Pat,

If you want to use that measure, then everything has some emissions in its cycle including wind, solar etc. And per unit of energy generated, nuclear is still the lowest. The amount of energy going into a 1MW wind generator and the long power connection is huge, and with a 20-25% average generation, it takes many years or decades to pay off.

As for waste, with reprocessing, the volume of waste is reduced, and what is left has only a tiny fraction of the radioactivity of the original waste.

This has been done very effectively in France.

As for "renewable" power, there is no commercially viable base load supply yet.

Considering the growth in power demand, to even meet the 5% reduction target by 2020 will either require nuclear power or a technology we presently don't possess.

Its a bit of a dead issue really. Some are blinded by the current political and social trends, it really has bypassed traditional scientific processes and become a religion. France may be closer than many countries to working out what to do with the waste, but they certainly havent discovered a safe method of disposal.
You make a valid point, that maybe the waste isnt as bad as it could be or used to be, but it remains radioactive for approximately 10 000 years. We dont know who will be in power or what condition the world will be in in 10 years time (economic crisis, climate change, wars etc.), but we are all of a sudden very confident that we can manage to safely store something so dangerous and toxic for 10 000 years.

Shuffling deckchairs on the Titanic...

Shadow Minister you didn't answer my questions about nuclear waste.

1) Is nuclear waste safe?

2) How much nuclear waste will be produced from these 6 nuclear plants?

3) Where will the waste be stored?

4) How will the waste be stored?

5) One extra question: For how long will the waste be stored?

These are precise questions, needing precise answers. So rather than a generalised overview on waste reduction, could you please answer the questions properly and fully please, one by one? Thank you.

Rudy,

Your questions are purile. The amount of waste is entirely dependent on the output, the design of the reactors, the reprocessing method, the reseeding technique etc.

Yes the radio activity of the waste can be reduced by a factor of 1000 so that it is nearly safe enough to be handled.

Perhaps you could answer these questions

Are the following safe:

The ash from coal (heavy metals)
The residue from copper or steel production

How much waste will be produced from the construction of wind turbines?
How, where, and how long will is this waste be stored?

By the time that the vast majority of the radio active isotopes are removed, the tiny quantity of low level waste is not nearly as environmentally toxic as the billions of tonnes of coal ash full of heavy metals such as lead, arsenic and cadmium.

If as predicted, the future generators can re use this waste, the 10 000 years will be a non issue.

Um yeah. *Rolls eyes, looks at watch, shuffles towards the door*... Smiles condescendingly at the simple one.

Insults are a poor substitute for an IQ