Your browser is no longer supported

For the best possible experience using our website we recommend you upgrade to a newer version or another browser.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, for example so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

Lesser of two evils


Of course we should be expanding renewable energy sources with urgency and vigour, but not even the most ardent supporters of this policy claim that it can possibly meet more than a fraction of our needs in the foreseeable future.

So what is to fill the shortfall - gas at the end of vulnerable pipelines and shipping routes from some of the most politically unstable parts of the world?

Surely it is right to weigh the very real problems, dangers and costs of nuclear power against the possibly even greater drawbacks of the alternatives?

Even if we stopped generating nuclear power tomorrow, the legacy of past generation, not least the stockpile of radioactive waste, will not go away. Whether we like it or not, a nuclear industry is now a permanent fixture and it will need dedicated, skilled engineers to run it. How can we hope to attract enthusiastic engineers to an industry perceived to be 'dead'?

Patrick Schicker (M), patrick.

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions. Please note comments made online may also be published in the print edition of New Civil Engineer. Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.