UK may have to do without nuclear power

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/rtrs/20070621/tuk-uk-britain-nuclear-darling-fa6b408.html

UK may have to do without nuclear power

By Daniel Fineren Reuters - Thursday, June 21 05:05 pm

LONDON (Reuters) - The government will not subsidise new nuclear power plants, so if the private sector does not provide the huge investments needed, the country will have to do without, the minister responsible for energy said on Thursday.

<snip>

"The government is not going to build a single nuclear power station," Trade and Industry Secretary Alistair Darling told a committee of members of parliament.

"We are not going to contribute to the cost of it," he said, rejecting suggestions the government might have to give money to get companies to make the multi-billion pound investments.

"If the energy generators don't want to build them, then there won't be any," he said.

All of the country's existing nuclear power plants were paid for and built by the state, but none has been built since the power sector was privatised in the 1990s.

<snip>

electricity from France, like they do now.

Of course, when coal stations that are the equivalent of the Drax facility, which puts out as much carbon dioxide than the majority of nations on earth, you will have nothing to say at all.

How do I know?

Because that plant has been poisoning the entire planet for decades and you couldn't care less.

It is the legitimate interst of governments around the world to build nuclear power plants, since they are clearly the safest and cleanest form of energy known.

The British government subsidized the fossil fuel disaster off their North Coast and therefore they should finance nuclear power, to the tune of trillions of pounds if necessary.

can we store the spent fuel in your backyard?

Dumping dangerous fossil fuel waste in my lungs, my children's lungs etc.

I would have no problem with storing all of the worlds spent nuclear fuel in New Jersey. It's proved harmless now for more than half a century.

Now, what's your plan for storing dangerous fossil fuel waste?

With reprocessing, 90% of nuclear waste can be turned back into fuel and sent through the reactor again. Doing so also makes the remaining waste significantly less radioactive as well. Also worth noting: left alone, nuclear waste loses 99.9% of its radioactivity after 40 years.

the cleanest, safest - and above all - the cheapest energy strategies and technologies known.

And a wise financial decision too - the bill for decommissioning of their current nuclear facilities and disposal of spent fuel is $121 billion.

Why throw good money after bad????

:eyes:

At some point no amount of state subsidized engineering will keep the water out.

Unrestrained by government, the private sector is always cooking up some new disaster.

Maybe they can move the rest of London, too?

They will build them, I'm pretty sure. They've already identified the sites. It will simply be done on the sly, like everything else. The problem is this governemnt has had 10 years and done virtually nothing to change the status quo. They will come up against the CO2 targets and will take what looks like the easiest option. DO not believe one single word that comes from this governemnt.

money -- but loan guarantees, etc. will show up. They didn't sell Westinghouse for nothing. They are going to build nukes.

Everyone who wants to have the lights on without burning billion ton quantities of coal will build nukes.