New Nuclear Power- Is there a rationale?

Here is what I posted before on nuclear power presented in a much more dispassionate way- hopefully I will not have to remove the post this time. If you disagree or agree with anything on the blog and feel the need to comment please email me and use the 'comment' feature to publisicse your comment against the appropriate story.

The government decided to build more nuclear power stations last week. The have recently changed the planning system to allow nuclear plants to be 'sped through' the planning process- this means less opportunities for people to influence planning decisions.

What we want:
- Affordable energy
- Less greenhouse gas emissions and other pollution
- Secure supply

Clearing up the debate:
- many argue the 'energy gap' being filled by nuclear until 2030ish (20% of electricity) could be filled by improving efficiency and significant and meaningful (i.e. massive and necessary) investment in renewables and cleaner fossil fuel technologies.
- research shows that even 10 new reactors would cut the UK's carbon emissions by only about 4% some time after 2025- Greenpeace. Renewables, energy efficiency and carbon sequestration are what we should be focusing on for climate change.
- although the government has promised this generation of reactors won't be subject to the same massive subsidies as the previous generation- if companies go bust the taxpayer will pick up the bill.
- nuclear power requires uranium that must be imported, so if there are problems with supply it will effect energy production, therefore it is limited in improving security of supply.
- the waste issue. It's currently hanging around and building up- there is NO solution to dealing with radioactive waste- it can't be made safe, only wrapped in multiple layers of materials and left in storage.
- the risk of terrorist attack.
- there is only a very small probability of reactors going 'pop' but it is misleading to say nuclear is 'low risk' because if one or more did go 'pop' then the consequences could be severe.
Risk= (probability of ocurrence) X (losses per occurence). It is like the 'sword of damocles' there is a low risk that it'll fall on his head but if it does then he's done for.

Decentralised energy is the future- it is more efficient and adaptable. Further investment in nuclear locks us into the centralised system where more energy is wasted in transmission before it even reaches the user. It will also send out the wrong message on the potential for renewables, cleaner use of fossil fuels, CHP and energy efficiency.

If you have been convinced that new nuclear stations are desirable then I'd like to hear what points led you to that conclusion so that I can re-examine my views and this post.