Nuclear renaissance meets reality at UN climate talks

[jpak]

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/nuclear-renaissance-meets-101208

Poznan, Poland — The nuclear industry has had fifty years of massive subsidies and state help – but has delivered only unsafe, expensive power, contamination and waste that will last for thousands of generations.

In Poznan, over 350 non-governmental organisations including Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and WWF told delegates at the UN climate talks that nuclear power is not a climate solution but a dangerous distraction from investment in renewable power and energy efficiency. Representing millions of members in 48 countries, the organisations have proclaimed nuclear power a “Mickey Mouse climate solution” and delivered a global call to keep it out of the Kyoto Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism (CDM).

Unable to pass up the chance of ever more state support and win more taxpayers’ money, the nuclear industry is presenting itself as a practical solution to climate change. One of the privileges this dirty and dying industry wants now is to become eligible for support under Kyoto Treaty mechanisms. If that goes through, a country such as France could finance the construction of a reactor in a developing country by a French firm - giving money to its own companies and claiming “emission allowances” for itself so that it doesn’t have to reduce its own domestic greenhouse gas emissions.

The proposal to include nuclear power in the Kyoto Protocol CDM is currently being discussed at the UN Climate talks in Poznan These talks coincide with a run of bad news for the nuclear industry that makes its claims of clean cheap power even harder to justify. Following the news of soaring costs for the European Pressurised Reactors (EPRs) in France and Finland and in the estimated budgets for reactors planned in the US, came the news that South-Africa – till now seen as one of the most promising candidates for a so-called nuclear “renaissance” – is backing off for a while: the planned French reactors are simply too expensive.

<more>

[Dogmudgeon]

1. It's a Greenpeace editorial

:popcorn:

I'll save some for Mr. Rofl.

--p!

[jpak]

2. (((SSsshhhhhh)))

:evilgrin:

[NNadir]

3. Actually, there is NO nuclear subsidy but there should be one, considering the failure of the so

called "renewable industry" which can't produce energy and nevertheless whines for more subsidies, like the rest of the yuppie toys.

I am against subsidizing rich people at the expense of the poor.

Or are we going to have another round of fundie math like 0.080 > 8.415?

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/alternate/page/renew_energy_consump/table1.html

I favor a 10 trillion world wide nuclear subsidy, on an emergency basis, since nuclear power works and is nowhere near as dangerous as say, solar energy.

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=&imgrefurl=http://planetdoom.blogspot.com/2007_10_01_archive.html&usg=__IfFXoCjjkIRBHUJvkaP5Q2OHgGg=&h=450&w=600&sz=31&hl=en&start=19&um=1&tbnid=F7dv5Xu2m6mZTM:&tbnh=101&tbnw=135&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dstarvation%2Bafrica%2Bclimate%2Bdesert%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff">Giggle giggle.

[jpak]

4. Mission Accomplished!!11111

:rofl:

[Systematic Chaos]

5. I know I feel bunches safer, now that I hear there's GLUTS of solar panels!

Epic. Fail.

[Javaman]

6. man, I could set my watch by nnadirs responce time. LOL

I just posted something and I'm just waiting to get one of his crazy ass replies. I hope he calls me a fundie. LOL