Energy security has slipped down the list of challenges facing the UK, according to new research from EDF Energy. In an annual YouGov poll of over 4,000 people for the company, 59 per cent of people named energy as a challenge facing government, compared to 72 per cent the previous year. The respondents' greatest concerns were the economic situation, immigration and pensions.
However, when asked specifically about energy, 82 per cent said they were interested or very interested in where it would come from in future, and 90 per cent thought the UK should be self sufficient in energy.
The tracking poll found that since 2006 people's view of wind, gas and coal-fired generation had changed little, with wind still the most favoured source. However support for nuclear power had grown from 33 per cent to 44 per cent over the period. A growing number of people - up from 54 to 65 per cent since 2006, thought it should be part of the energy balance. Only 13 per cent disagreed with the statement, down from 20 per cent in 2006.
Vincent de Rivaz, EDF Energy chief executive, said:
"Our latest poll demonstrates the significant increase in support for low carbon, secure and affordable nuclear energy over the past four years and is a further indication of the wide consensus about the need for nuclear.
"Addressing climate change in ways which are most affordable for all energy consumers will be a key focus of the forthcoming Copenhagen Summit."
The company aims to build the UK's first new nuclear power stations at Hinkley Point in Somerset and Sizewell in Suffolk.
To browse over 1000 jobs in power generation and other utility sectors visit our dedicated jobs website.

Comment on this story

1. As a 65 year old grandmother I certainly would not support any nuclear new-build. I completely disapprove of the use of nuclear power in any form.

   Angela Smith | 19 November 2009, 10:51 AM

2. Why why why use nuclear when we are surrounded by water, have natural wind blowing most of the time, and sunshine with tons of energy. I will always protest against nuclear new build. What about all that waste, a delightful legacy for our future generations, or are people really that selfish and only think of themselves. It makes my blood boil (naturally)!

   Wendy Collier | 19 November 2009, 05:35 PM

3. Nuclear energy is the only viable alternative. We should get into the 21st century before it is too late.I an a 74 year old grandfather.

   James McKay | 20 November 2009, 11:14 AM

4. We should have been building new nuclear power stations ten years ago.

   Michael Charles Witts | 21 November 2009, 03:30 PM

5. Lets use all natural resources, wind sun and water first, if thats not enough, then use nuclear.

   Brian Jeffery Hayward | 22 November 2009, 03:37 PM

6. While I accept that we are world wide using the planets natural resources Nuclear Energy and Other man made system s are contributing to polution and planet erosion. The way forward must be to use natural resources such the wide, sun and tides to produce our energy needs. Cost should not be the single factor in such decisions planetr survival must be the first and foremost consideration.

   John Moules | 22 November 2009, 06:37 PM

7. What about hidro power there are many rivers around that could be used, one powerful river is the river Towy Carmarthenshire, from the llyn Brianne dam, the water power from this would drive anny turbine.

   Sidney Podbury | 22 November 2009, 06:57 PM

8. I totaly agree with Nuclear new-builds. I live by the sea but people are always protesting about building more wind farms at sea, wind farms on hills etc. I say build them and use the sun for solar power. These wont get built because of the NOT IN MY BACK YARD brigade. The only other real option is nuclear power. Its clean, safe and creates jobs here.

   Linda Trobe | 23 November 2009, 12:28 PM

9. Once the lights start going out, people will accept any alternative to being cold and hungry

   David Millar | 23 November 2009, 02:56 PM

10. It's all very well saying that there's enough power in renewables to run the country. Maybe there is if you don't mind wind turbines across every hilltop, hydro dams in any decent valley, and massive pylons to get the power from the remote areas where the opportunities exist to where it's needed. Rather more damage than a single site, wouldn't you say? Or you can include sources which give you control over the output, even if it's only used to take up the slack when the wind drops, it's night, and it's not rained recently. With a sensible approach, nuclear fuel can be reprocessed tens of times at least, to extract as much energy and leave as little in the spent fuel as possible. It'll still run out at some point, but it should give enough time to get a viable alternative to the stage where we can use it instead of talking about it.

    Alex Scott | 25 November 2009, 12:36 AM

11. Bravo for the Scottish Goverments stance against Nuclear power.if the south east of England wants this type of energy then build them in the south east, not near the Scottish border.

    jimmy banks | 29 November 2009, 03:08 PM

12. Nuclear - Absolutely NO!!
    Scptland doesn't need it and when the energy of the Pentland Firth is properly developed it will be able to supply more than twice the UK's total demand

    Sanny | 29 November 2009, 11:58 PM