Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Subscribe to Comments:


  1. @Rod. No doubt you have seen something that made you include World Wildlife Fund in you comment. Are you really sure you were right to? While they have a high profile climate effort, and talk about renewables, as an organization my perception is that they have been careful not to criticize nuclear power. Among other leading environmental groups that both focus on climate change and also do not deride nuclear power I would highlight the National Wildlife Federation. They also distribute children’s teaching materials produced by Southern Co. covering nuclear power. Even if Dale Bryk and Michael Brune have not yet developed an understanding of the potential of nuclear power to reduce environmental impacts, the numerical majority of environmental groups are silent on nuclear power. However, humans being what they are, it is possible to make enemies if you try.

    1. Chris – Nonsense. If you want to know how the WWF views nuclear power, take a look at their “Climate Scorecards” (e.g., PDF from 2009). When it comes to nuclear,

      WWF does not consider nuclear power to be a viable policy option, due to its costs, radiotoxic emissions, safety and proliferation impacts. To reflect this, a policy approach that favors the use of nuclear power was assessed in the following way: Indicators for the “current status” were adjusted, by assuming that electricity from nuclear energy was produced with gas, the most carbon efficient fossil fuel.

      So when they are scoring energy policies, nuclear = natural gas.

      Read into that what you will, about their thoughts on nuclear power or on natural gas. In any case, it’s ridiculous to claim that the WWF doesn’t deride nuclear power.

    2. “…as an organization my perception is that they have been careful not to criticize nuclear power.”

      I think you need to look again. The WWF climate score cards for European nations puts France and Sweden quite far down the list as they equate nuclear energy to “dirty” gasturbines, and they are not ashamed about it. They even admit to lying about it as the don’t like nuclear energy.

      “WWF does not consider nuclear power to be a viable policy option. The indicators “emissions per capita”, “emissions per GDP” and “CO2 per kWh electricity” for all countries have therefore been adjusted as if the generation of electricity from nuclear power had produced 350 g CO2/kWh (emission factor for natural gas). Without the adjustment, the original indicators for Sweden would have been much lower, e.g. 47 g CO2/kWh.”

  2. >> it’s ridiculous to claim that the WWF doesn’t deride nuclear power. <<

    Yeah, that's been a given for decades. Why does it take so long for the nuclear community to wisen up??

  3. A straight forward CO2 tax would have business looking for ways to save on their costs, with out all this holier than thou bull shit.

    It would no doubt be more efficient too as price is always the best mechanism for allocating resources.

  4. Thank you for linking the two ecofys reports. They are disappointingly clear. They show that I was wrong in assessing WWF, and that the top level search engine and links on the WWF site are inadequate to find their position. Although Thomas Duveau has since left WWF to work on a solar project, I have no information to suggest any change in the WWF position.
    The sense of exasperation I read into each of your comments is familiar to me. It’s been three years since Michael Brune finally and irrevocably alienated me from a quarter-century of Sierra Club patronage.

    1. @Chris Melville

      I’m sorry that the information I was able to locate resulted in a disappointing experience. It is disheartening to find out that people have been deceptive, especially when you might have taken them at their word and provided financial support so they could use your money in ways that work against your interests.

      It’s becoming more clear to me that the Environmental Movement has done some very good things, but it has been fundamentally coopted in ways that prevent it from actually addressing huge, society-threatening issues. They have, since at least 1969, taken too much money from people financially interested in maintaining the continuing dominance of hydrocarbon fuel sources.

  5. Funny. I guess fossil companies that also own nukes are shy about showing them. .Just saw a BP commercial that cheerfully shows maintenance drones inspecting their windmills. Anyone ever seen any fossil commercials that proudly flash their solar farms and windmills but not their nukes?

      1. Vattenfall operate quite a lot of fossil (about half their capacity) plants in Europe and own nuclear plants in Germany and Sweden.

        I can’t think of any other utility company in Europe, there might be some in China/Asia but I would not know.

Recent Comments from our Readers

  1. Avatar
  2. Avatar
  3. Avatar
  4. Avatar
  5. Avatar

Similar Posts