This is an interesting point - nuclear power, despite the problem of waste, IS superficially far more environmentally friendly than Coal / solid-fuelled power station, and slightly more environmentally friendly than natural gas (ignoring the fact that natural gas will run out pretty soon).

It's also - depending VERY much on your point of view - more friendly than Hydro-power, though potentially not if you consider all the possible enviromental factors (like silting, loss of habitat, etc. - see the Great Gorges Dam in China for the worst possible long term impact.)

If someone found a long-term way of getting rid of nuclear waste, and the safety of the stations could be guaranteed (e.g. no more Chernobyls) then it's actually pretty future-proof.

Personally I think we could do with a few more wind farms. These people who say they're ugly and noisy do piss me off - would they rather have a nuclear power station in their back garden?? I'd volunteer my back yard for a windmill any day.

[quote=G@v]So while its all well and good (I used to sit on this side of the fence) if it isn't achievable in time, then its not viable.[/quote]

But then surely it's going to be far easier to get some new wind farms built, despite all these regulations, than a new nuclear power station? I can imagine the public resistance to Nuclear power being far greater.

yes, but 1 station can full 1/14th of the countries needs.
1 wind farm (or an average 6 turbines) cant even scratch the surface