Tony Blair is wrong again! Nuclear power is history. Renewables are the future.
Finally you added a blog to this site!!!

Iam completely agree that in near future when all the fossil fuel will be exhausted, only nuclear power will be there as a source of energy and it could reduce the global warming with much extend. Business companies, transport, currency trading, manufacturing corporations will only use nuclear power , because fossil fuels are limited But bye the time damaged will be done.

i thought i saw something today that Great Britain was moving away from Nuclear? ... ahh it was a suggestion from the WWF (http://www.sparksdata.co.uk/refocus/redesign/showdoc.asp?docid=73276919&accnum=1) - but at least there is a debate going on there, yes?

Debate? I am not sure. Tony's energy review is not worth the paper it is written on and he appears to already haveing made his mind up that - that we need more nuclear power stations. Debate - I don't think so?!

Britain is not moving away from nuclear power... Neuclear power is being puched forward because it will reduce our dependency on oil. This is the main reason. The fact that it also reduces CO2 emissions is a nice side effect, which sits well with the Government. Don't forget politicians are very short term thinking people. They know that will not be around in 100 years to sort out the mess...

the news over the weekend that Canada is scrapping Kyoto puts our fella Harper right in there with Bush, Howard and Blair, Villepin too i guess - BUT the Ontario provincial Energy Minister Donna Cansfield (Ontario has the most nukes in Canada, Quebec also has some) is not hangin' with these guys - going her own way towards renewables and conservation, check her out - http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060512.ONTNUCLEAR12/TPStory/?query=cansfield

What our new govenrment has done is not very good. Canada will make it possible for other countries to stop worrying about global warming, to stop support for Kyoto and I do not know what next.
I like Cansfield, but I am not sure that she can do anything on her own - for that is what she is...

doesn't matter - they trashed her - http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060524.CAMPBELL24/TPStory/?query=cansfield

no hope man, we'll just have to trundle off to the tar pits like good dinosaurs

There was a really scary program in UK television yesterday with David Attenborough about global warming. All these scientists telling us that it is going to get really tough. Made a huge impression.
How do we get the world leaders to do something useful about global warming rather than a) do nothing (USA) b) say we are going to do something and then don't (Canada)?????

I saw that program. Really good but scary!

Who is David Attenborough?

You must be !*?*!^% joking?! Have you tried to google him? The world's most famous naturalist, that's who he is!!!!!

Nuclear power can not stop global warming but it can reduce global warming in the future. Many of the the agents that will cause global warming in the medium term (10-50) years are already out there in the global environment.
However, when nuclear power is used as a substitute for fossil fuels, future global warming will be reduced because the carbon footprint of nuclear power is less than that of fossil fuels.
In an ideal world, few people would want to use nuclear power because of the associated safety issues. However, in the face of global warming, nuclear power should be considered as an option, at least as a medium term source of power until more renewable sources become available.

Yes, you are completely right. Nuclear has to be an option. We can not dismiss this just because a) we generate CO2 by building them and b) terrorists may use them to do evil - this being the two main arguments against the nuclear option. Both are just plain silly. How much CO2 will be produced if we are to build thousands of windmills? And terrorists will surely find something other than the local nuclear power plant if that is what they have in mind. The fact is that time is running out and we will soon be left with no option!

During the 1970s and 1980s rising economic costs (related to extended construction times largely due to regulatory changes and pressure-group litigation)and falling fossil fuel prices made nuclear power plants then under construction less attractive. In the 1980s (U.S.) and 1990s (Europe), flat load growth and electricity liberalization also made the addition of large new baseload capacity unattractive.