Ukraine Begins Work On Shelter To Cover Chernobyl Reactor

[News_Editor]

Ukraine begins work on shelter to cover Chernobyl reactor 2012-04-27 04:59:05 GMT+7 (ICT) PRIPYAT, UKRAINE (BNO NEWS) -- Ukraine on Thursday launched the construction of the so-called 'New Shelter' which will cover the fourth reactor at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant, which suffered a catastrophic explosion exactly 26 years ago.Thursday marked the 26th anniversary of the world's worst nuclear accident in history, killing thousands of people as a result of radioactive contamination. The Ukrainian government has worked for years to gather the required funds to build a huge shelter to cover the fourth reactor at Chernobyl, delaying the construction for more than seven years."The efforts to bring down the consequences rate of the Chornobyl nuclear disaster continues today," Ukrainian Prime Minister Mykola Azarov said on Thursday. "On the day of 26-year anniversary, works are being launched on the construction of the new safe confinement - a unique building which will cover the remains of the destroyed fourth power unit and transform the existing sarcophagus into an ecologically safe system."The construction of the facility, which will also allow the storage of spent nuclear fuel, is expected to be completed in 2015. It will cost some €990 million ($1.3 billion) to build the shelter. The main contributors, except Ukraine, are the European Union, the United States, Britain, Germany, Russia, France, Japan, Italy, Canada and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD).Also on Thursday, the Ukrainian government said it is considering whether to allow more activities in the so-called Chernobyl Exclusion Zone, an area covering a radius of 30 kilometers (18.6 miles) which remains evacuated due to the increased levels of radiation. The nuclear plant is located in this zone.Radiation in the zone remains too high for permanent residence and will likely remain so for decades to come, but falling radiation levels have allowed tourists to explore the zone in recent years. The zone has also become a haven for wildlife which has seemingly adapted to the radiation, causing existing populations to multiply and allowing species not seen there for decades to return.Volodymyr Kholosha, Head of the State Agency of Ukraine for the management of the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone, said Wednesday that most settlements just outside the exclusion zone may operate without restrictions. He said many areas just outside the zone have seen decreasing radioactive environmental contamination and an improved radiological situation due to natural processes and countermeasures aimed at reducing the radiation."Fortunately, the situation shows that in most of these settlements it is possible to live without any restrictions under the radiation factor and to be deal with socio-economic development of these areas. This is positive news," Kholosha said, responding to the results of a government investigation into the radioactive environmental contamination outside the exclusion zone.The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that some 50 emergency workers died of acute radiation syndrome, nine children died of thyroid cancer, and an estimated 3,940 emergency workers and residents of the most contaminated areas have or will eventually die of radiation-induced cancer and leukemia. The Chernobyl disaster contaminated more than 200,000 square kilometers (77,220 square miles) of Europe.

-- © BNO News All rights reserved 2012-04-27

[maidu]

A reminder to folks who continue to insist that nuclear is cheap - how wrong they are, when the big picture is looked at. For the years prior to the Fukushima problem, EGAT (Electricity Generation Authority of Thailand) was going full tilt towards nuclear for Thailand. Their web site on nuclear, spouted nothing but positive 'full speed ahead' laudatory text. It even had a claim that 'there are no greenhouse emissions' associated with nuclear power plants. It seems like a lewd joke (or a sick prank?) now, in the radioactive light of Chernobyl and Fukushima.

Though EGAT is quiet now about boosting nuclear for Thailand (hoping thoughts of drawbacks will fade from Thai peoples' short memory), EGAT still hasn't announced abandoning their plans for up to five nuclear plants for Thailand. Until they make such an announcement, we can assume they still have such plans. Be vigilant.

[Soutpeel]

Though EGAT is quiet now about boosting nuclear for Thailand (hoping thoughts of drawbacks will fade from Thai peoples' short memory), EGAT still hasn't announced abandoning their plans for up to five nuclear plants for Thailand. Until they make such an announcement, we can assume they still have such plans. Be vigilant.

And EGAT do decide to build some NPS, what you going to do about it ?....if you are so anti-nuclear....dont live near it then, if you are none Thai you dont have a say

[EarthAlien]

Though EGAT is quiet now about boosting nuclear for Thailand (hoping thoughts of drawbacks will fade from Thai peoples' short memory), EGAT still hasn't announced abandoning their plans for up to five nuclear plants for Thailand. Until they make such an announcement, we can assume they still have such plans. Be vigilant.

