New UK nuclear construction does not need to be subsidized

[bananas]

http://www.platts.com/Nuclear/News/8268551.xml?src=Nuclearrssheadlines1

New UK nuclear construction does not need to be subsidized

London (Platts)--21Sep2007

New UK nuclear construction doesn't need to be subsidized if standard,
accepted international designs are adopted and fossil fuel alternatives "carry
the cost of the carbon emissions associated with their use," British Energy
told the UK government September 20. It called on the government not to place
any restrictions on the amount of nuclear capacity that might be built.

Currently the UK relies on nuclear to supply just under a fifth of its
electricity and most of the debate has centered on new nuclear construction to
replace aging nuclear capacity only. BE also suggested that the government
quantify how much new nuclear capacity it believes is required and the
timescales for its construction. That would make it "more likely" that
industry will make the early investments needed to increase the country's
nuclear component manufacturing capability and manpower skills, it said.

BE's report to government was its response to the government's public
consultation over the future of nuclear power in the UK. The 20-week
consultation ends October 10. The government expects to make a decision toward
the end of the year on whether to allow the private sector to pursue new
nuclear construction.

[NickB79]

1. So, when external costs are factored in

Like the damage caused by CO2 release (something coal and natural gas fired plants currently DON'T take into account), nuclear is cost-competitive.

Haven't quite a few people been arguing that very point here for years?