Nuclear power is a disease, but industry's incompetence is a cure

Greenpeace must be getting desperate given this latest diatribe against nuclear.
Gloating over setbacks to any industry that employs thousands o...

Greenpeace must be getting desperate given this latest diatribe against nuclear.
Gloating over setbacks to any industry that employs thousands of people (40,000 in the case of nuclear) strikes me as puerile.
The gloat may have to be modified now that EDF Energy has extended operating lives of two of its existing reactors to the early 2020s- Hunstanton and Hinkley Point- and has received design approval from the independent nuclear regulator ONR for deployment of the EPR in the UK.
Of course cost overruns, constructions delays are a problem and if not resolved EDF will struggle to complet an EPR here as well. And of course the aste issue is critical (although 90% of existing waste is military not from civial nuclear power generation).
I presume Greenpeace supports the proposed Deep geological storage solution or perhaps it prefers there not to be a solution to waste so it can keep banging on about how this makes nuclear unacceptable.
I thought Greenpeace was supposed to be in favour of reducing CO2 emissions to help save the planet? This will not be achievable without nuclear continuing to be in the energy miz as renewables will never be able to generate reliable baseload power and the alternative is more gas generation which of course is not CO2 friendly.
I am an environmentalist and in favour of renewables but not at the expense of proven alternatives.
In referring to the "ugly" side of nuclear- and globally the industry is not impeccable- Japan (Fukushima) Russia (Chernobyl) but in 40+ years of nuclear generation in the UK, not one death has been caused directly to any operating personnel.
How many industries can one say that about.

Delays and cost overruns largely caused by anti-nuke activism of Greenpeace and other well-intentioned NGOs. It would be wonderful if we could avoid C...

Delays and cost overruns largely caused by anti-nuke activism of Greenpeace and other well-intentioned NGOs. It would be wonderful if we could avoid CO2-caused social upset by going green balls-to-the-wall. But it can't happen w/o nukes. Even the Union of Concerned Scientists favors nukes, provided safety is a top priority. Frankly I think it is already too late, but we must try. The Chinese are building ten reactors each year on to the horizon. Their standard is the Westinghouse AP1000.

@Rangefinder - I honestly must say, I have not felt further from desperate as Greenpeace nuclear campaigner since I started my involvement in 1980. The nuclear industry maintains far less jobs than the renewable industry added over the last five years - pleading for the clean way with sound science based argumentation, as Greenpeace does in the energy [r]evolution scenario, makes in my opinion more sense than the fairytale (costs, waste, risk assessments) based policies of the UK government.
Just for clarity sake: Greenpeace demands highest possible risk reduction from radioactive waste - be it low-, middle- or high-level, incl. spent nuclear fuel. Greenpeace is not convinced that the currently proposed technologies for deep geological disposal reduce the risk sufficiently and we plead for a critical stance of regulators before hurrying into projects. We also plead for research in other options like on- or near-surface fully engineered long term storage, deep bore-holes, dry rock storage - on costs of the producers of that waste. For more detail: google "greenpeace rock solid".
Greenpeace is in the forefront of fighting climate change and CO2 emissions and fighting nuclear is part of that effort. Nuclear cannot deliver on its promises. According to the OECD NEA - a staunchly pro-nuclear institution - quadrupling nuclear capacity until 2050 (1400 new large reactors - 38 per year for the coming 37 years!) would reduce greenhouse gas emissions with less than 5% compared to business as usual. On the moment we need to have reduced those emissions with 50 to 80%, that is so marginal it can be covered cheaper and faster - and far less risky - with efficiency and renewable energy solutions. Countries that stick to nuclear (like Finland, France, the UK, Poland, South Korea, the US, China, India) prove to continue being high CO2 emitters. If you want to know how it can be done, look at the Greenpeace / EREC Energy [R]evolution Scenario.
Nuclear does not only have an ugly side - it is ugly: in most of the world it is a breeding ground of corruption, it is expensive and pushing out faster and cheaper ways to tackle climate change, it produces waste without a solution and it is the motor behind proliferation of nuclear weapon technology (and certainly if we were indeed to add 1400 reactors world wide!). Nuclear is part of the problem, not the solution. Maybe presume less and take some time to surf the Greenpeace sites on nuclear.

@John - Don't shoot the messenger. Delays would not occur on the call from NGOs if the underlying problems would not exist. The Union of Concerned Scientists is not backing nuclear - that is plainly wrong. If you really want to try to tackle global warming, look at where the chances are and the growth is occuring: energy efficiency and renewable energy - even the Chinese invest more in that than they do in nuclear. If we can finally get the political will created, it can be done. If we can't it is because too many people keep on whining that we should stick to nuclear - whatever nuclear would be able to deliver, it would deliver too little, too late at too high cost.