And EGAT do decide to build some NPS, what you going to do about it ?....if you are so anti-nuclear....dont live near it then, if you are none Thai you dont have a say

You evidently have been living here too long and/or been drinking too much of the Koolade. That is such a "Thai" statement of irrelevant "logic" that it typifies mainstream national "thinking".

Maidu has every right to comment just as we all do whether or not we live here despite not being Thai that does not detract from the actual relevance of taking a citizen's perspective especially if one does actually live here under whatever visa arrangement made necessary by a narcisistic, xenophobic and ignorant government (did I leave out "incompetent".... oh never mind) who's visa laws are archaiic to say the least.

Taking an interest in, and showing concern for a very much flawed and poorly conceived intended nuclear program that could be disasterous not just for any region in which a plant was located, but for the entire country as well as neighboring countries considering fallout spread and not to mention the financial cost and the effect to tourism which would effect everyone seems to me a very responsible position to take.

[NomadJoe]

Though EGAT is quiet now about boosting nuclear for Thailand (hoping thoughts of drawbacks will fade from Thai peoples' short memory), EGAT still hasn't announced abandoning their plans for up to five nuclear plants for Thailand. Until they make such an announcement, we can assume they still have such plans. Be vigilant.

And EGAT do decide to build some NPS, what you going to do about it ?....if you are so anti-nuclear....dont live near it then, if you are none Thai you dont have a say

You evidently have been living here too long and/or been drinking too much of the Koolade. That is such a "Thai" statement of irrelevant "logic" that it typifies mainstream national "thinking".

Maidu has every right to comment just as we all do whether or not we live here despite not being Thai that does not detract from the actual relevance of taking a citizen's perspective especially if one does actually live here under whatever visa arrangement made necessary by a narcisistic, xenophobic and ignorant government (did I leave out "incompetent".... oh never mind) who's visa laws are archaiic to say the least.

Taking an interest in, and showing concern for a very much flawed and poorly conceived intended nuclear program that could be disastrous not just for any region in which a plant was located, but for the entire country as well as neighboring countries considering fallout spread and not to mention the financial cost and the effect to tourism which would effect everyone seems to me a very responsible position to take.

Flawed and poorly conceived? Perhaps you should look at the nuclear safety record before condemning it. Do you know how many people have died as a result of radiation exposure at Fukishima? Precisely zero, and none are expected to either. A couple of workers may have received more than the allowed dosage which is still far below that expected to cause health problems and no effects on health or significant contamination cases have been identified among the general public evacuated from the area. Meanwhile the World Health Organization and other sources attribute about 1 milliondeaths per year to coal air pollution. Over 3000 coal miners are killed in mine accidents worldwide per year.

If anything, the situation is a testament to how truly safe nuclear power is. Consider that this and other forty year old plants were hit with an earthquake five times the strength they were designed for and yet they still shut down safely, but nuclear reactors still need some cooling even when shut down. The generators came on like they were supposed to when grid power was cut. Then the reactor site was hit by a tsunami the size of which had no historical precedent. The 6m tsunami walls were topped and 1 low-lying insufficiently protected generator and several low-lying insufficiently protected switching stations to the newly fortified and newly added elevated backup generators were wiped out. However, the battery backup still worked for the designed eight hours. Had the tsunami wall been proper height or the generators/switching stations been sealed or elevated as they are in U.S. reactors the problem would have been averted. Even so the problems have been minimal--media scare mongering for ratings notwithstanding. Proir to March 2011, 30% of the power in Japan came from nuclear. Sadly as of next week Japan will be without nuclear power for the first time in 40 years, much of that power being replaced by coal.

There is nothing to fear but fear itself.

http://www.npr.org/b...ukushima-report

http://asiancorrespo...ima-death-toll/

Edited April 28, 2012 by NomadJoe

[maidu]

While trying to paint as rosy a picture on the Fukushima problem and nuclear reactors in general, you did an admirable job (re; post above).

Fact is, there are so many drawbacks to using nuclear for power generation. Besides the gargantuan costs when there's a problem and/or breach, there are myriad serious problems from the planning stages on through the maintenance - to insurance, to transporting fuel - on to shutting them down, and then dealing with the radioactivity that can last for tens of thousands of years.

The drawbacks far outweigh the advantages, particularly when the 'big picture' is looked at. Safe and clean alternatives for electricity generation, is the wave of the future.

