On 9th November 2009, 10 new nuclear power station sites, of the 11 proposed, were approved by the government.
This agenda is part of the effort to fill the ever approaching energy gap that is predicted by 2015 as present nuclear stations are decommissioned and we look to reduce the prominence of fossil fuels.
If given the final planning go-ahead, these proposed sites could be producing energy by 2018 and are projected to be producing 40% of the UK's electricity needs by 2025.
The proposed sites can be seen on the map below and include: Bradwell in Essex; Braystones, Kirksanton and Sellafield in Cumbria; Hartlepool and Heysham in Lancashire; Hinkley Point in Somerset; Oldbury in Gloucestershire; Sizewell in Suffolk; and Wylfa in North Wales.
Of course, the debate as to the viability of this plan is heated.
Although many are concerned over the safety of this scheme, the majority of inhabitants of the locations in question are said to be feeling positive on account of the 9000 jobs that will be created.
Safety First It is generally accepted that new reactors are not only more efficient, but safer than those that feature in the high profile accidents such as Chernobyl and Three Mile Island.
Although even these could be said to be less significant than equivalent accidents involving fossil fuels.
In the case of Chernobyl, it has been reported that the reactor was not at fault, but the humans operating it.
It has also been written that air pollution from coal-burning leads to 10,000 deaths per year, which is the equivalent of 25 meltdowns a year (1), a figure that is not even close to reality.
So it could be argued that, relatively, nuclear safety is up there with the more traditional methods of energy production.
A more important worry for the future is the unjust referral to nuclear energy as an environmental saviour, particularly in terms of carbon emissions.
With nuclear, nothing is carbon free Several writers have referred to this technology as carbon emission free.
This simply is not true.
In fact, it is estimated that the process as a whole produces up to 140g of CO2 per kilowatt hour (kWh) of energy produced (2).
This is after taking into account the building of the power plant (a vast undertaking), the mining of uranium, transportation and processing of the ore and eventual radioactive waste, and the dismantling of the plant.
This figure is set to increase as uranium ore becomes more scarce (estimated to last around 70 years), resulting in greater mining campaigns and the use of poorer quality ore, which requires more processing.
To put this in perspective, a gas powered plant produces approximately 330g/kWh2.
So it seems it will be harder to achieve climate targets as nuclear power develops, becoming more expensive (the current decommissioning process will cost up to £70 billion by the way) and unkind to the environment.
Today's waste: Tomorrow's problem Another issue is that of radioactive waste and the dilemma of storage and disposal.
So far in the UK, there has not been a solution that pleases everyone.
Several ideas have been proposed, from sending it down to the deep ocean to sealing it in geological vaults, and each has its inherent risks.
So far, there seems to be only one site for radioactive waste disposal near Drigg in Cumbria.
This facility is fast filling up so the selection process for more sites is underway, with a focus on community involvement and voluntarism.
Waste disposal sites can only be considered for areas that are willing to provide them; a righteous method indeed and a step in the right direction.
In the mean time however, there is a worryingly large amount of waste in interim storage within some power stations.
Currently, a total of 100,000 tonnes is being stored, waiting for final disposal.
With the oncoming bombardment of new nuclear facilities, the decommissioning of old ones and the growing amount stored temporarily, the site-selection process must produce results soon, as Drigg cannot possibly cope on its own.
All aboard the nuclear bandwagon? France, one of the greatest proponents of nuclear power, obtain 80-90% of their electricity from this source with no disasters as of yet.
Sweden produced 45% of their electricity needs using atomic energy, and Finland produced 28% in 2007.
Across the pond in 2008, the USA possessed 104 nuclear power stations, providing 19.
6% of its total electricity.
All of these countries are well ahead of the UK in disposing waste, with nuclear reprocessing and deep geological waste disposal programmes already ongoing.
For example, waste in the United States is disposed of 655 metres under the Chihuahuan Desert in New Mexico.
However, this summer, EDF was forced to shut down one third of the nuclear reactors in France due to adversely hot conditions.
This produced an energy crisis and electricity had to be imported from countries such as the UK.
This, along with the several (overly publicised) accidents that have occurred through the years, the potential terror target status and the susceptibility to natural hazards (as is the case in Japan), shows that, internationally, there does not exist a story of one big happy nuclear family.
A stepping stone to a sustainable future? Nuclear energy in the UK will indeed be vital to fill the energy gap that has been predicted, given our commitment to reducing fossil fuel use.
It is a power source with the potential to produce a large amount of electricity with a relatively lower impact on the atmosphere.
However, there are several issues to fix and we must not become reliant on it.
Nuclear power is not sustainable, so the answer lies in a working combination with renewable energy sources, emphasising the need to continue our efforts towards the E.
U's 2020 target.
This will provide a platform from which we can leap into a renewable age once nuclear activity becomes obsolete.
1 Bernard L.
Cohen, Professor at the University of Pittsburgh, 'Risks of Nuclear Power' (http://www.
physics.
isu.
edu/radinf/np-risk.
htm).
2 Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen and Philip Smith, (http://timeforchange.
org/co2-emission-nuclear-power-stations-electricity).
