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: Britain runs the risk that Chinese state-owned nuclear firms have more in mind than just business

Related Stories

Superconductivity trained to promote magnetization

October 6, 2015

Under certain conditions, superconductivity, which is basically incompatible with magnetism, can promote magnetization. Russian scientist Natalya Pugach from the Skobeltsyn Institute of Nuclear Physics at the Lomonosov Moscow ...

WikiLeaks publishes CIA director John Brennan's emails

October 21, 2015

The WikiLeaks organization posted material Wednesday from what appears to be CIA Director John Brennan's personal email account, including a draft security clearance application containing personal information.

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


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.