Do you know how many people have died as a result of radiation exposure at Fukishima? Precisely zero, and none are expected to either.

At least six workers have exceeded lifetime legal limits for radiation and more than 300 have received significant radiation doses. Predicted future cancer deaths due to accumulated radiation exposures in the population living near Fukushima have ranged from none to 100 to a non-peer-reviewed "guesstimate" of 1,000.

from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster

People sickness and death are not the only significant casualties. There are other animals and other species which get harmed. If you thought like a Native American, you might say there's grievous harm done to the planet itself.

[Soutpeel]

Taking an interest in, and showing concern for a very much flawed and poorly conceived intended nuclear program that could be disasterous not just for any region in which a plant was located, but for the entire country as well as neighboring countries considering fallout spread and not to mention the financial cost and the effect to tourism which would effect everyone seems to me a very responsible position to take.

How do you know what has been conceived ? EGAT have yet to indicate or publish what type of NPS they would go with, my money is on PWR's and in what respect is the plan flawed, as of yet no plan has been published.

Other than what you have read...do you actually have any experience in commerical nuclear power programs ?

I spent many years in nuclear construction/maintainence and operations and I personally wouldnt have any problem if the Thai goverment built PWR's in Thailand.

[NomadJoe]

While trying to paint as rosy a picture on the Fukushima problem and nuclear reactors in general, you did an admirable job (re; post above).

Thanks. Facts, not irrational fear, have that effect.

Safe and clean alternatives for electricity generation, is the wave of the future.

Absolutely. Nuclear is a big part of that future, or will be again once the hystaria dies down.

At least six workers have exceeded lifetime legal limits for radiation and more than 300 have received significant radiation doses. Predicted future cancer deaths due to accumulated radiation exposures in the population living near Fukushima have ranged from none to 100 to a non-peer-reviewed "guesstimate" of 1,000.

from: http://en.wikipedia....uclear_disaster

I was thinking you may quote that. I mentioned the exposed workers in my post. And FYI "exceeding lifetime legal limits" or "significant radiation doses" is not the same as "levels likely to cause sickness." In fact a "significant radiation dose" can be a jet airplane ride or getting an X-ray. If you follow links to the footnotes and read the references to those 100-1000 claims as so few people ever bother doing on wikipedia, (I provided the link in my previous post) you will see those claims were arrived at using some very questionable methods. Here is the relevant bit in case you happen to not click the link:

Richard Harris, Science Correspondent NPR:

"As I said at the start of my piece, there's no clear bright line that defines a safe dose of radiation. But the best science shows that smaller doses of radiation – if they are indeed risky — pose risks that are too small to measure. That's exactly the situation at Fukushima.

The Japanese government, along with the scientists I spoke to, are using broadly accepted methods of calculating increased cancer risk for a given dose of radiation. Based on people's calculated exposures, they do not find a measurable increase in risk.

*(Edited for fair use)*

I was unaware of Frank von Hippel's "guesstimate" (his word) of 1,000 excess cancer cases among the 2 million people within 50 miles of Fukushima.

People sickness and death are not the only significant casualties. There are other animals and other species which get harmed. If you thought like a Native American, you might say there's grievous harm done to the planet itself.

We're splitting hairs on the details of exposure levels and cancer risks, but I would say we both think like Native Americans, we just have a different idea of how to go about solving the same problem. How do we generate energy without destroying our only planet? It cannot be disputed that the burning of fossil fuels causes and will continue to cause far greater "grievous harm" to our planet and its inhabitants than nuclear power ever has or will. It is my opinion (as it is the opinion of the founder of Greenpeace) but I believe my opinion to be based on the facts. Nuclear is not perfect by any means, and as you correctly point out it has drawbacks. Show me an energy option that doesn't. You talk about cost as in dollars...solar, wind, geothermal and tidal are all way more expensive, and I am a huge proponent of these. But really cost has become irrelevant now that the connection between burning fossil fuels and the slow destruction of our planet is so plainly clear to anyone willing to look at the data objectively. Nuclear may be evil to many, but it is the lessor evil.

Edited April 30, 2012 by Scott
Edited for fair use policy

[NomadJoe]

Other than what you have read...do you actually have any experience in commerical nuclear power programs ?

I spent many years in nuclear construction/maintainence and operations and I personally wouldnt have any problem if the Thai goverment built PWR's in Thailand.

