Don't believe that nuclear is dead because of Fukushima...

[kristopher]

The French nuclear industry seems to be ground zero in the "promote and protect nuclear power at any cost" movement. They need to be reined in.

French nuclear power lobbyists used Fukushima smear campaign to promote own businesses

Less than a month after the outbreak of the Fukushima nuclear crisis, illustrated brochures elaborating on the process leading up to the hydrogen explosions at the Fukushima No. 1 Nuclear Power Plant were distributed to members of the U.S. Congress and government officials in Washington.

The color-print, A-4 size brochures, later to be called the "Fukushima Files," were handed out by lobbyists from France's nuclear power giant Areva SA in early April.

The 33-page brochure underscored that General Electric Co. (GE)'s Mark I containment system was employed at the Fukushima plant, while containing speculation and describing fuel melting in the spent fuel storage pool, which never took place. On its last page, the brochure concluded that Tokyo Electric Power Co. (TEPCO) apparently had not released most of the information it held.

The leaflet sent shockwaves around Tokyo and Washington, as well as GE officials, who were busy responding to the nuclear crisis. Areva lobbyists stressed that the accident was peculiar to Japan when they handed out the leaflets, hinting that similar accidents would never occur with nuclear plant systems provided by Areva. It was obvious to the recipients of the brochures that they were part of Areva's maneuvering to quash its competitors in the nuclear power business...

Read more: http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/news/20110704p2a00m0na015000c.html

[robcon]

1. I should hope not. Nuclear is one of the best options for energy.

n/t

[kristopher]

2. I ask you to prove that assertion.

I can show very strong evidence that nuclear is a very poor option for energy, it is on a par with coal CCS, in fact.

Can you show a systematic comparative analysis of nuclear vs renewables and efficiency that shows nuclear is superior?

[bananas]

3. No, it's one of the worst. nt

[madokie]

4. Incorrect.

It is the worst possible option. Nothing else even comes close to the dangers of Nuclear. Plus nuclear is not as clean as you would assert due to the mining, processing of the fuel and the building of the power plants and the decommissioning of said plants. All the nuclear power plants that we have will ultimately have to be dealt with and that will be at a huge cost CO2 wise. Not to mention the contaminated sites that won't be usable for anything else in the foreseeable future. No, nuclear is not a good let alone the best option. In fact using splitting atoms to boil water to make steam to turn generators borders on a stupid and most dangerous idea. Still to this day, sixty some odd years later, the industry doesn't know what to do with the waste of which some of will be very dangerous for hundreds of years.