So I took a look at this website:
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/128

which has an intriguing debate about the pros and cons of nuclear power.

The heart of the issue is: it all depends on how you add up the figures. On the one side, nuclear power is clearly massively expensive, because it gets huge public subsidies, far in excess of what is given to renewable energy sources.

On the other hand, a Belgian study factored in the REAL cost of burning fossil fuels with all the related environmental damage; and concluded that nuclear is cheaper than coal.

So which is true? Well, it's impossible to say, of course, without spending months studying all the figures at first hand; but it's an argument to give us and me pause for thought.

The other issue is the disposal of nuclear waste, which is now done by tried-and-tested means. I have to admit that the very idea of all that nuclear waste piling up bothers the hell out of me. But it's true that there have been more oil refinery disasers and oil spills than there have ever been radioactive leaks. (Though would you eat fish that swim near Windscale? Hmm. Sorry, cheap point!)

The third issue can be stated in a word: Chernobyl.

My school in Wales was built next to a BP chemical works, and we spent our teen years wondering if we were going to be blown up. Once, there was a chemical leak which stripped the car off the paint of the teachers' cars in the car park. (Just to reassure us further, we were advised by our chemistry teacher that the plant used the same processes as Flixborough.)

But a chemical plant blowing up is one thing; a nuclear plant catastrophe is a whole other ball game. It doesn't matter how safe things are; nothing is totally safe. (I wrote a radio play, BLAME, about nuclear safety, and was haunted at how easily human errors come into play. Bhopal was one of my case studies.)

However, one intriguing thing about the debate on the link above though is how much the two interlocutors agree that a) global warming has to be averted and b) global warming CAN be averted, by doing all the things they suggest, which no one in the world seems to be doing. A massive growth in nuclear power, and solar power, and other renewable forms of power, could tip the balance. But is that happening? There are plans for a Severn Barrage to generate wave power, but doubt is now being cast on its viability, and desirability.

So are we being seduced into wallowing in liberal guilt, instead of funding genuine solutions? Debate!

Anyway, I need to stop chewing on this bone - thanks, Simon, for challenging me. I still plan to spend my twilight years living in a Dyson Jewel, with my own personal rocket for trips around the solar system, and with a robot butler to do the cleaning for me.

I've read newspaper accounts about fission energy which cast doubt on the accounting systems used to justify the efficacy of nuclear power. And also scary stories about near misses on the safety front. But I'm working from secondary sources, so I'm not going to allege I know what I'm talking about here.

Is nuclear energy truly cleaner and cheaper than wind power?

Will check out those references. Thanks for the contribution to the debate.

We have more than 450 nuclear power station around the world. Reserver for 800,000 years if we use the uranium in sea water, ways of recycling the "waste", more and more country starting new power plant projects, no pollution emission, yes we have radioactive material to take care of and we know how. It cost 5x less than wind farm for the same power output...

We have to remove our head from the sand and understand that nuclear power is the SOLUTION until we figure how to do clean fusion.

Want to know more and understand the benefits of nuclear, listen to Rod Adams Atomic Show and John Wheeler, This Week in Nuclear. Both nuclear engineers.