sun is not shinning or when wind isn't blowing.

Nuclear is a proven to work. With the technology improvements over the decades it should be even safer now.

Nuclear energy provides higher yields. Although short term costs are higher, in the long run they will be more cost effective.

I'm aware of the issues facing disposal of nuclear waste but given the timeframe and quantity required to be dangerous, our technology would have advanced another 20 years and we will have explored suitable and sustainable methods of disposal.

In terms of emissions nuclear is as clean as alternative renewable energy sources. Any serious green energy policy necessitates a backbone of nuclear energy, as other sources are dependent upon weather conditions and fluctuate wildly, to prevent regular shortages nuclear must be included, or else fossil fuels will be used to fill that gap.

The UK contributes a small percentage to global emissions therefore it should be considered a higher priority that energy is affordable in the UK rather than green.

Nuclear is clean energy with none of the supply issues that sustainable fuels come with. Constant clean energy should be the core of our supply, supplemented by wind, hydroelectric etc.

None of those are scalable enough to replace fossil fuels and all rely heavily on the weather. Nuclear energy is carbon neutral and can be deployed on a large scale.

It is proven that not all eco friendly sources that produce energy are reliable especially with the changing of the weather constantly but also the effects are not as long lasting and not as cost efficient, nuclear power would be a reliable source as it is technically a non renewable but can be argued to be renewable source of energy

Citizens are being made poorer, colder, hungrier by the whims and virtue signalling of people who have not suffered the same. Energy should be provided in a way that benefits normal people, rather than those with vested interests.

Nuclear energy is reliable and efficient. Those that don't understand this, don't understand the science behind it.

Nuclear energy has the potential to fulfill loads of needs but has been absolutely stifled by regulation. Yes there are risks. But potential rewards far outweigh then.

Nuclear energy is the future, it is the only reliable source of renewable energy that is not constricted by factors such as weather, limited water sources

Geothermal is not an option in the UK.
Hydroelectric causes far more environmental damage during construction that Nuclear.
Thorium is not yet technologically viable, and geothermal is not a viable option in the UK.
Wind and Solar depend on the weather, while nuclear is a reliable source of energy.

Nuclear energy has matured so much and would provide far better energy output which is a lot cleaner than current fuel sources

The energy density produced from radioactive materials for nuclear fission is the current best solution to combat climate change. However more effort should be made to control the waste and reduce proliferation of nuclear weapons

When the wind doesn't blow, the wind farms don't work, when it's too windy the wind farms don't work. When there's a shortage of power the prices go up and we have to import. You need a good mix of energy sources and a reliable always on base level of clean energy to keep the lights on and the hospitals powered. That's where nuclear works. Otherwise you'd end up with black outs.

They are unreliable and expensive to maintain. Nuclear energy if done right is an extremely clean and safe way of generating electricity.

They are not mutually exclusive position's, investing more in nuclear energy would be a huge move to energy security for our country.

Nuclear energy is the ultimate green energy. The waste is a negligible problem compared to the power produced with no emissions. Look at France on Russian gas reliance compared to Germany which banned nuclear power and you'll see the effects.

Best is both are invested in but one produces a higher marginal gain. And disasters are uncommon as our weather is quite mild compared to Japan (in reference to the tsunami damage)

All those technologies alone will never provide enough energy for the UK and we need to look at all options as well as Nuclear

Hydroelectric for a Severn barrage would be superb and needs to happen to produce clean and reliable naturally sourced energy. Other types of renewable energies are unreliable. Nuclear energy needs to be the base load of the UKs energy demands, topped up by renewable oil and gas.

the technology is not there yet to sustain the entire power grid year round reliably from these alternatives.