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

Wednesday Update

By
From NEI’s Japan micro-site: NRC, Industry Concur on Many Post-Fukushima Actions Industry/Regulatory/Political Issues • There is a “great deal of alignment” between the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the industry on initial steps to take at America’s nuclear energy facilities in response to the nuclear accident in Japan, Charles Pardee, the chief operating officer of Exelon Generation Co., said at an agency briefing today. The briefing gave stakeholders an opportunity to discuss staff recommendations for near-term actions the agency may take at U.S. facilities. PowerPoint slides from the meeting are on the NRC website. • The International Atomic Energy Agency board has approved a plan that calls for inspectors to evaluate reactor safety at nuclear energy facilities every three years. Governments may opt out of having their country’s facilities inspected. Also approved were plans to maintain a rapid response team of experts ready to assist facility operators recoverin...
Post a Comment
Read more

Fluor Invests in NuScale

By
You know, it’s kind of sad that no one is willing to invest in nuclear energy anymore. Wait, what? NuScale Power celebrated the news of its company-saving $30 million investment from Fluor Corp. Thursday morning with a press conference in Washington, D.C. Fluor is a design, engineering and construction company involved with some 20 plants in the 70s and 80s, but it has not held interest in a nuclear energy company until now. Fluor, which has deep roots in the nuclear industry, is betting big on small-scale nuclear energy with its NuScale investment. "It's become a serious contender in the last decade or so," John Hopkins, [Fluor’s group president in charge of new ventures], said. And that brings us to NuScale, which had run into some dark days – maybe not as dark as, say, Solyndra, but dire enough : Earlier this year, the Securities Exchange Commission filed an action against NuScale's lead investor, The Michael Kenwood Group. The firm "misap...
1 comment
Read more

Nuclear Utility Moves Up in Credit Ratings, Bank is "Comfortable with Nuclear Strategy"

By
Some positive signs that nuclear utilities can continue to receive positive ratings even while they finance new nuclear plants for the first time in decades: Wells Fargo upgrades SCANA to Outperform from Market Perform Wells analyst says, "YTD, SCG shares have underperformed the Regulated Electrics (total return +2% vs. +9%). Shares trade at 11.3X our 10E EPS, a modest discount to the peer group median of 11.8X. We view the valuation as attractive given a comparatively constructive regulatory environment and potential for above-average long-term EPS growth prospects ... Comfortable with Nuclear Strategy. SCG plans to participate in the development of two regulated nuclear units at a cost of $6.3B, raising legitimate concerns regarding financing and construction. We have carefully considered the risks and are comfortable with SCG’s strategy based on a highly constructive political & regulatory environment, manageable financing needs stretched out over 10 years, strong partners...
Post a Comment
Read more