Neil, I am not going to rehash what James has said as he covered it pretty well but I will supplement it.
Nuclear is costly?
The Economics of Nuclear Power
Only compared to coal and don’t even talk about solar, it is not in the ballpark.
PV panels are only good for about 20-30 years whereas nuclear plants are 40-60. Wind Turbines do not have an infinite life either.
England is on the warm side of the Atlantic, good portions of China don’t get snow and we have seen how warm Beijing was during the Olympics. Solar is a good technology for certain regions and is terrible in others. Solar power isn’t going to power our industries.
I don’t disagree with what renewables can do but you still seem totally resistant to recognise any of their limitations. Where I live peak demand comes in the winter not the summer. Mid December we get about 8 hours of low intensity sunlight that gives us daily highs averaging -20C. Solar is a total waste of time where I live. When it hits -40C for a week on end, the power must be there when you need it, PERIOD.
As others have pointed out Nuclear puts out less radiation than coal. Obviously radiation is not an issue. Safety is not an issue either. The only legitimate argument that the anti-nuclear crowd can stand on is the waste. Plutonium is a fuel and can be reused. I don’t know if the High school Gym reference stated earlier is correct, but it is not off by more than a factor of ten, which is really small. Like renewable technology, nuclear technology is progressing as well. Look into Breeder reactors and thorium reactors, fission still holds much potential.
Why do you oppose a technology that we have today, that works, is a reasonable cost and has a low environmental impact and doesn’t require us to re-engineer our society to implement it?