Skip to main content

Anti-Nuke Alert: Greenpeace to Fight Polish Nuclear Plant

By Eric McErlain
From Polskie Radio:
Greenpeace has called for an end to plans to build a nuclear power station in Poland and has inaugurated a special project entitled the ‘Energetic Revolution.

Launched in the coastal city of Gdansk the initiative calls for more energy to come from organic sources in Poland. The ecologists are against the proposed construction of an atomic energy plant in Poland.

Spokesman of the Polish branch of Greenpeace Jacek Winiarski said that the nuclear plans is totally pointless and a “very dangerous investment.”

According to Greens Poland has great potential in wind farms and this should be made a priority.

Should the government continue to develop plans on the construction of an atomic plant Greenpeace will hold protests to block the investment, says the group.
Back in December, Poland, which relies heavily on lignite and hard coal for electrical generation, announced it would build its first nuclear reactor by 2023.

Here's a message to our friends in Poland: Drop us a line about how young nuclear professionals in the U.S. are taking the fight to the anti-nukes. We can help.

Technorati tags: , , , , ,

Comments

Anonymous said…
I hope that the Polish utility requests the appropriate court to award costs against the plaintiffs. Unlike the USA, most countries require unsuccessful litigants to pay all costs of the lawsuit (I believe that in the USA, courts usually only require this if the lawsuit is "frivolous"). It is my view that unsuccessful litigants should pony up if an action is unsuccessful. This was certainly the case in Australia, for example, when Greenpeace opposed the construction of a replacement research reactor at Lucas Heights in Sydney: the Federal Court of Australia required Greenpeace to pay the legal costs of the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) (www.arpansa.gov.au)(regulator), the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (www.ansto.gov.au) (purchaser), and INVAP (www.invap.se) (vendor). I am not sure whether Greenpeace gave up at the Federal Court level, or whether the High Court of Australia refused it leave to appeal, but the case finished in the Federal Court.
May 27, 2005 at 8:48 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

By
Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...
23 comments
Read more

How many nuclear plants does it take to meet the world's energy needs?

By
Several weeks ago Joshua Pearce at Clarion University in Pennsylvania released a study titled “ Thermodynamic limitations to nuclear energy deployment as a greenhouse gas mitigation technology .” In the study he stated... nuclear energy production would have to increase by 10.5% per year from 2010 to 2050 to both replace fossil-fuel-energy use and meet the future energy demands. This line, of course, made the headlines and has been picked up by several outlets and blogs . When looking into his calculations for this statement, he made one assumption error that overstated the above sentence by nearly a factor of three. Page 121, Section 4.1 of the study states: Richard Smalley pointed out that in 2004, the global economy consumed the equivalent of 220 million barrels of oil per day, which converted into electricity terms is the equivalent of 14.5 TeraWatts (TW), or 14,500,000 MegaWatts (MW) (2005). … With a nuclear plant having about 1000 MW (1 GW) of capacity, we would need 14,500...
7 comments
Read more

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

By
You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...
6 comments
Read more