Greenpeace on the roof

it also takes an awful lot of carbon (concrete) to build and decommission nuclear fission plants, and to store the waste.

and to claim nuclear fusion is the future is hedging our bets on a technology that doesn't currently work that well. scientists are only able to get out more energy than they put in for a short amount of time (read: seconds).

i don't see what is wrong with developing existing renewables.
**
would wind, wave, solar, tidal, and hydro-electric on a massive scale in the UK be able to meet all of our energy needs?**

The technology used in fission has greatly improved meaning that lots of the waste can be reused now.

I listened to a interesting interview a while ago on this very subject. Some physicist out of curiosity did about of energy accountancy effectively and wrote a book in the end. Unfortunately I can't remember the name of the book.

He calculated stuff like how many wind turbines we would need at current usage who many this how much that e.t.c.

He concluded that we need some significant nuclear input to achieve our energy aims.

It is worrying that this seems not to have been done, the government seem to hit blindly in the dark at this problem rather than have a defined goal and how to achieve that goal they seem a bit like underpants gnomes.