British debate use of nuclear power

January 17, 2006

A disagreement has arisen among British scientists concerning the use of additional nuclear power plants to combat global warming.

Kevin Anderson, a senior research fellow at the Tyndall Center for Climate Change Research, says claims that nuclear power is the only way for Britain to meet demanding greenhouse gas reduction targets are fundamentally wrong, The Guardian reported Tuesday. "That argument is way too simplistic," he said. "We can easily deal with climate change without nuclear power."

His statement followed contradictory positions by renowned scientist James Lovelock and David King, the British government's chief scientific adviser. They maintain a new generation of nuclear power stations is the only realistic way for Britain to meet energy demand, while reducing carbon dioxide pollution.

Existing nuclear power stations now generate about 20 percent of the United Kingdom's electricity and all but one are scheduled to close by 2023, The Guardian said.

Lovelock and King have urged construction of more nuclear power plants since they do not produce the greenhouse gases associated with conventional power stations.

Copyright 2006 by United Press International

Explore further: How to measure the oxygen coefficient in complex oxides

Related Stories

How to measure the oxygen coefficient in complex oxides

October 12, 2016

Scientists of the Faculty of Chemistry of the Lomonosov Moscow State University under the leadership of Prof. Yury Teterin and in cooperation with Russian and British colleagues have developed a technique to evaluate the ...

China sets sights on new global export: nuclear energy

August 24, 2016

On a seaside field south of Shanghai, workers are constructing a nuclear reactor that is the flagship for Beijing's ambition to compete with the United States, France and Russia as an exporter of atomic power technology.

Three problems with the way we think about nuclear power

June 1, 2015

The future does not exist, at least not in the same way the past exists. From an evolutionary perspective, one might say there is no future in looking too far ahead. And perhaps not surprisingly, we are not very good at looking ...

Recommended for you

Ten months in the air without landing

October 27, 2016

Common swifts are known for their impressive aerial abilities, capturing food and nest material while in flight. Now, by attaching data loggers to the birds, researchers reporting in the Cell Press journal Current Biology ...

A dead star's ghostly glow

October 27, 2016

The eerie glow of a dead star, which exploded long ago as a supernova, reveals itself in this NASA Hubble Space Telescope image of the Crab Nebula. But don't be fooled. The ghoulish-looking object still has a pulse. Buried ...

Shocks in the early universe could be detectable today

October 27, 2016

(—Physicists have discovered a surprising consequence of a widely supported model of the early universe: according to the model, tiny cosmological perturbations produced shocks in the radiation fluid just a fraction ...


Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.