>3. Nuclear enrichment defies entropy and is reason enough, morally.

Defies entropy? Oh really? How?

4. Another fatal flaw in the production of nuclear power - once you start it up, you can't switch it off.

Oh really?

5. National grid wastes more power than it uses through losses.

Not true - and even if it were, that's an argument against electrical power transmission rather than nuclear power.

22 reasons. And you list ... 7. Okay.

'We demand a referendumb'. Well, quite.

>> A call for the disbandment of all nuclear production, research, weapons and bodies, globally. We demand a referendumb.

Cool... well you tell Iran and Korea that and see how far you get
I think they will just ignore you whatever you "demand"

"5. National grid wastes more power than it uses through losses. "
Why do so many so called climate activists believe this sort of idea?
The true figure took about a minute to find out. Prepare to be amazed:
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Grid_(UK)#Losses

8. er ...
9. That's it.

'Furthermore, the efficiency of nuclear power plants is lower than that of conventional power plants - in a nuclear power plant only about 30% of the thermal energy released is converted into electrical energy, whereas in a modern conventional power plant about 40% of the thermal energy of coal or oil is converted into electrical energy.'

Taken from Interlude V.4, Physics, 2nd Ed. Expanded, Hans C. Ohanian. 1989. W.W. Norton & Co.

You seem to be totally confusing the national grid with power stations. The national grid is just the high voltage pylons that carry the power across the country and nothing more. And since you originally referred to the national grid, that's the efficiency figure I pointed to above. A power station is the plant that burns the fuel and makes the electricity and nothing more. Grid, power stations - they're separate items, separate efficiencies and separate companies.

Also quoting 1989 books is fairly dubious since things have inevitably moved on since then.
Nuclear is about 35%, coal & oil about 45%, the latest combined cycle gas turbine power stations are about 59% efficient. These efficiencies still may not sound that great but are actually equal or superior to all forms of renewable energy apart from hydroelectric.

Ayelighted on the news last night was that Hinkley and Oldbury could be affected by flood.

You seem to have criticised a previous post for using out of date references, but not given references yourself?

And, unreferenced, you seem to agree with the post that you criticised that nuclear is the least efficient form of energy production - even if things have moved on.

Or was I missing something? Perhaps you could made you point more clearly for idiots like me?

The energy released by burning oil, coal, gas and so on is chemical in origin, and finite. One day we shall run out of fossil fuel.

The energy released from nuclear sources is energy that will be released anyway in the form of radioactive decay. Given that U238 can be converted into plutonium, then as far as we are concerned, nuclear energy is effectively limitless. 5 or 10% difference in efficiency is meaningless.

About my lack of references, sorry you're right. The efficiencies are somewhat scattered around the web and my head. Here's a single site that compares most of them as well as some pointless ones.
 http://www.mpoweruk.com/energy_efficiency.htm#comparison
apart from CCGT which I've referenced separately
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_cycle_power_plant#Efficiency_of_CCGT_plants

None of these figures are set in stone. Thermal power station efficiency varies quite a bit depending on design and age of technology. To maximise efficiency you need to heat your steam to as high a temperature as possible - which means that boilers and pipework need to be made of newly developed supermetals - and then in the final stages of extracting energy, you need to cool the steam as much as possible. This is why thermal power stations need to be near a body of cold water. No doubt you've already made up your mind about the wisdom of building power stations near to the sea in a prime earthquake location. Nuclear efficiency is lower than fossil fuel because the steam isn't at such a high temperature mainly for safety reasons. I wasn't trying to make out that nuclear is superior in this respect. I just like climate campaigners to know what they are talking about as there are a lot of wildly wrong figures about energy generation being spread around far too often.

Note how wonderfully efficient hydro electricity is - lucky Norway with its abundance of high, glacier covered mountains and pity the UK with its grassy hills. Note also the very poor efficiency of solar PV (much less than nuclear) which Monbiot recently has rightly been pointing out as being unsuitable for northern regions. This is because under overcast conditions - most of winter when you need the energy most - the output from PV cells typically sinks to just 5% of their full sun output.

The appropriate placement of wind turbines is even more vital. The power they produce is not related linearly to wind velocity but is proportional to the wind velocity cubed. For those who are curious as to why, this is described by Betz's law.
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betz%27_law
So if you can double the wind velocity then your turbine will produce eight times more power and it's fairly essential therefore that turbines are sited in flat country or high, exposed locations such as hills and ridges as the wind will be blowing so much stronger there. By contrast if you insist on siting turbines in built up areas where the wind velocity is always far less, then their output will plummet. If the wind speed is halved then their output will be 12.5%, quarter the windspeed and you're down to a pitiful 1.5%. So climate activists who propose having distributed wind energy generation extending into towns and cities are to my mind not being realistic. Many poorly sited urban wind turbines will never recover the energy used in their construction. We shouldn't be creating our own false solutions.

All forms of energy conversion have theoretical maximum efficiencies. Nothing is ever perfect. For wind turbines it's 59%. PV is only about 28%. In practice, 20% or so PVs exist but they are even more expensive. Cheaper thin film PV cells that have considerably lower embodied energy have been developed which are intended to coat the outside of buildings but their efficiency is a very poor 5%.

Of course all this talk of efficiencies is not comparing like with like in the context of climate change. For fossil fuelled generation, the inefficiency causes increased CO2 emssions but not so for nuclear or renewable energy.

Hope this has been helpful to some.

Maybe I can help

 http://www.volunteerabroad.com/search/japan/volunteer-abroad-1

You can start with Fukushima