From Harry Driscoll
The UK government has finally given its backing to a new nuclear energy programme (19 January, p 6), presumably in response to ongoing concerns over climate change and security of supply. Setting aside the debates about economics, uranium availability or the somewhat controversial matter of whether nuclear power stations are really carbon-neutral, there is the issue of whether embracing the technology can be considered as sustainable development.
As it seems almost certain that a radioactive legacy would inhibit the ambitions of generations to come, the adoption of a new nuclear programme clearly contradicts the criteria for sustainable development: “development that meets the needs of the present, without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs”, as the Brundtland report of the World Commission on Environment and Development put it in 1987.
If the government wishes to uphold its commitments both to combating climate change and to pursuing sustainable development, nuclear is not an option.
From David Getling
Advertisement
You state that cheap uranium will last no more than a few decades. It would last a great deal longer if only fast breeder reactors were built. When one also considers dwindling coal reserves (19 January, p 38) it seems sheer folly to consider any other reactor design.
Politicians, and the general public, need to grow up and realise what a precious resource we have in uranium, and the power we can harness from it.
Christchurch, New Zealand
Bridport, Dorset, UK
