I'm convinced that the United States will be better off keeping
existing nuclear power stations running, where their management can be demonstrated to be reliable, rather than initiating a decades - long decommissioning process that would not resolve community concerns about spent fuel and many other sources of risk.
If 15 per cent of the UK roofs had solar, they would generate as much electricity as six
existing nuclear power stations.
It states clearly that the Tories are «committed to allowing the replacement of
existing nuclear power stations... provided they receive no public subsidy».
Conservatives, by contrast, are committed to allowing the replacement of
existing nuclear power stations provided they are subject to the normal planning process for major projects (under a new national planning statement) and provided also that they receive no public subsidy.
Not exact matches
The UK government's decision to press ahead with new
nuclear power stations in England highlights one of the areas where significant policy differences
exist between the UK and the Scottish authorities.
«It is important that we have the full facts at our disposal... Safety is and will continue to be the number one priority for
existing nuclear sites and for any new
power stations.»
The government hopes NDA land, its fuel manufacturing business at Springfields and
existing uranic material could all be used in the next generation of
nuclear power stations.
In the short term, new gas - fired
power stations can help cut emissions, but only if they replace
existing coal - fired
power stations rather than
nuclear plants or renewable energy sources.
However, it has been recently publicised that the UK
nuclear industry is better equipped to manage the decline and decommissioning of
existing nuclear plants, rather than set up new
nuclear power stations.
Very roughly Electricity costs from
existing Australian coal fired
power stations might be say $ 25billion / TWh and from
existing European and US
nuclear plants (Gen II) say the cost is the same, i.e. $ 25billion / TWh.
The U.S., France and the U.K. continue to build
nuclear power stations without addressing the problem of
existing waste, which is reaching potentially dangerous levels.
The good news is that it can be done with
existing technology, by cutting energy waste, expanding the use of renewable sources, growing trees and crops (which remove carbon dioxide from the air) to turn into fuel, capturing the gas before it is released from
power stations, and - maybe - using more
nuclear energy.