And that was after the grab fell into the core of one of the reactors without anyone noticing for hours. We have to count ourselves very lucky indeed.

Now, climate change is the other argument for justifying nuclear. Climate change is happening before our eyes, and we must take urgent steps to reverse the damage done. We have seven years only in order to prevent the world from warming by two degrees over what the temperature was in pre-industrial times. We must see decarbonisation at a broad scale, and quickly too. Now, 'nuclear is the solution', according to Governments, but don't believe the hype. Nuclear cannot play the same role in decarbonisation quickly. Look at Hinkley Point C, for example. This project was announced in 2010. It was licensed two years later in 2012, and work began in 2017. The scheme is already two years behind schedule, and it's unlikely to be commissioned until 2030 at the earliest, costing at least £8 billion more than the original budget, bringing the cost of this one nuclear power plant close to some £30 billion. Even if the work of commissioning the eight nuclear plants promised by Boris Johnson, or the 11 plants promised by Tony Blair were to start tomorrow, then it would be 2033 at best before we would see a single watt of electricity being produced from them.

Indeed, in thinking about the difficulties of Hinkley C, it's worth noting that the University of Aarhus research shows that this is the norm. Ninety seven per cent of the world's nuclear power plant projects run over time, taking 64 per cent more time to build and going 117 per cent over budget. This is without considering the new small modular reactors, which are being given some attention, yet not one has been built and not one has been licensed either. It will be many years before we see this technology in action and, indeed, the work of Stanford University and the University of British Columbia shows that SMRs will be dirtier than conventional ones.

Over the last decade and a half, we've seen billions of pounds of public money flowing into nuclear companies, for them to carry out research based on grand promises, but they haven’t delivered at all, and in the meantime, climate change is accelerating quicker than ever. But we do have mature technology in order to develop renewable energy, by using wind, solar, tidal, and the ability is there to commission these in less than five years. So, why haven't we seen these billions of pounds being invested in mature technology, showing that we are truly serious about tackling climate change? And why is there so much talk about nuclear, with billions being invested in it? Well, this is why: this state has always been at the forefront of developing nuclear weapons. This state was a key partner in the Manhattan project, for example. From the very beginning, the state has hidden these military developments behind civil nuclear developments. Calder Hall was the first nuclear power plant in the UK that was supposed to produce energy that was dirt cheap. The fact is that it was a plutonium production factory. This is now public fact after the United States Government admitted that they used plutonium from Calder Hall for one of its bombs in Nevada and many more.

In 2009, the US Government's department for energy announced that the Trawsfynydd nuclear power plant had produced over 3.6 metric tonnes of weapons-grade plutonium during its operational life. But the state has now lost the necessary skills for military nuclear, and they have to refill that talent pool with talented people who can do the very complex work required to develop nuclear submarines and naval ships armed with nuclear weapons.

In talking constantly about nuclear, their intention, therefore, is to get that flow of people into the sector and to transfer those essential skills from the civilian to the military. I'm not giving any secrets away here, but stating facts that are in the public realm now. These are the words of Tom Samson, chief executive of Rolls-Royce's SMR division: