At present the World needs to do everything it can to reduce CO2 emissions. Environmentalists are actually creating problems for our future generations with their opposition to nuclear power which is not based on facts. Every nuclear power station built will contribute to reducing CO2 emmissions.

Dan, Scarborough, UK

Since when has nuclear power been considered unsafe? "Environmentalists" should love nuclear power. It's clean burning produces very little waste. Has a track record of being safe and reliable. Oh wait, that's in France. In the US nuclear power is .. oh yeah, the same thing.

J. Kaltz, Greenwood, Greenwood

Sir. Congratulations.
I never had to be converted to nuclear but always appreciated its risks.
If it were not for the green movement, advances would have been made even quicker.
Chernobyl was a stupid human error which will hopefully never be repeated.

Dave, Peterlee, UK

I didn't think I'd ever say this to Mark Lynas but; Good for you for standing up against the bullies. I hope this change of heart doesn't ruin you.

G Gaskell, Flint , USA

If we do not turn to nuclear power soon we will all be in the dark and cold. I live within 20 miles of a duel nuclear plant, and the Savannah River Site in South Caroling. It is one of the largest nuclear research sites in the U.S. We have no problems with either.

G.L. Vahrenwald, Augusta, GA

Need nuclear & renewables. Renewables are useless without storage esp if connected to the grid. Power stored as clean sustainable hydrogen - ITM Power have uniquely publicly demonstrated an application of their low cost materials & manufacturing tech in home/ bus & transport infrastructure.

Charles Purkess, Malmesbury,

I would be interested in Mark's position on the often quoted 50 years of uranium resources based on the current nuclear fleet usage. If we expand the nuclear reactor fleet , this will mean that we will run out of fuel before the reactors have reached the end of their working lives.

Hugh , Sydney,

My scientific training has convinced me that perfected nuclear fission that available, is all based on GENIII+ reactors.

They are essentially "melt-down" proof now, and can walkaway from them and unattended ,they will shut themselves down. "Actinide Burning" will remove waste, permanently.

Stas Peterson, scottsdale, USA

Mark has made the classic mistake of actually trying to solve what he believes is an environmental problem. Admirable. However, this position is an anathema to Green because it removes the motivation for their actual goal; to diminish civilization.

Peter, Seattle, USA

For M Vandermeer: have you seen Patrick Moore's book on nuclear (he's a founder of Greenpeace about 30 or more years ago)?

A slightly off topic comment: how did we get to the place where we savage each other for having different views, where we can't talk with each other, in a friendly manner?

Tom, Washington DC, USA

"These are just two examples of eco-myths: there are many more. If only we were allowed to discuss them without being flayed for heresy."

Ditto with the global warm-mongers

Robert Robertson, Manchester,

Going against what "everybody knows" and to select scientific truth over popular opinion takes courage. It's very sad that it has to be that way, but the ignorance of those that want to believe in something must not be underestimated. Lynas is to be commended for his bravery.

Michael Karnerfors, Lund, Sweden

In the words of Goethe. "Doubt grows with knowledge." Let's see, there's DDT, chlorine, CO2 to bone up on and that's just for starters. Dear me where will it all end?

GeoS, Oxford, England

Concentrating Solar Power in the Sahara? How, pray tell, are you going to wash them off every 10-20 days as they have to do in California solar farms? We're talking about tens of thousands of square miles of solar collectors, in a desert. Scaling up does not always work. Wishing won't make it so.

Tom Blees, Davis, United States

The real lesson to emerge from this sorry story is that now Mark Lynas is perhaps beginning to glean some understanding of what true Greenie-ism is all about. Perhaps he could investigate other greenie 'scams' - followed by accompanying Damascene conversions.

PVG, Wellington, NZ

The only correct way forward is to stop using all resources for energy, because they are finite. If you want your future generations to live then adopt renewables in the UK and help the EU to build links to Concentrating Solar Power in the Sahara.

Dr. Peter Foreman, FIEE., Chelmsford, UK

Jan Haverkamp, please stay out of this. Greenpeace has been spreading nonsense for decades as well as frolicking around the oceans in diesel ships. Nuclear is a truly viable option. Maybe we should take our example from France - build a sustainable power infrastructure, and sink a few ships!

Nik, Preston, England

What a pity there are not more Green party members with the foresight of Mark Lynas. Professor Lovelock led the way when he made his views clear on nuclear energy. The Green party and other anti nuclear voices have played their part in the stagnation of nuclear development in this country.

Heather sparks, Manchester,

What annoys me more than the 'pro-nuclear lobby' or the 'Greens' are people who cannot get their facts right. Let us be clear: fast breeder reactors produce highly dangerous nuclear waste. The facts are here:
www.abc.net.au/science/expert/rea

Neil Murchison, Edinburgh,

Fighting against nuclear fission is - de facto - fighting for fossil fuels. No matter how optimistic one is about wind and solar power, facts expose those sources as unreliable and land intensive.
Nuclear power is the only alternative energy that has captured market share from fossil fuel.

Rod Adams, Annapolis, United States/Maryland

11$ bid for the Green card, only if it enables me to work in the USA and if the expiration date is AFTER climate tipping point.

Jean Demesure, Bordeaux, France

Does anybody have advice on how to reach out to "greens" and the general public to rationally discuss the new nuclear options without being "flayed" for heresy?
My experience is similar to Mark's.
Any websites, books, or other resources that could help me penetrate people's predjudices?

M Vandermeer, vancouver, canada

"the Green case against nuclear power is based largely on myth and dogma." Ditto Globalwarmism.

But for Ecofascists, the UK and other countries could be 85% nuclear by now like France.

Let's hope for more "Damascene conversions" before the Globalwarmists drive us back into a pre-industrial age.

John Bowman, Sarlat, France

"It is just evil. Full stop."

There you go again! All people who oppose nuclear power do it for irrational reasons (Amory Lovins ring a bell?). James Hansen said there's less than ten years to get things turned around. The lowly AP1000 will take ten years to build! Breeders in . . .?

Wake up!!

Dennis, Lincoln, Nebraska

David writes: "<i>...what to do with the waste; the effects of radioactivity on biospheres; and the potential for misuse as weaponry."</i>

David, these issues are dealt with quite satisfactorily in Prescription for the Planet. Not yet available at Amazon UK, but you can get it from Amazon USA.

Tom Blees, Davis, United States

I think that all of the worthwhile "renewable" alternataves are great and deserve exploitation ..but..I fear they will perhaps just keep up with the increase in demand. It has been clear to me for decades that fast-breeder reactors are the only hope.

bob aitken, durango, usa

Mark:

I bid $10 for your Green Party card. I'll even pay the postage to the States! Assuming you still accept dollars....

Nancy, Washington DC, United States

Nuclear power is absolutely essential to combat global warming. It is a tragedy that so few Greens are willing to admit this. Congratulations to Mark for having the courage to defy their orthodoxy.

Rowan, Hereford,

If you are really interested in "saving the planet" why not address the disease and not the symptoms??
Population growth is the real menace. We are too many consumers of energy, water, food etc for a substainable future taking the long term view.

Bryan McHugh, Gothenburg, Sweden

"Mark - no dogmatism. Nuclear cannot deliver".

That says it all, really. Greenpeace accuses anyone who argues against its dogma of being dogmatic. And its own argument? A flat, quintessentially dogmatic "Nuclear cannot deliver". Jan, you just lost Greenpeace at least one member.

Tom Welsh, Basingstoke,

@Jan Havercamp , @David:

Breeder reactors have been successfully demonstrated atleast a dozen times, in several countries. They eat nuclear waste and produce electricity. A developing country like India has a first class breeder reactor program. Read the book of Tom Blees.

vakibs, Hyderabad, India

Mark - no dogmatism. Nuclear cannot deliver. Breeder and HTR (4th Gen) pilot projects are not exactly a success story (in contrary). Your IAEA/WHO report has been appologised for by the IAEA - the GP number of 60.000 is based on a wealth of peer reviewed literature. Stop spreading nonsense, please.

Jan Haverkamp - Greenpeace, Prague, Czech Republic

There are only three issues with nclear power: what to do with the waste; the effects of radioactivity on biospheres; and the potential for misuse as weaponry. The first two outweigh all of the positives.

Show me a way to permanently dispose of waste in a reliably safe manner. Ensure that it has no

David, Birmingham ,

The prdjudice you encountered is not unique to nuclear energy. Much of the 'green' movement is based on a fear of science - the frankenstein myth - moreso than an honest appraisal of alternatives. It is hard to distinguish the true eco minded from the crowds of luddites swamping the movement.

Stephen Poniatowski, Tampa, USA

Greenpeace has long resorted to gross misrepresentation and outright fantasy in it's claims.
It also has no hesitation in resorting to fascist attempts at intimidation.
The power will go out in Britain shortly,and they have contributed to that just as they have to CO2 emissions by nuclear prejudice

David Martin, Bristol, UK