Britain and France to take nuclear power to the world

[Mugu]

Patrick Wintour, political editor, The Guardian

Britain and France are to sign a deal to construct a new generation of nuclear power stations and export the technology around the world in an effort to combat climate change.

The pact is to be announced at the "Arsenal summit" next week when prime ministers Gordon Brown and Nicolas Sarkozy will meet at the Emirates stadium in north London.

Britain hopes to take advantage of French expertise to build the power stations that do not rely on fossil fuels. Nearly 79% of France's electricity comes from its highly-developed nuclear power industry. The UK's ageing nuclear plants are ready for decommissioning and supply 20% of its energy needs.

Brown hopes the partnership will create a skilled British labour force who would then work in partnership with France to sell nuclear power stations to other countries over the next 15 years.


Complete article at:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/mar/22/nuclearpower.energy1

[wpelb]

1. Nuclear Power?

Wouldn't it be better to develop more practical wind, solar and other alternative sources? Aside from the safety issues surrounding nuclear power, the fact is that nuclear, like coal, requires the removal from the earth of a natural resource. Eventually, all the uranium or plutonium or whatever these plants use will be gone. Energy development should focus on renewable resources instead.

[Juche]

2. not necessarily

There is enough uranium & Plutonium to keep nuke plants in power. Plus some people are looking at other elements like thorium, so shortage shouldn't be a problem.

My problem is that nuke plants cost about $2 billion to set up, take 10 years to build and produce waste that can be hard to get rid of. Setting up geothermal plants would be far cheaper, or offering homeowners subsidies to buy thin film solar panels would be a far cheaper, better idea.