I don't see how getting so emotional solves anything. It certainly doesn't allow for proper reasoning and assessment of anything.
This may surprise you, but a lack of practical science experiments in schools will reflect what university will be like, and is what reflects a lot of engineering and science today. Simply put, as an engineer or scientist you will be more likely to be doing a lot of programming maths, a great deal of simulation work, and a lot of design work - very little practical stuff. As an engineer, you are supposed to design something, not build it. One could argue that physically prototyping something on a breadboard teaches you more than theory - but it shouldn't. You need to rely on the perhaps somewhat 'boring' act of reading what someone else has done in a paper (which is more often than not mostly maths) and utilising that in a design. Yes of course there is a physical aspect to research, but there are very very few areas where money can be spent on doing something just to see what happens. Mostly, physical experiments are preceded by weeks/months/years of reading what others have done and interpreting the results. Personally, I would like to see more practical stuff done in schools, but when you take a step back from the 'it's fun' argument, what else is there?
I think it is unfair to simply use the claim that it will run over budget by such an amount, immediately doesnt justify the project. Do you think if a UK based company was building it, it would a) start off as low, and b) not exceed the budget? Ha. Of course, such projects often run over budget, but that's what happens when you build stuff. So are we in favour of spending money on real life applications of engineering/science or not? Also, I would be inclined to believe the most recent lifespan estimates. What must be remembered is that in the UK, nuclear power station technology has stagnated - so it is somewhat unfair in my opinion to be basing your judgement on out of date technology. It's like saying this year's F1 car won't reach 100mph because F1 cars in the 70's had a max speed of 60mph.
I don't see how putting bullets into anyone will solve problems. Are you really up for the murder of democratically elected persons? Every country has things we like/dislike about them. Some more so than others. But would you base everything you did with a country on one of the ways it runs? To a large number of people in the UK, the US gun culture is obscene (note: lets not turn this into the topic - agree/disagree I'm just using it to prove a point), yet we do not allow that to get in the way of our often close relationship. To a large number of people in the UK, parts Australian immigration policy is somewhat aggressive - but again we don't let that one issue interfere with our entire relationship.
Re your last comment - again emotions seem to be clouding your logic. How has a deal with France and China to build one nuclear power station ruined your future? In the UK, we are incredibly lucky to have free school education until we are 18, in Scotland you have free higher education in universities, England and Wales require you to pay through a student loan (which isn't really a loan as you do not pay anything until you are earning a very comfortable wage) but even our tuition fees are pennies compared to the likes of the USA. As I have mentioned, the UK science and engineering sector are actually short of engineers and scientists, so I don't see why if you work hard and get a degree, you won't find it reasonably easy to get a job in engineering/science. If you end up serving cokes, then that is most likely down to choices you have made.
I think the biggest problem with your argument is that is assumes that the construction/heavy industry is the engineering/science sector, which although are somewhat close in their end goals, are not the one and same.