Greenpeace Blog

News from the Sunshine State reminds us that nuclear power is only an option for companies with very deep pockets. Or a hand in their customers' pockets, to be precise.

Progress (ha!) Energy have tripled the estimate for the new plant it's planning to build in Florida, saying that the new price tag will be an eye-watering $17 billion, and they haven't even got permission to start building yet. How are they going to pay for this? Why, by bumping up bills for its existing customers of course. "You can't avoid the notion that nuclear has an upfront cost for the customer," said Jeff Lyash, president and chief executive of Progress (double ha!) Energy Florida. "It does."

And that's just the beginning. We all know that, once the diggers move in, the costs for a nuclear power station take on a mysterious life of their own, spiralling ever upward. Just look at the delay-ridden, cash-sucking plant currently being built in Finland. It's the same in this country as well, with costs for dealing with existing waste (never mind the waste generated by a hypothetical fleet of new nuclear power stations) going repeatedly skywards.

So if the day comes when another load of nuclear power stations are being built here, remember it won't be private companies picking up the elephantine costs: one way or another, it'll be us.

Alex Steffen of Worldchanging recently wrote an excellent piece called Who Will Tell the People? And How? about the yawning chasm between the reality of climate change and the failure of government to bring in the massive changes needed. Talking about US emissions cuts, he writes:

We're running into a situation here where the acceptable political action is to move from A to C, but where realism demands that - if we want to dodge a catastrophic collision with ecological reality - we move from A to say Q. And that gap, between C and Q, is large enough to lose a future in.

As you're reading this blog, you probably don't need reminding about the catastrophic collision with ecological reality Steffen mentions. With stakes this high, the changes needed (Steffen's A to Q) are profound, fundamental and cross all facets of human existence - from our energy and transport systems to, dare I say it, our social and economic systems.

John Hutton, the man responsible for Britain's energy policy, gave his explicit support this morning for a new generation of coal-fired power stations.

Choosing the stormiest day of the year so far to deliver a speech to members of the right-wing think-tank the Adam Smith Institute, the Secretary of State for Business flew a dangerous kite when he insisted that coal has a "key role" to play in energy provision, and accused anyone who disagreed with him (that's us, folks, along with Prince Charles, Al Gore, the head of NASA, opposition parties and thousands of others) of playing "gesture politics".

Awesomeness on the web this week includes:

• Mashing statistics and art is Seattle-based Chris Jordan, who has produced these amazing and profoundly depressing visualisations of the resources we use and the waste we produce.
• Cycling can be bad for your health in a spontaneous combustion kind of way.
• John Coleman, founder of the Weather Channel, wants to sue Al Gore for fraud over climate change.
• Two absurdly healthy outward bound types are about to begin walking the entire length of the Amazon river (the first people to do so, appearently) to document "the different experiences and opinions of the people that live and work in the Amazon rainforest", as well as raising awareness about climate change.
• A slideshow of stunning images from the new book, Fragile Earth, was the Guardian's most popular web page for a couple of days this week.