Posted by T. Keating on May 7, 2012, 2:44 pm
Article: "French Sour on Nuclear Power"
By Liam Moriarty ? April 24, 2012
"“Clearly, what Fukushima changed in France is that now, people know
about nuclear energy,” says Greenpeace France campaigner Sophia
Majnoni. Majnoni says the accident in Japan, plus the upcoming French
presidential election, has triggered a national debate. "
The incumbent pro-nuclear president lost the second round election,
(May 5-6, 2012), to Socialist candidate Hollande, who has stated.
"“I’m focussed over 15 to 20 years on reducing the share of nuclear
power in the electricity supply from 75 to 50%,” Hollande says, “while
at the same time increasing renewable energy.”"
Thanks to the Internet, people around the globe are waking up to the
fact, that depending nuclear power is an exceptionally risky bet, with
extreme consequences when containment fails.
Posted by Vaughn on May 7, 2012, 6:09 pm
On 5/7/2012 10:44 AM, T. Keating wrote:
The problem is, fossil power is also an exceptionally risky bet. Air
pollution, global warming, and waste disposal (for coal tailings) remain
unsolved problems. Also, if your fuel supply isn't domestic, there are
huge political and national security risks.
Any rational discussion of nuclear power should also includes the risks
and expenses involved in alternative choices.
Posted by (PeteCresswell) on May 7, 2012, 7:56 pm
IIRC, one of the major environmental organizations has softened
their stance on nuclear power for those reasons.
Maybe somebody who knows can offer up more specifics.
Posted by Curbie on May 7, 2012, 8:51 pm
Discussion of ANY power! Nothing looks "good" when judged solely by
it's negitives. Good point.