Revelations by an IEA senior official indicate a nuclear Britain is inevitable and necessary.

There has been significant controversy about the recently revealed plans for ten nuclear power stations in UK, but in light of recent figures, it would seem that a nuclear Britain is necessary and unavoidable.

A whistleblower at the International Energy Agency has claimed that their statistics are played down under pressure from the US to avoid panic-buying. Statistics from the UK Energy Research Centre claim that oil supplies will decline by 2020. In light of this, it would seem that if Britain wants to maintain its current way of life, the plans to build 10 nuclear power stations are not negotiable.

Revelations by an IEA senior official indicate a nuclear Britain is inevitable and necessary.

Yes because... No because...

Even if oil has not peaked, it is a FINITE fuel.

Even those who don't believe that the IEA have moderated their statistics to appease the US know that oil is a finite fuel. The debate is simply over exactly when oil will run out. If we know that it will run out, it is surely better to put other energy source options into place sooner rather than later. This whistleblowing simply shows that the plans for the ten nuclear stations are simply a case of too little, too late.
Shadow climate change and energy secretary Greg Clark said, "Every one of the measures contained in this statement should have been brought forward 10 years ago when they had the chance to secure the investments that are so desperately needed to keep the lights on, keep prices down and cut carbon emissions."

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/279153
Scientists have found a way to make hydrocarbons - if we can channel more money into funding this sort of research, then we can find a way to make crude oil sustainable.

Revelations by an IEA senior official indicate a nuclear Britain is inevitable and necessary.

Yes because... No because...

Nuclear may be dangerous, but so is climate change.

When people think about the dangers of nuclear power, they think about the possibility of a terrible accident. While one would never want to be blase about these things, the dangers of climate change are also imminent and occurring right now. A nuclear accident is is tragic and immediate. However, there are millions are losing lives to climate change daily and there are many consequences that we don't even know about yet. However, flooding and changes in the environment are just as manmade as nuclear accidents, but they are regarded more as "natural disasters" because they often affect people we don't see.

If we run out of oil and have no back up plan whilst poorer countries in different parts of the world are suffering from climate change caused by the industrialisation of the West, then we will really be in trouble.

They have not planned how they will deal with the waste, which remains active for thousands of years. The plan has been hastily pushed through and the basic structures of the plants are not safe. It is the equivalent to placing these dangers on people's doorsteps without consulting them.

Revelations by an IEA senior official indicate a nuclear Britain is inevitable and necessary.

Yes because... No because...

Making a decision on these plans within a year is undemocratic.

locals can be easily wooed by the high-salaried low-skill-requirement jobs they will get at nuclear power plants. [[The Simpsons]]

Locals claim they are unaware of the plans and have not been consulted. To build these nuclear stations, the people should have some say in it. Many are concerned that it will affect the nature of their local area, possibly destroying it forever.

Debates > Revelations by an IEA senior official indicate a nuclear Britain is inevitable and necessary.