This agenda is part of the effort to fill the ever approaching energy gap that is predicted by 2015 as present nuclear stations are decommissioned and we look to reduce the prominence of fossil fuels.
If given the final planning go-ahead, these proposed sites could be producing energy by 2018 and are projected to be producing 40% of the UK's electricity needs by 2025.
The proposed sites can be seen on the map below and include: Bradwell in Essex; Braystones, Kirksanton and Sellafield in Cumbria; Hartlepool and Heysham in Lancashire; Hinkley Point in Somerset; Oldbury in Gloucestershire; Sizewell in Suffolk; and Wylfa in North Wales.
Of course, the debate as to the viability of this plan is heated.
Although many are concerned over the safety of this scheme, the majority of inhabitants of the locations in question are said to be feeling positive on account of the 9000 jobs that will be created.
Safety First It is generally accepted that new reactors are not only more efficient, but safer than those that feature in the high profile accidents such as Chernobyl and Three Mile Island.
Although even these could be said to be less significant than equivalent accidents involving fossil fuels.
In the case of Chernobyl, it has been reported that the reactor was not at fault, but the humans operating it.
It has also been written that air pollution from coal-burning leads to 10,000 deaths per year, which is the equivalent of 25 meltdowns a year (1), a figure that is not even close to reality.
So it could be argued that, relatively, nuclear safety is up there with the more traditional methods of energy production.
A more important worry for the future is the unjust referral to nuclear energy as an environmental saviour, particularly in terms of carbon emissions.
With nuclear, nothing is carbon free Several writers have referred to this technology as carbon emission free.
This simply is not true.
In fact, it is estimated that the process as a whole produces up to 140g of CO2 per kilowatt hour (kWh) of energy produced (2).
This is after taking into account the building of the power plant (a vast undertaking), the mining of uranium, transportation and processing of the ore and eventual radioactive waste, and the dismantling of the plant.
This figure is set to increase as uranium ore becomes more scarce (estimated to last around 70 years), resulting in greater mining campaigns and the use of poorer quality ore, which requires more processing.
To put this in perspective, a gas powered plant produces approximately 330g/kWh2.
So it seems it will be harder to achieve climate targets as nuclear power develops, becoming more expensive (the current decommissioning process will cost up to £70 billion by the way) and unkind to the environment.
Today's waste: Tomorrow's problem Another issue is that of radioactive waste and the dilemma of storage and disposal.
So far in the UK, there has not been a solution that pleases everyone.
Several ideas have been proposed, from sending it down to the deep ocean to sealing it in geological vaults, and each has its inherent risks.
So far, there seems to be only one site for radioactive waste disposal near Drigg in Cumbria.
This facility is fast filling up so the selection process for more sites is underway, with a focus on community involvement and voluntarism.
Waste disposal sites can only be considered for areas that are willing to provide them; a righteous method indeed and a step in the right direction.
In the mean time however, there is a worryingly large amount of waste in interim storage within some power stations.
Currently, a total of 100,000 tonnes is being stored, waiting for final disposal.
With the oncoming bombardment of new nuclear facilities, the decommissioning of old ones and the growing amount stored temporarily, the site-selection process must produce results soon, as Drigg cannot possibly cope on its own.
All aboard the nuclear bandwagon? France, one of the greatest proponents of nuclear power, obtain 80-90% of their electricity from this source with no disasters as of yet.
Sweden produced 45% of their electricity needs using atomic energy, and Finland produced 28% in 2007.
Across the pond in 2008, the USA possessed 104 nuclear power stations, providing 19.
6% of its total electricity.
All of these countries are well ahead of the UK in disposing waste, with nuclear reprocessing and deep geological waste disposal programmes already ongoing.
For example, waste in the United States is disposed of 655 metres under the Chihuahuan Desert in New Mexico.
However, this summer, EDF was forced to shut down one third of the nuclear reactors in France due to adversely hot conditions.
This produced an energy crisis and electricity had to be imported from countries such as the UK.
This, along with the several (overly publicised) accidents that have occurred through the years, the potential terror target status and the susceptibility to natural hazards (as is the case in Japan), shows that, internationally, there does not exist a story of one big happy nuclear family.
A stepping stone to a sustainable future? Nuclear energy in the UK will indeed be vital to fill the energy gap that has been predicted, given our commitment to reducing fossil fuel use.
It is a power source with the potential to produce a large amount of electricity with a relatively lower impact on the atmosphere.
However, there are several issues to fix and we must not become reliant on it.
Nuclear power is not sustainable, so the answer lies in a working combination with renewable energy sources, emphasising the need to continue our efforts towards the E.
U's 2020 target.
This will provide a platform from which we can leap into a renewable age once nuclear activity becomes obsolete.
1 Bernard L.
Cohen, Professor at the University of Pittsburgh, 'Risks of Nuclear Power' (http://www.
physics.
isu.
edu/radinf/np-risk.
htm).
2 Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen and Philip Smith, (http://timeforchange.
org/co2-emission-nuclear-power-stations-electricity).