New petition: Stop Hinkley nuclear plant and spend the money on renewable instead

Indeed it is, so is sustainability, cost, pollution, economics etc.
Some Hydro-plants require that some dont.. As with wind/tidal/solar though once they're made and operational no further input is required bar maintenance whilst coal/gas/oil/nuclear require refuelling from every once in while to constantly not to mention the tonnes of pollution of varying sorts.

Given that granite emits radon in quantities which is more or less harmless unless under natural conditions whilst spent fuel rods are rather dangerous..

I believe the poster was reffering to the instance where their is a containment breach or worse which whilst a million to one, the dice will sometimes role that way such as at worse Chernobyl and Fukushima and less serious in Sescale, 3 mile island and so on. Not to mention Americas seem to be built on a fault line
I'd cite Fukushima with the aforementioned reason, not every scenario can be predicted and prepared for... I dont personally dislike nuclear power but I do believe tht is the point they're trying to make.

Indeed. So posting a single graph and presenting it as a self contained argument was a little silly (though I still maintain the first graph you posted just shows the person that produced it doesn't understand physics).

I'm not suggesting that radon is particularly dangerous, but it's still a greater source of atmospheric radioactivity than nuclear power plants. I was responding to statement "Even during normal operations radioactive materials are regularly discharged into the air and water" which just isn't the case.

Airliners used to fall out of the sky on a regular basis. Does that mean you won't get on a plane? We have moved on somewhat.
2 workers burned to death on a wind turbine a couple of years ago. 4 died and 300 were injured in the UK over a five year period. Surely we should be banning wind turbines on safety grounds? Or are those deaths ok because they don't get much media coverage, in the way a nuclear accident would? After all, we've seen two INES level 7 incidents in the 60 years that nuclear power plants have been around. Of those, only one has actually killed anyone as yet. And let's just put Fukushima into perspective: the meltdowns are expected to cause somewhere in the region of 100-600 premature deaths. The earthquake which lead to those meltdowns killed close to 20,000 people. I do understand that the thought of a serious accident at a nuclear power plant is scary, but if you look at the facts and understand why previous accidents have happened... the risk is pretty minimal.
How would you fancy living next to a wind turbine? Failures like this are not infrequent

I'd assume that said graph is representitive of life time costs and since wind is for all intents infinite after construction very few costs are occured.

Thats somewhat facetious isnt it? the difference between an airliner falling to earth and a meltdown are somewhat different in terms of scope. Same with follow up remarks. I was merely making the point that nuclear plants can and do go wrong and when they do it can be rther bad, hence the other posters remarks on it. I'm fully aware of the odds but also that because it shouldnt doesnt mean it wont not to mention the arguement that their sheer complexity is in itself a fault as much more can go wrong.
I'd object to the noise and sight of it more than anything else but either way i know what your point is and personally im not worried about nuclear power as such im just aware of what could happen. With regards to Fukushima though werent they relatively lucky in that most of the fuel is either still in the RPV or otherwise in the PCV instead of being blown out as with chernobl?
Either way my only objection to said plant is the cost and the terrible contract for the tax payer.

You have to be clinically insane to think that renewable can replace nuclear. It is the future. Renewable is a stopgap and will be gone by the time fusion becomes viable.

I'm sorry but nuclear is STILL dangerous. I can't believe anyone could say it is "safe". It is a lie that nuclear is safe.

And when the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow?

Nuclear fission really isn't a long term solution to energy. It's too polluting, too expensive and too dangerous.

Fission is also inherently dangerous, just because it's fission. There are places in Sellafield where people can only wok for 5 minutes before they have to leave. Building 30/31 and the storage pond, both of which require desperate maintinance that no one can do because no one can go near it.

A Fusion based commercial grid could realistically be another 100 years away.

Kind of speaks for itself right?

Yes Fission is dangerous, but it is the only solution. Wind and solar take up too much room and provide little energy.

Denmark broke the world record for wind power in 2015, producing 42% of its electricity from turbines.

Denmark could be producing half of its electricity from renewable sources well before a target date of 2020.

Yes, Great for a country that only has 5 million living in it. But compared to our 64 million, that reliance on wind power couldn't happen.

Yes, Great for a country that only has 5 million living in it. But compared to our 64 million, that reliance on wind power couldn't happen.

I suggest all those supporting Nuclear go and live right next door to the plant and lets use your back garden as a dumping ground for deadly radioactive waste. Also I think you should pay for it and all the subsidies it will require for decades to come and it will go way over budget I can guarantee that. Nuclear Power in its current state, is wasteful, expensive, creates fewer jobs than renewable alternatives, is still short term and an unnecessary risk.

Also don't come out with crap like oh what if the wind doesn't blow or the sun doesn't shine. You do realise there is more than just wind and solar and it's been proven to be successful in generating a lot of power in many other European countries. I seriously advise you educate yourself on the matter, maybe do Geography at A Level and realise current nuclear power is not worth it!

And wind is good Look at Denmark. Wind produced 42.1% of Denmark's electricity in 2015!

Population - 5.5 million so about 2 million people or so. LOL wind energy

nah, nuclear is greatI love the stat that the radiation emissions from coal-fired power stations are actually greater than those from nuclear