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.
«Now, if it turns out that - for the first time in decades - a consortium is prepared to build
a nuclear power station without public subsidy, then... that will, in all probability, go ahead.
Not exact matches
Cheltenham MP Martin Horwood suggested his party's decision to abstain on a
nuclear vote in the Commons, allowing the Conservatives» support for new
power stations to go ahead
without undermining the coalition government's unity, could prove academic.
«If you look at the economics of
nuclear power and the commitment the coalition has made not to subsidise it, and then you reflect on the fact not a single
nuclear power station has been built anywhere in the world
without public subsidy, maybe, just maybe the issue won't arise,» he said.
On some issues, the two parties have fudged differences by setting up reviews, independent commissions or agreeing that the Lib Dems will be free to abstain — a decision that will ensure that measures such as new
nuclear power stations can be built
without Clegg's party endorsing them.
and a commitment to cut CO2 levels which was clearly unachievable
without nuclear power whilst ordering no
nuclear power stations...
In hindsight it appears impossible to believe that
nuclear power stations were located on a shoreline
without recognizing the engineering difficulties attending prolonged immersion by a large tsunami.
But in March 2011 the Federal Environment Agency, said that in principle «all of Germany's
nuclear power stations could be taken offline permanently by 2017,»
without resulting in «supply bottlenecks or in appreciably higher electricity prices.»