This is another "nuke" article that doesn't have any application to the present climate change crisis. This is because it almost entirely relates to the failur

This is another "nuke" article that doesn't have any application to the present climate change crisis. This is because it almost entirely relates to the failure of the bureaucracy in the UK to find a way to fund and build reactors using old technology and existing regulatory frameworks. Any future reactors build to sever us from carbon dioxide producing energy technology would probably need to be built using new technology which would both allow and drive the need for a new regulatory framework. A new framework could be designed alongside new reactors to avoid the pitfalls of older systems regulatory frameworks with the result being both lowered cost and increased safety. Many of the people arguing against greater use of nuclear power seem to ignore the fact that advocates aren't talking about using the old technology... most agree I think that old style reactors are too expensive for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the amount of regulation created for them by well meaning politicians. The article's author also seems to assume that renewables like solar and wind power are a viable alternative to large scale constant power generation, when they really are not because of the need for constant baseline power for industry 24/7. Unless a disruptive energy storage technology appears, renewables are too variable in output to maintain a constant supply to e.g. foundries and factories.