Nature Chemistry | The Sceptical Chymist

Go nuclear?

This is my first post…it’s all very exciting…so here goes! Has anyone been listening to crusading environmental chemist Jim Lovelock recently?

Bizarrely I fell asleep to his voice on Sunday night then woke up to it again in the morning (on Radio 4 of course). Lovelock strongly believes that nuclear is the only viable energy option for the future, because climate change is ‘past the point of no return’ and renewable energy is underdeveloped. Read a Times review of his latest (and rather pessimistic) book and find out why he says wind farms aren’t green.

Five ways to save the world on BBC2 Monday night presented high tech solutions to climate change. What do people think about these ideas, or about nuclear power for that matter?


Samia Mantoura (Intern, Nature Physical Sciences)


  1. Report this comment

    Mitch said:

    Nuclear is of course a very safe and reliable source of energy. There is enough Uranium to meet all our energy needs for at least the next 100 years and if reprocessing was allowed this could be extended even further. Nuclear isn’t the permanent solution, but it is a great transitory energy source until a more technologically advanced source of power is developed.