The problem with nuclear power is primarily the cost, historically nuclear power worked out about 7 times more expensive than conventional coal plants, and despite improvements in the cost, I am convinced that it is still not competitive with either wind, solar, hydro, or geothermal power.
It is fact that of all the nuclear plants actually started only half of them have been completed. The cost of nuclear accidents is astronomical and the risk factor is normally born by the government. There are only one or two countries that have the facilities to store the nuclear waste, basically 99% of the nuclear waste is in storage at the nuclear plants and often under less than ideal conditions.
The bottom line is it is silly idea.

Unless there are huge advances in technology nuke power should be on the back burner. There is plenty of energy coming from the sun but that is free and the our Corporate elites cannot own it.

Funny how this most important thread attracts so little comment.

chrisgaff1000.This story is not on the front page of the Telegraph, hence,it can't be important.

Get it right Arjay, I think you mean to say if it's not on the front page it has not happened.

According to historians, in the years immediately
after World War II, nuclear power was seen as the
energy resource of the future - one that would
provide electricity "too cheap to meter."

Today, nuclear reactors seem monuments to a god that
failed. Many of them are managerial, financial, or
engineering disasters.

The principal public fear according to the experts is
that a "meltdown" at a nuclear reactor could release a
plume of deadly radiation into the atmosphere, perhaps
before people in surrounding communities could be
warned and evacuated. Despite consistent assurances from
the industry that nuclear reactors are safe, opinion polls
show that the public is unconvinced - especially since
the serious nuclear accidents at places like Chernobyl
and others. (Actually, a nuclear accident of much
greater magnitude seems to have occurred near Kyshtym in
Russia in 1957, spreading radioactive debris over a wide area
which is now believed to be uninhabitable for centuries.
The full story of the disaster has never been told, but the
names of about 30 small towns in the region have disappeared from
Russian maps, and an elaborate system of canals has been
built, presumably to carry rivers and other water systems around
the contaminated areas).

Nuclear reactors produce notoriously hazardous wastes.
What is needed is a place that will safely contain the waste for
at least 10,000 years, which is long enough for most of it
to decay. The location of such a site is a ticklish political
problem, for the obvious reason that people are generally
unenthused about the prospect of having a radioactive dump in
their own neighbourhood. The disposal problem seems to be one
that has no technological fix.

I suspect that this problem will be with us for suite some
time yet.