UK energy review: Is it green enough?

Energy efficient homes and increased use of renewable fuels should play a key part in the UK's energy policy, according to a new report.

But the review of the nation's future energy prospects leaves open the controversial question of nuclear fuels, raising concerns among environmental groups.

The report by the Cabinet Office Performance and Innovation Unit (PIU) says greater efficiency is the cheapest way of keeping security of supply and meeting climate change targets.

The UK's existing target is for 10% of electricity to come from renewable sources by 2010. The report recommends that renewables should be supplying 20% of the UK's electricity by 2020 - which could add about 5-6% to domestic electricity bills

Do you agree with the PIU's energy proposals? What does the future hold for nuclear energy?

---

This Talking Point has now closed. Read a selection of your comments below.

What is 'Green' energy? Wave power involves putting massive structures in to the sea, wind power involves putting structures in predominate positions on the land, (or maybe at sea), hydro-power involves flooding vast areas of land, and solar power involves putting ugly structures on land. No matter what form of power is used something is going to be polluted and someone is going to complain.
PhilT, Oman

Barry Archer (below) is entirely correct. Some years ago we did a study which indicated that the total energy expended in producing, siting and maintaining the equipment and infrastructure for a windfarm is GREATER than the energy put back into the system by wind driven generators during their expected working life. The only way this system becomes energy efficient is if the generating machinery was originally intended for other purposes and has been given a new lease of life in this role after being pensioned off from its original task. In fact it was pretty much from such humble beginnings that the modern wind generator originated. But when all the associated production and hidden energy inputs are considered, the purpose built windfarm ultimately uses more energy than it usefully converts back into electricity. In short, the equation doesn't work because using currently available production methods, materials etc. you end up with a negative value on the output end! Unfortunately for those who pour many millions into financing such projects, this rather depressing fact is invariably either overlooked, unresearched, or carefully avoided.
Chris B, England

Hydrogen and nuclear fuels alone can provide the energy we need without global warming

Barry Archer, England

The government's programme is nonsense. Windfarms and tidal generators use massive amounts of energy in manufacture which they can hardly recoup in use. Hydrogen and nuclear fuels alone can provide the energy we need without global warming.
Barry Archer, England

I'm not sure whether nuclear power is a good or bad thing but I find it heartening that everyone here appears to have accepted that cuts in CO2 emissions are the way forward. I just wish George Bush did too.
James Davey, UK

And how many power stations could we decommission if all the PCs in the country were switched off when not in use, instead of leaving them on standby? Not to mention all the TVs, videos and security lights to indicate that a cat is in the area. If we also think about how the power is used/wasted as well as how it is generated we may get somewhere. How much could we save if we only used what we needed?
Kevin, UK

I'm all for progress but there will be a price (and I am not talking about electricity bills). Will people be viewing wind power with the same rose tinted spectacles when turbines start appearing in droves in our national parks and other valued parts of the countryside?
Mark, UK

Not a problem for us but a problem for the future generations

Paul Gleave, UK

Nuclear energy may not produce any immediate emissions of pollution, but the eventual waste products, with a half-life of 100 years or so, means that the buried waste remains a threat for a few centuries until the radioactivity is at such a level to be deemed safe. Not a problem for us but a problem for the future generations who will have to continue to deal with this waste long after we're gone.
Paul Gleave, UK

Nuclear energy is the greenest source of power that we have. To all the people who scaremonger about nuclear waste, I can tell you that the solution is political not technical. And to anybody who says "oh what about Chernobyl". It wouldn't happen here, simply because the design of reactor used had an inherent design flaw (this was pointed out in the 70s), which does not exist in western designs. Some facts and figures. At the moment wind turbines generate around 0.33% of our electricity. Each wind turbine generates about 2 MW of electricity. And they have a load factor of 30%, which means that you have to build three times as many to get the same amount of power. If you commissioned one every day from now until the year 2020, you would be able to meet 10% of electricity. Not to mention the huge cost in the national grid to implement it. Like it or not, nuclear is the only option.
Calum, UK

The US Government approach to the environment is nothing short of shameful, but what we choose to do as individuals can drive business to make the technology investments for our future. Look at efficiency when making any purchase. Do you have solar on your roof? I do.
Chris, USA

They should not allow the building of more nuclear power stations. They do not know how to decommission the existing Magnox power stations that are being closed down. The nuclear industry cannot even permanently and safely store the bi-products from reprocessing i.e. plutonium (which can only be used for weapons). Transporting spent nuclear fuel across the country is also an environmental accident waiting to happen. The Government do not go far enough to make this energy review as green as it should be.
Linda Hayes, England