I will reveal my bias as well as I grew up in a U.S. Department of Energy family, (a "nuclear family" if you will) my father and I both having worked for DOE at various nuclear research sites, my father for over 40 years both on the weapons and energy sides of things. I even got to meet Edward Teller once. I, too, would have no problem with a reactor being built in Thailand. Although current designs are bullit proof, that doesn't stop me from enjoying this little quote from someone I can't remember; "Those who claim modern nuclear reactors are idiot proof underestimate the inginuity of idiots."

[maidu]

(note: NPP = nuclear power plant)

9.4 NPPs in PDP 2010

Considering the capacity of NPPs not higher than 10% of system’s capacity, due to

applicable investment plan and implementation procedures, it is concluded that the appropriate

unit size of 1,000 MW entering the system shall not be more than 1 unit each year. Their

commissioning schedule is as below:

Nuclear Power Plant Unit #1 1,000 MW in 2020

Nuclear Power Plant Unit #2 1,000 MW in 2021

Nuclear Power Plant Unit #3 1,000 MW in 2024

Nuclear Power Plant Unit #4 1,000 MW in 2025

Nuclear Power Plant Unit #5 1,000 MW in 2028

source: http://www.egat.co.th/en/images/stories/pdf/Report%20PDP2010-Apr2010_English.pdf

According to the excerpt from the above EGAT report, EGAT has plans for five nuclear power plants for Thailand within the next 16 years. Notably, EGAT has not indicated precisely where they intend to site the plants, though they did once vaguely say that four will be along Thailand's coast, and one alongside a lake in central Thailand. Even detailed EGAT maps fail to make such indications. I recall reading about a meeting at Surat Thani (near Ko Samui) which was an attempt at 'public outreach.' Unhappy locals were kept outside the meeting hall. The locals then stormed the hall and nixed the meeting. No surprise then, that EGAT has held no such meetings since, and will probably do all they can to avoid public meetings regarding sites for NPP's.

5. Being Clean Energy

"Unlike fossil fuel fired power plants, NPPs do not discharge greenhouse gases

and other pollutions (sic)" .......from EGAT

The above quote from EGAT is almost juvenile in its innocence. Granted, radioactive contaminated air and water aren't 'greenhouse gases' but they're certainly pollutants.

Edited April 30, 2012 by maidu

[maidu]

You talk about cost as in dollars...solar, wind, geothermal and tidal are all way more expensive, and I am a huge proponent of these. But really cost has become irrelevant now that the connection between burning fossil fuels and the slow destruction of our planet is so plainly clear to anyone willing to look at the data objectively. Nuclear may be evil to many, but it is the lessor evil.

We agree that fossil fuels are bad. However I think LG is a reasonable way to go for the near term, particularly because Thailand has some reserves of its own in the Gulf of Thailand. Costs are not irrelevant. Looked at in the big picture, nuclear is more costly than certain alternatives. Spain is at the vanguard of making solar work on a large scale. The US is gravitating towards solar in a big way, even for their armed forces. Big investors are keen on alternatives, not so much for the 'green' reasons, but because they're also good investments for garnering dividends.

Thailand has vast potential for developing alternatives - more than just a fringe show to please the tree huggers (of which I am one). Thermal is untapped here, solar is starting to catch on, but only PV (photovoltaics) and not yet concentrated solar which, to me, shows even greater potential than PV. Wind and tidal may be feasible for Thailand. ....and others?

[NomadJoe]

(note: NPP = nuclear power plant)

9.4 NPPs in PDP 2010

Considering the capacity of NPPs not higher than 10% of system’s capacity, due to

applicable investment plan and implementation procedures, it is concluded that the appropriate

unit size of 1,000 MW entering the system shall not be more than 1 unit each year. Their

commissioning schedule is as below:

Nuclear Power Plant Unit #1 1,000 MW in 2020

Nuclear Power Plant Unit #2 1,000 MW in 2021

Nuclear Power Plant Unit #3 1,000 MW in 2024

Nuclear Power Plant Unit #4 1,000 MW in 2025

Nuclear Power Plant Unit #5 1,000 MW in 2028

source: http://www.egat.co.t...010_English.pdf

According to the excerpt from the above EGAT report, EGAT has plans for five nuclear power plants for Thailand within the next 16 years. Notably, EGAT has not indicated precisely where they intend to site the plants, though they did once vaguely say that four will be along Thailand's coast, and one alongside a lake in central Thailand. Even detailed EGAT maps fail to make such indications. I recall reading about a meeting at Surat Thani (near Ko Samui) which was an attempt at 'public outreach.' Unhappy locals were kept outside the meeting hall. The locals then stormed the hall and nixed the meeting. No surprise then, that EGAT has held no such meetings since, and will probably do all they can to avoid public meetings regarding sites for NPP's.

