France's nuclear power base has put it so far ahead of other countries in lowering power emissions that the country's mopping up of the remainder of excess carbon use is worth pursuing, on prestige grounds alone.

if France can get other countries to become signatories to carbon-emission treaties, they can position their own construction and manufacturing sectors more competitively.

LOL. never heard more illogical stuff.

If your airline comes from a country with no carbon tax, you pay to land in France. Chinese exporters are keeping an eye on global agreements but will use oil and gas unless it costs them exports.

As far as I remember this thing all such countries refused to pay such stuff, and all this went into talks only.

Sure wind turbines might kill an eagle or a bat or even a human if it drops on it. What about nuclear power plants? Accidents are lethal and poison an area for an enormous amount of time. And it is not an absolute safe technology. Nuclear waste is radiating on a poisonous level for 200'000 years. There is no long term storage solution yet, even though we are producing such waste since 50 or so years. And btw, I don't think nuclear power plants contribute much to the natural beauty of a landscape either.

And burning fossil fuels is altering the atmosphere to a level that will change climate and more. So we better search for a better technology to keep us warm. I don't think it will be one technology to beat them all. It will be the mix of making use every single possibility that exist. Small or big.

Ah, and why do wind-turbines lead to forrest cleaning? aren't there enough non-forrest-places to set them up?

@neveraholiday

What about nuclear power plants? Accidents are lethal and poison an area for an enormous amount of time. And it is not an absolute safe technology. Nuclear waste is radiating on a poisonous level for 200'000 years.

We had discussion, issue here is that nuclear energy is safest one. As for 200.000 years. I suggest you to check some basic information about radiation, it's intensity and how half life and intensity are related :-)

And burning fossil fuels is altering the atmosphere to a level that will change climate and more.

So, let's make experiment. We'll cut energy to your home and all food production companies that make your food. And after short time will ask you same question again. I am 100% sure that answer will be quite different, someting like - "I don't give a fuck about climate change, put my energy and food back, motherfuckers!"

So we better search for a better technology to keep us warm. I don't think it will be one technology to beat them all. It will be the mix of making use every single possibility that exist. Small or big.

Yep, but I do not remember that someone seriously declared that it is good idea to replace horses with bunch of rats wired together.

@nomad

In fact, Africa specifically do not have free spaces. Sahara are good on paper, but you need someone to clear your precious solar panels from sand and dust each day, and especially after sand storms. Also you need to think how more costly will be installation in such place with unstable and moving sands.

After this you'll need to check how big will be losses for them due long power transporatation system, how unstable it can be be (as many people start to have iudea to bomb few parts of it).

And finally you'll need to include necessary energy to produce such stuff (panels, etc) and install it.

As far as I remember such calculation whole earch must work for years without eating or doing anything to make your dream. And this dream even won't work after all this sacrifices.

Sorry, Vitaliy, but I have been living next to the Sahara for three years (and traveling a lot around it). There are huge areas without sand. Cleaning panels means work for people without a higher education, BTW.

And someone may have the idea to bomb a nuclear plant sooner or later too, what do you think? A network of solar plants can be wired much less vulnerable, similar to the internet.

Norway is very rich not only from oil, but surplus of water power. They sell it all over Europe, so it seems transport is possible. Keeping any kind of plant working needs work and energy, that's not exclusive to solar plants.

Well, you have good points there.

But I doubt that a nuclear plant can really be bomb-proof, given the events in Japan.

Regarding Norway: You are right, they are not exporting yet, but the first cable is currently being laid ( NorGer, being able to replace one large nuclear plant ). They cover 98% of their energy supply with hydro-plants, they heat with electricity and many public buildings don't even have power switches for lighting, it just stays on. They have the highest consumption of electric energy per capita in the world ( 23.200 kWh ). They could export a lot…

Of course, this situation allows them to export nearly all of their gas and oil. They have zero nuclear plants and one small carbon fueled.

Big waves not so much.

Dig slightly deeper into this :-) Issue that happened at specific plan happened due to very specific design error (placement of generators). As far as I checked none of current stations have similar issue.

@Mirrorkisser

First, source is quite questionable.

Next, good data had been twisted to look like bad one. In fact investments is going to improve security and safety. And yes, you can do it up to infinity, if you want.
China also do not have any ban, and has plans to build big amount of nuclear plants.

Whole shit going on mass media today is intended to lemmings from countries who do not have sovereignty, so their goverments recieve direct orders and lemmings got TV and press tales. Sadly (for criminals doing it), such approach do not work on China.

@Vitaliy_Kiselev, there are literally dozens of nuclear reactors on all three coastlines of the U.S that are vulnerable to tsunamis and earthquakes. Current reactors are dangerous, and when something goes wrong, it goes very very wrong. But again, I think nuclear energy has more potential than any other energy source. In between thorium reactors (near future) and cold fusion (distant future), the future is looking clean, "green", and bright.

For technological or political reasons?

China supposedly will have two prototypes up and running by 2015, and India is very near completion of their first prototype and is on track to have over 50 thorium reactors running by 2025. It will take some big investments and a solid decade of testing before being widely adopted, but the payoff is enormous. Thorium is far more abundant than uranium, and can generate 200 times more energy per unit of mass, while being substantially less toxic, and impractical for weapon development.