Originally Posted by codprawn
Nuclear subsidy ceased in 1996.
The costs for decomissioning are way over the top - let's face it - disposal of a car these days is out of all proportion due to OTT environmental regs.
To give an idea of how little nuclear waste is allowed to escape not long ago nuclear contamination was detected on Windscale(nuke reprocessing plant) beach. the sensors went beserk - the actual cause of the "leak" turned out to be a luminous dial from a WWII bomber - not long ago people wore stuff like this on their wrists!!!
The Dead Sea is considered by many to have healing properties - as do many health spas etc - often the radioactivity of the water is over a 1,000 times higher than the waste they used to discharge before it was banned.
As to how the figures are calculated have a look at this.
Cod - not sure I understand the country guardian argument - if I understand it correctly then they are saying the true cost of generating power by wind is around 4.3p/kWh which is what I said (but through subsidy the producer effectively gets nearer to 9p/kWh). Although its hardly an independent source in any case.
As for nuclear energy safety being OTT. I think you will have to accept that IF we get new nuc power stations they will be just as tightly regulated and controlled and just as thoroughly decomissioned - otherwise they would never meet with public approval (regardless of whether that is right or wrong).
Cod - I think we are almost in violent agreement. I support much of the argument for nuclear. I can even be convinced that it would be worthwhile to subsidise it to reduce our carbon footprint. I just don't buy into your - I think windfarms are ugly and therefore I will find a way to justify my dislike on ecconomic grounds arguments. If you think they are ugly just say it.