5. Being Clean Energy

"Unlike fossil fuel fired power plants, NPPs do not discharge greenhouse gases

and other pollutions (sic)" .......from EGAT

The above quote from EGAT is almost juvenile in its innocence. Granted, radioactive contaminated air and water aren't 'greenhouse gases' but they're certainly pollutants.

It kind of sounds as if you under the impression that under normal operation nuclear power plants regularly emit radioactivity into the air and water.

[Soutpeel]

It kind of sounds as if you under the impression that under normal operation nuclear power plants regularly emit radioactivity into the air and water.

Mate...the posters who are getting on their soapboxes have no clue as to how these plants operate....its not even worth arguing with them...they just start quoting stuff from the internet, they will not let the facts get in the way of a good scare mongering story

[Soutpeel]

We agree that fossil fuels are bad. However I think LG is a reasonable way to go for the near term, particularly because Thailand has some reserves of its own in the Gulf of Thailand.

LG ?....Natural gas ? are we talking about....the gulf of Thailand will not have any natural gas left in the next 15-20 years....reserves are depleting very quickly as we speak

[maidu]

(note: NPP = nuclear power plant)

9.4 NPPs in PDP 2010

Considering the capacity of NPPs not higher than 10% of system’s capacity, due to

applicable investment plan and implementation procedures, it is concluded that the appropriate

unit size of 1,000 MW entering the system shall not be more than 1 unit each year. Their

commissioning schedule is as below:

Nuclear Power Plant Unit #1 1,000 MW in 2020

Nuclear Power Plant Unit #2 1,000 MW in 2021

Nuclear Power Plant Unit #3 1,000 MW in 2024

Nuclear Power Plant Unit #4 1,000 MW in 2025

Nuclear Power Plant Unit #5 1,000 MW in 2028

source: http://www.egat.co.t...010_English.pdf

According to the excerpt from the above EGAT report, EGAT has plans for five nuclear power plants for Thailand within the next 16 years. Notably, EGAT has not indicated precisely where they intend to site the plants, though they did once vaguely say that four will be along Thailand's coast, and one alongside a lake in central Thailand. Even detailed EGAT maps fail to make such indications. I recall reading about a meeting at Surat Thani (near Ko Samui) which was an attempt at 'public outreach.' Unhappy locals were kept outside the meeting hall. The locals then stormed the hall and nixed the meeting. No surprise then, that EGAT has held no such meetings since, and will probably do all they can to avoid public meetings regarding sites for NPP's.

5. Being Clean Energy

"Unlike fossil fuel fired power plants, NPPs do not discharge greenhouse gases

and other pollutions (sic)" .......from EGAT

The above quote from EGAT is almost juvenile in its innocence. Granted, radioactive contaminated air and water aren't 'greenhouse gases' but they're certainly pollutants.

It kind of sounds as if you under the impression that under normal operation nuclear power plants regularly emit radioactivity into the air and water.

The Concord jet had several endearing qualities, but it caught fire mid-air. Shortly after, all Concords got grounded. They didn't catch fire all the time. Indeed, it very rarely caught fire, but that one spectacular and tragic moment caused its demise. Similarly, NPP's don't often breach, but they do sometimes with dire results which prove, among other things, that it's not a cheap or safe mode of generating electricity in the big picture of things. Similar to the Concorde, NPP's are on their way out. Call 'em 'passe' or whatever, but the advantages just aren't worth the disadvantages. Germans and the Japanese (among others) have figured that out. I think the Thais have also figured out that nuclear is not the way to go, but EGAT won't give Thai folks a way to express themselves.

Residents near Sacramento California voted to permanently shut down Rancho Seco N power plant in 1989 - and it was a functioning plant at the time.

