QuoteA High Court judge has ordered a rethink of the governments nuclear power plans, after a legal challenge by environmental campaigners Greenpeace.

A judge ruled that the consultation process before making the decision last year had been "misleading", "seriously flawed" and "procedurally unfair".

Greenpeace said the ministers should "go back to the drawing board".

Industry Secretary Alistair Darling said the government would re-consult, but still favoured nuclear power.

He told the BBC they could appeal but accepted the judges ruling and would consult again, although there was "a race against time" with climate change.

There was also the need to ensure the UK was not overly-reliant on imports of oil and gas, he said.

Mr Darling said "counter views" would be taken into consideration, but "on a matter so important as climate change it just isnt possible to stand back and say: We dont have any views".

The government also stressed that the judges ruling was on the "process of consultation, not the principle of nuclear power".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6364281.stm

Same thing on yahoo.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/15022007/325/greenpeace-wins-nuclear-challenge.html

err we need to fire up the nuclear power plants NOW or well be screwed later when we cant use fossil fuels

just crack on and build them tony

yep - french have got the right idea with this one - why do we place so much reliance on fuel that isnt stable in price nor is from particularly stable parts of the world.

Less gas power stations more nuclear ones tbh... + some more investment in hydrogen fuel cells in cars and alternative energy sources. - Were surrounded by water and weve got a fair few open bits of wind swept countryside in wales and scotland - lets make use of it tbh...

Beats the conversation over here, which is one of whether climate change is a left wing made up conspiracy or not. Its truly sad.

Britain has a good amount of resources already. Wouldnt a push for energy efficiency do just as much good as opening another nuke plant?

There are so many other technologies that are cleaner and worth exploring, that could work in tandem to ensure energy independence. That said, if a really sound method for disposing of nuke waste is found--its a pretty impressive way to make some kilowatts.

Id support the construction of new Nuclear power stations obviously partnered with other types of energy sources and not solely relying on Nuclear energy.

Quote from: Binary Shadowerr we need to fire up the nuclear power plants NOW or well be screwed later when we cant use fossil fuels

just crack on and build them tony

QuoteIt takes 10 years to build a nuclear power station so they certainly wont help in the short term either. it costs at least Ã,£1.7 billion to build one so they arent cheap either. Hard nosed businessmen wont invest unless they get a *guaranteed* return on that. There is only one being constructed ATM and that is massively over its original construction costs.

They are expected to process and store the waste responsibly, in order to do this they have to put a lot of money away which means less profits for the investors.

Basically unless the government seriously changes its tune nobody will invest the money needed so you wont get any nuclear power plants built at all.

Renewables are already being constructed and putting energy into the system, they may not make enough difference, and they have their own problems, but they may be the only option for at least the short term.

Really it all just shows that TB and friends havent been doing their maths work. For nuclear power, read another channel tunnel white elephant. The only one being built in Europe ATM is over budget and the timetable is shot to hell...

Even if it could be done on time and on budget its a medium term solution that will produce real problems in waste storage.

lets face it we have tried wind farms and solar and its just not good enough we need some nukes till we find something else, no CO2 with nukes

as for the waste read recently that a bunch of scientists have shown its safe to bury it underground in certain places

you can hardly say we have tried wind farms and solar when the investment in those fields has been near nothing in comparison to that of the rest of our supplies.

Whilst we do need a quick short term solution the need for more long term investment into more practical efficiency techniques and renewable energy is equally important if not more so

break out the nuclear fusion cant be too long to go for that to kick off

will be a while off, as they are still building the first practical one to test with

yeah but surely a few fission reactors can tie us over

Actually we can already build fusion reactors. The current problem is that they can either run at full power, producing loads of energy for maybe a couple of seconds at a time, or they can tick over, producing just enough energy to keep going for as long as we can be bothered to run it. The challenge is getting it to run indefinitely at a higher power output.

Oh, and Britain a pretty much the world leaders in nuclear fusion

fission reactors will take ten years to construct and last 50-60 beyond that. The reserves of fuel needed will be drained more quickly, we just dont know how much is left. The waste will be around for thousands of years.

Dont think that nuclear is carbon neutral either, you have to build the plant, mine the ore, extract the fuel, transport it around the world and then put it somewhere safe for posterity.

Nuclear fusion, if everything goes to plan, may be an option in sixty years, or it may fail completely.

Im sure that if we spent fifty billion on renewable fuel sources we might have a suitable alternative option by now.

every single person in the country moans and campaigns against having turbines anywhere near where they live so i cant see that well ever get renewable energy off the ground, not really enough sun for solar panels either