It's interesting to think that the UK could be subsidising nuclear power unlawfully. This stance raises awareness of the problem of nuclear power – there are a lot of hidden costs. It's not just the building of a plant (with all it's concrete etc), the running, or the decommissioning; its a combination of all three. We will leave a radioactive legacy for generations. Not just a few years, not even in your life time or that of your kids and grandchildren.
For all that time, we will have to actively manage the power stations and radioactive waste:
-We have to keep it secure and protected from terrorism or threats from other states. It's interesting that in London Under Attack: The Report of the Greater London Area War Risk Study, the nuclear power stations and stock piles are targeted because of the devastation they would cause to most of the country.
-We have to keep in cool and contained.
-We have to protect it from our environment. Storms, rain, earthquakes, land slips, etc. Anything can damage our storage systems and nothing is as immune as you think (re: Fukushima).
-We have to protect our environment from it. I'm not too keen on drinking contaminated water or eating foods contaminated by radioactive particles.
All of this costs money – a lot of money – and we have to pay for that and so do our future generations.
If we included these additional costs, would Nuclear power ever be seen as viable?