Hmmm, I don't know, LOL, nor do I care too much. I think there are a couple of magnox reactors due to close in the next 5 years but beyond that, no idea, but keep them going where possible. I don't and never have had, a phobia about nuclear power, but I would prefer green energy and think that (plus judicious use of additional nuclear) needs to be progressed rapidly.

Nuclear may not be the answer. See "Goin' Fission for Uranium"
By SPENCER JAKAB in Monday, January 2, 2006 Barrons online. The article indicates that "Annual demand for nuclear fuel is now equal to 180 million pounds [about 82 million kilos] of uranium, while only 108 million pounds of ore were produced in 2005, according to estimates by Ux Consulting. Mine output will not increase substantially until the huge Cigar Lake facility in Canada run by Cameco comes online in 2007, but even by 2008 output will be about 130 million pounds. BHP is considering a huge expansion at its Olympia Dam site in Australia, but this would not hit the market until 2013 or later. A number of smaller projects are also coming.

Meanwhile, there are about 140 new reactors planned worldwide, many in Asia, versus the 440 existing today. Of the 104 U.S. reactors, most have applied for or have received multi-decade license extensions, and the first approvals for new plants since the 1970's are expected soon by industry observers."

If I recall the frequently cited BP annual data on oil, gas and other reserves correctly, there is a 42 year proven supply of uranium at current levels of use. But just about everywhere, nuclear is seen as the answer - or at least a major one - to the fossil-fuel supply problem. We see in the above excerpt from the Barrons piece that 140 new reactors are being planned. I live in Japan, and can tell you that the nuclear industry is a real fan of peak oil (even featuring peak oil articles on their lobby group's web site). Like the UK nuclear industry, they see the fossil-fuel pinch as a great business opportunity. And they have lots of voices backing them, including the UK science advisor David King.

Personally, I'm agnostic on nuclear while being wary of cost, waste problems, the proliferation issue, and other concerns. Yet the fuel-supply issue appears to have received inadequate attention. At present, the supply gap is being filled from 100 million pounds of stockpiles as well as "downblending" old USSR warheads and recovery from mine tailings. But the gap appears to be a problem that will only worsen as new plants come online. To the extent that this is true, we seem to risk wasting a lot of time and intellectual/physical/financial resources if we shift massively to nuclear technology rather than pursue energy alternatives that have more abundant supplies.

There are 23 operational Nuclear reactors in the UK with a total installed capacity of 11.82GWe
You seem to be implying that the shut down of these reactors is an environmental decision as is the case in Sweden. This is not so. All are being decommissioned because they have reached the end of their lives. Several have been push well beyond their originally projected life times. There are 8 Magnox (magnesium oxide clad fuel elements) on four sites commissioned between 1965 and 1971 that will be decommissioned by 2011. Four of the AGR (Advanced Gas Cooled Reactors) are over 28 years old. There are efforts to try and prolong the lives of some of the others but the Safety inspectorate, although basically cooperative is reasonably insisting on ever more rigorous safety precautions as these reactors get older and this eats into the generating capacity and increases costs.

I raise my hand.

I've been opposed to nuclear fission. Still am. And I have no regrets. Were you downwind of Chernobyl in 1986? It rained in Scotland, it rained all over us. And then two weeks later they told us that we shouldnt have been drinking milk either. I don't trust the government safety statements or nuclear power any more. I also have a friend who was in Belarus in '86; his stories are scary indeed. We dont need another disaster like that.

Nuclear fission is bogus power source. U238 is limited and has exceedingly dangerous other uses; there is nowhere to deal with the waste either. Fast-breeder reactors do generate plutionium, and you could argue that the sellafield THORP reprocessing facility is a site in the fast breeder process, but today it just creates more waste.

The biggest issue with nuclear is that it distracts money and effort from alternate solutions for generating electricity. We have wind, we have tide. I dont think Solar is too great this far north, but panelling on housing could probably generate some electricity for less cost than retail electrons.

I also think nuclear fusion is a potentially viable technology, one that should get more support. I think it would take a long while for supplies of H3 to run out in the oceans, and the waste products should be much less. Yet the amount of money being invested in fusion R&D is a fraction of that being spent cleaning up current and past nuclear fission sites.

As an aside, living in the SW UK, the area mentioned in the paper, I have already encountered some diesel shortages. the local petrol stations only have about half their diesel pumps active. This will only lead to more panic purchasing and knock on consequences. Cost of fuel is still less than immediately after Katrina though.

Nuclear-an attempt to solve a problem of civilzation with more complexity.  The UK can't afford the nukes it has now.

We can't have more power. We must use less.  Greenhouse gasses must be reduced by 50% in 15 years.  Eliminating Corporations and building railroads and bikes.  Get simple.

Or the planet takes over.  It'll take at least 7 to get your nukes up and running.