Vote!

comments from readers

showboater29@aol.com
09 November 2009

no

There are so many forms of renewable sustainable energy like solar and wind we could have enough energy a trillion times over. why do we need these extremley dangerous poisonous fuels any more??? Because the Corporatocracy owns it all thats why.

William
09 November 2009

yes

Built, with the possible Nuclear Fusion alternative that is being heavly researched worldwide.

http://www.utexas.edu/news/2009/01/27/nuclear_hybrid/

didila
10 November 2009

no

No we should harnass wave and wind energy, new plants avoid the inevitable transission to renewable sustainable energy. by squeezing the last years ou of current plants we can then hope to move on to clean energy, government is lazy.

Then again it's all wishful thinking and i can't even vote!

Mbho
10 November 2009

no

Let us wait until the world is fully democratic and dialogue and negotiation are fully embraced by all, as the only way of achieving our goals. Under the current world problems nuclear power enrichment can be subjected into misuse thus causing disaster.

Mbho

rgwr
11 November 2009

no

Out of the frying pan...

Alun W
11 November 2009

yes

We must build nuclear reactors even fast breeder reactors as soon as we can. We also need other sources of energy like wind, tidal etc. Fusion reactors would be the greatest prize !

issak
12 November 2009

yes

Well...I think it's time. We must recognize that in the midst of energy shortages all around the world, nuclear energy provide the most sensible option. Yes it has it dangerous package along with it but it really leaves us no option.

pelmrussell
12 November 2009

yes

nuclear plants should be build. they can be safe and a great source of enegy. they are also good for the environment. While we are at it europe and the usa could set an example by distroying their nuclear weapon. enegy and a world without nuclear weapons.

Michael Nettleton
12 November 2009

yes

There are two potential solutions to the predicted shortfall in energy, either the Severn barrage or nuclear power.

Shirley Curran
12 November 2009

yes

Yes, this is the only way to ensure that we have sufficient energy in the years to come.

suell
12 November 2009

no

I voted no because I honestly don't know enough about the real pros and cons of energy sources. However I would be more reluctant to build more fossil-fuel powered reactors.

Sue Lloyd

Sam Broughton
13 November 2009

no

HYPOTHESIS : "It is feasible; economically and technologically; to use taxpayer's money to create a renewable energy grid that will provide free and clean energy to our children and grandchildren for generations to come..."

gillies
13 November 2009

yes

Yes reluctantly. The death toll from nuclear in this country is tiny compared with that from coal mining. Can we keep that record?

ozgur.baltaoglu
13 November 2009

no

We should accelerate the investment and the research on environment friendly energy sources.

14 November 2009

yes

Yes - and we should continue to eat meat! The greatest danger we all face is the ever increasing world population, and the ball is firmly in India, Africa et al's court. We should, of course build a sufficient number of Nuclear generators to ensure that we can at least have light and warmth while we all starve!

Alan b. Cambridge.

johnfwoods
14 November 2009

yes

In 2018 I shall be 80 and I have lived with nuclear power since 1945. The principle is that everything gets easier the more you do it and I believe the nuclear power is the same.

cybn
14 November 2009

yes

If we can send a man to the moon, and replace the human heart with an artifical one we ought to be able to contruct nuclear power stations and know how to deal with the waste. Look to the French as an example - one thing our Continental friends are doing well.

Alun W
20 November 2009

yes

Yes
And quick about it ! !