Just because the US isn't doing it, that shouldn't stop us from moving ahead

Andy, London, UK

It's a start. But we could produce all our energy by renewable means: waves and wind power. Just because the US isn't doing it, that shouldn't stop us from moving ahead. Fossil fuels will run out. Let's start doing something about it now, so we're not stuffed when they do.
Andy, London, UK

The UK needs to start a power shift, away from yesterday's technology and on to the next century's. The drive to use renewables is welcome, as technology will develop in leaps and bounds in the coming years (it has already over the last 30) to provide us with environmentally friendly power harnessed from the elements - it works - other countries are starting to lead the way, the PIU report goes some way to addressing that to make the UK a global leader. The people arguing for nuclear are the same type that argued a hundred years ago that streetlamps would always be powered by gas. Look at the expensive legacy of industrial sites that left us with! Time to make the UK more competitive with a shift over the next century to renewable fuels.
Emyr, UK

Where does nuclear fuel come from geographically? Plutonium, uranium or whatever. As far as the US goes I would like to see a decrease in our dependency on foreign resources. However, if nuclear fuel comes from a country other than ours, can the government deal any differently than it does now (i.e. by not upsetting billions of people). If I knew that nuclear fuel would decrease our need for foreign resources and possibly stabilise our relations with those countries, the risk of damaging my own country is something that I could live with instead of damaging other countries.
Michael, USA

Memories of Three Mile Island and Chernobyl seem to have faded rather rapidly

Julian Hayward, UK

Nuclear power, as pointed out, is fine when it works. Unfortunately, when it goes wrong it is catastrophic - memories of Three Mile Island and Chernobyl seem to have faded rather rapidly. We also haven't worked out what to do with the waste, other than dump it in holes and pray that it doesn't leak into the water table. We also haven't managed to make sure that the material doesn't fall into the wrong hands - the "documentary errors" at Sellafield prove that the monitoring controls are woefully inadequate.
Julian Hayward, UK

We can look in wonder at the PIU's proposals for energy efficiency until we're blue in the face. Until everyone, that means all countries including the USA, takes this issue to heart we're not going to get anywhere. I once viewed "green" people with suspicion. Now, I think they could save the earth from the industrial cancer we're giving it, if we sit up and look at how we use energy. Certainly, nuclear power is a much cleaner power than coal or gas, as long as it's handled properly.
Rob Morris, UK

There are only two sources of electricity that are able to produce reliable power on the scale that is required in the UK without also producing greenhouse gases: nuclear and tidal. The only decision to be made is the ratio between those two. So why the procrastination?
Brian W, UK

To Anthony. Will you keep the nuclear waste in your back garden then? Or have you got another idea for safely getting rid of it which every scientist working in the nuclear industry has so far missed?
Martyn, UK

To all the green people. Nuclear power is by far and away the greenest power we have. We'd be better off building new nuclear power stations to replace fossil fuels, but gosh, that's not politically correct, is it?
Antony, UK

There are practical problems with the after effects of nuclear power

Rob, Birmingham, UK

The reality is a little more complicated than you lot are making out. Many forms of energy generation - wind, solar, biomass - are required for redundancy. If farmers are hard up, pay them to grow crops that can then be turned into fuel (it happens elsewhere where the oil companies are not running the show). More importantly domestic and particularly industrial users should be encouraged or forced to use less energy. As for Antony, is it OK if we bury nuclear waste in your garden? Or perhaps near where your children play? This is not political correctness, there are practical problems with the after effects of nuclear power.
Rob, Birmingham, UK

Our present economic paradigm is driving us into the ground. An example of this is the car - a deplorable perversion which wastes vast resources and poisons the environment with its waste products. Why has the internal combustion engine remained unchanged for over a century? Because it keeps many other industries afloat. Being green means giving stuff up for good, being less comfortable, and re-evaluating the direction in which our desires are taking us. Grim stuff, huh?
Alex, UK

Nuclear power is the only feasible source of long-term energy for the future. Coal is dirty and unhealthy, wind power is an expensive joke and oil will be far too expensive to burn within a few decades. Yes, nuclear power gets a few idiots excited, but if they weren't ranting about nukes, they'd just be ranting about something else.
Jon Livesey, USA

Assuming the government is going to carry on using nuclear power and not tide and wind, I would like a MOX plant deep under ground and far away from any where else and hopefully, eventually get rid of all the spent fuel dumps, but it is much cheaper to put the waste under ground and forget it so I don't think it will operate for very long any way.
Steve, Scotland

How many people have died in the coal mines, hundreds. None have died in nuclear power stations,
Leonard Charles, UK

To Leonard Charles: Haven't you ever heard of Chernobyl?
Aftab Ali, London, UK

Lots of other countries have nuclear plants and dispose of nuclear waste in environmentally unfriendly ways, so why should we stop.
Andrew, UK