The following came from a chart on a nuclear-boosting site;

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf19.html

Reactors closed following an accident or serious incident (11)

Country Reactor Type MWe net Years operating Shut down reason

Germany Greifswald 5 VVER-440/V213 408 0.5 11/1989 Partial core melt

Gundremmingen A BWR 237 10 1/1977 Botched shutdown

Japan Fukushima Daiichi 1 BWR 439 40 3/2011 Core melt from cooling loss

Fukushima Daiichi 2 BWR 760 37 3/2011 Core melt from cooling loss

Fukushima Daiichi 3 BWR 760 35 3/2011 Core melt from cooling loss

Fukushima Daiichi 4 BWR 760 32 3/2011 Damage from hydrogen explosion

Slovakia Bohunice A1 Prot GCHWR 93 4 1977Core damage from fuelling error

Spain Vandellos 1 GCR 480 18 mid 1990 Turbine fire

Switzerland St Lucens Exp GCHWR 8 3 1966 Core Melt

Ukraine Chernobyl 4 RBMK LWGR 925 2 4/1986 Fire and meltdown

USA Three Mile Island 2 PWR 880 1 3/1979 Partial core melt

Three are known (3 Mile Island, Chernobyl, Fukushima), whereas six events were kept under wraps from the general public.

One of the big question marks is China, which is building nuke plants like there's no tomorrow. China has never been transparent about anything which might besmirch their reputation. Russia, Iran, N.Korea and several other countries fall in to that same sordid category.

A big reason Thailand wants nuke plants is because its neighbors, Vietnam, Indonesia and Burma (among others) are poised to join the nuclear club. It would be a loss of face if Thailand doesn't at least keep up.

[Soutpeel]

China has never been transparent about anything which might besmirch their reputation.

Really ? strangely enough I was involved in the construction of a 1800Mw PWR in Southern China in the early 90's at Daya Bay and I would disagree with your statement, it seems you are just pulling these "facts" out of your bottom, but if you must keep quoting from the internet without any actual practical/knowlege or experience...knock yourself out..

But just to pick up on the commisioning dates given by EGAT

Nuclear Power Plant Unit #1 1,000 MW in 2020

Nuclear Power Plant Unit #2 1,000 MW in 2021

Nuclear Power Plant Unit #3 1,000 MW in 2024

Nuclear Power Plant Unit #4 1,000 MW in 2025

Nuclear Power Plant Unit #5 1,000 MW in 2028

Its 2012 now, and typically there is 7-8 years construction on a PWR before actual commisioning ie load fuel, seeing as thailand has yet to define a location, they will not make 2020 for Unit 1.....In practical terms, I personally dont think Thailand will ever build any NPS certainly my life time, and would suspect the vast majority of the OAP's farang's will be long gone before anything ever does happen..so they dont need to worry

Edited April 30, 2012 by Soutpeel

[folium]

Here's an interesting piece on the possible future for nuclear. Interested to hear your verdict on this.

http://www.economist.com/node/21549098

[NomadJoe]

Here's an interesting piece on the possible future for nuclear. Interested to hear your verdict on this.

http://www.economist.com/node/21549098

Very interesting read. I think the memories of Fukishima,TMI, and Chernobal will fade as we slowly run out of non-renewable enrgy plus pollution concerns from coal continue to rise. There will be another nuclear reinessance along with a huge increas in other green energy sources. No choice really.

[folium]

Here's an interesting piece on the possible future for nuclear. Interested to hear your verdict on this.

http://www.economist.com/node/21549098

Very interesting read. I think the memories of Fukishima,TMI, and Chernobal will fade as we slowly run out of non-renewable enrgy plus pollution concerns from coal continue to rise. There will be another nuclear reinessance along with a huge increas in other green energy sources. No choice really.

Or maybe not. The real cost of nuclear is becoming prohibitive, see link below:

http://www.economist.com/node/21549094

and thus nuclear's future might be less glamorous than you suggest:

http://www.economist.com/node/21549096

[coma]

They couldn't pay me enough coin for this job. Even after 26 years. Good luck to the crew.

[maidu]

Renewables are getting cheaper, through technological change and through the benefits of mass production and market competition. In the long run, technologies that get cheaper can be expected to edge out a technology that has only ever got more expensive.

excerpt from: The Economist

".....technology that has only ever got more expensive." ....such as nuclear, when you factor in the big expenses when thing go wrong.

On the report, excerpted above, there's a chart which shows nuclear power share (or electricity generation) compared to alternatives (not counting hydro), and the alternatives, such as solar, wind, thermal, tide, - are gaining handsomely.

Nomad Joe says, "no choice really" - when alluding to a picture of nuclear making a big come-back, but there is a choice. And the choice is cheaper, cleaner safer electricity production with renewables.