I think the risks are pretty well understood and are minimal. A Chernobyl won’t happen with modern reactors (or even any the UK has used).
The designs we use are, for example, designed to need supervision to run rather than supervision to stop and won’t let you do such stupid things to them.
Emergency procedures are also far more developed with the ability to shut down a reactor if the slightest thing looks wrong.

The CO2 argument is a complete canard – everything will cost CO2 to build and maintain. It also doesn’t take into account other environmental and human factors like those associated with biofuel.
Costing carbon emissions or trading emissions is probably the best way to work out what’s most effective.

Decommissioning of new reactors will be easier and cheaper as well, we’ve learned a lot through the decommissioning of old reactors. I do object to government being last resort here though – every station should perhaps have insurance to cover decommissioning costs in the event of the company not having enough money (or perhaps decommissioning assurance?)

Transmission loss is often brought up – but recent experience shows that wind power is not effective in most local settings, so you need large remote farms. Solar may be effective locally, and I think it will become more so in the near future.
Ironically, nuclear may become a local energy form with the development of small sealed reactors for energy production in remote areas.

My central problem with the current nuclear plans is they’re centrally directed. Bringing things into the realm of politics like this distorts things so much its not clear what the advantages and disadvantages are.
Like you I also don’t trust the government when it says no subsidies will be needed… (I also don’t agree with subsidy for renewables either though – its the same distortionary effect which could end up wasting lots of money and delaying the production of better solutions)

On a windless, cloudy day with the moon at it’s quarter (neap tides) we have significantly reduced power generation from all current renewable sources.

We need a basic level of power generation that is consistent and not dependent on the vagaries of nature.

Currently I see only 2 sources available to us; Fossil fuels and fission.

Fossil fuels throw masses of CO2 into the atmosphere. Nuclear throws nothing. Disposing of the fuel in nuclear is an issues, but then finding fuel in the first place is an issue for fossil power plants.

In the future we might have orbital solar farms that can beam energy by microwave to the earth in any weather but that is decades (a century?) away at best.

Until then it’s a choice between increasing CO2 in our atmosphere from quickly diminishing fuel reserves or using nuclear power.

Not the best of choices… but I can’t see how we can turn our back on nuclear power.

Oh.. and Steve… you’ve not answered #3′s question. Name a country please.

Really? Which ones Steve? Which countries are using renewables to replace their base power requirements successfully.

I defy you to name one.

DK

Apart from coming producing power late, the troubles with nuclear power are:

1. Nobody knows how safe/dangerous nuclear power is as compared to other forms of generation. The proper calulation/analysis of risk over the whole life of the plants and their waste can be done to a rough approximation; but never has been properly done. I suspect both supporters and opponents of nuclear power are frightened of what the results might be.
2. Equally, there are no thorough and properly checked costings (neither in cash nor in carbon equivalents) of nuclear power as compared to the equivalents over the whole life of the plants and their waste. I suspect that the nuclear supporters are frightened of these calculations; quite possibly needlessly frightened.

Until the government has come forward with checkable authoritative calculations on these counts, we have no grounds for thinking that they know what they are talking about. Given the record of economy with the truth in past Labour and Conservative government statements on nuclear policy, and given New Labour’s ten year record of deciding first and finding out what is wrong with the policies afterwards, how can any reasonable person accept John Hutton’s emotional conversion to the “nuclear faith” as a sensible base for national or international policy? Still less can we accept that there really is no hidden subsidy from public funds.