VIDEO: Watch Greenpeace prank Finland's prime minister

Never getting tired of the old chestnut: civil nuclear energy equals atom bomb? Sure, Finland intends to reach for the bomb! IMHO the prank 'bombe...

Never getting tired of the old chestnut: civil nuclear energy equals atom bomb? Sure, Finland intends to reach for the bomb! IMHO the prank 'bombed'.

Finland's electricity production with a share of above 25% nuclear, plus 20% hydro, plus 20% imported hydro/nuclear from Sweden/Norway is good for the climate.

Greenpeace's antinuclear stance is on the same page as the antinuclear stance of the fossil industry and incompatible with effective decarbonisation.

A look at Germany proves: Because of their angst-induced nuclear exit they have not made any progress on decarbonising their electricity production, despite massively subsidising 'renewables'. Renewable replaces nuclear, dirty coal to stay for the foreseeable future. Congrats to all the antinuclear zealots.

"Core issues include weak ownership?" That has been settled, have you not noticed?
What's so unbelievable and farcical about the Finish/Russian cooperation?
Finland has already two Russian VVER reactors. The first new AES-2006, with advanced passive safety features will reach criticality later this year (Novovoronezh II), after a build time of 7 years. In Finland it will take a while for STUK to go through the safety assessment, so start date will not be before the end of 2017.

Dear Peter, good to see you back. Maybe Nordic and Russian humor are different than German? But the point was the question whether the biggest hydroge...

Dear Peter, good to see you back. Maybe Nordic and Russian humor are different than German? But the point was the question whether the biggest hydrogen bomb maker in the world can be a trusted nuclear business partner - especially given Rosatom's track record as such.
The ownership of Fennovoima is an ongoing politicum in Finland. The fact that Fortum was arm-twisted by Russia in taking a few percent after the covered attempt of a Russian front-company in Croatia failed, does not create a stable basis. And it clearly illustates the point: Rosatom is a political vehicle. Does Finland indeed want to increase its dependency on that?

And as you and your nuclear friends always are eager to do - linking Germany's nuclear exit with it's coal policies - well, that is indeed a back-firing prank, isn't it. And so often countered in argument by so many sides, including on this blog and comments. Maybe you should put as much effort in fighting coal in Germany as we are doing. Would help.

Jan, you are only kidding yourself. Germany continues to produce its electricity with close to 600 grammes of CO2 per kWh. That high value is not decr...

Jan, you are only kidding yourself. Germany continues to produce its electricity with close to 600 grammes of CO2 per kWh. That high value is not decreasing, despite pumping 20 billion into solar/wind/"biogas" annually.
Source: official data Germany:
http://www.umweltbundesamt.de/themen/klima-energie/energieversorgung/strom-waermeversorgung-in-zahlen

Compare with France's electricity generation, actual official French data here:
http://www.rte-france.com/en/eco2mix/eco2mix-co2-en

Thanks to its rapidly deployed nuclear capacity France generates its electricity since decades at less then a tenth of the German CO2 footprint. (Not to mention all the other "nice"emissions from German coal plants). So do Sweden and Switzerland, and Finland also produces its electricity much cleaner and more climate friendly than pseudo-green Germany.

Practically all the effects of the rising renewable generation in Germany are wiped out by its Angst-induced nuclear exit.

Greenpeace Energy sells 'green' electricity to German consumers - how would that make any difference, when practically all this "green" energy is simply sourced virtually from Austrian hydro (with a tiny bit of wind thrown in for decoration)?

As we discuss under the heading of a Greenpeace action that IMHO has bombed - if your German is good enough - here is how German minister Sigmar Gabriel (who is responsible for the Energiewende) deals with some Greenpeace placate-holders, telling them that simultaneous exit from nuclear and coal won't work:
"Charmant abserviert
So kanzelt Gabriel Greenpeace ab"
http://www.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/wirtschaftspolitik/wie-sigmar-gabriel-die-greenpeace-stoerer-stoert-13261688.html

The nuclear phase-out is the obvious and generally accepted reason why the substantially subsidised (€ 22 billion annually) 'renewables' have no positive impact on decarbonisation of electricity generation in Germany: Unchanged at above 600 grammes per kWh.
Your claim to the opposite is unsupported by the facts.

If climate change comes upon us with the predicted speed, the antinuclear agitators - fossil industry lobby and pseudo-green antinuclear lobby as strange/or not so strange bedfellows - will face major moral questioning from the next generation.

Greenpeace-Energy is a contractual user of the Greenpeace label and from a consumers' point closely connected: They "sell" "green" electricity to German Greenies, which consists to 90% simply of Austrian hydro certificates: IMO that's a shambolic business model, which does nothing for decarbonisation.

Greenpeace-Energy's 'Windgas' product is of the same "quality": it consists practically totally of normal gas, with a tiny amount of 'windgas' added in for decoration.

@Peter - Interesting you come with unsourced claims and no new arguments. The data that I have here is that in 2014, CO2-emissions from the electricit...

@Peter - Interesting you come with unsourced claims and no new arguments. The data that I have here is that in 2014, CO2-emissions from the electricity sector were 301 Million tons in Germany, the second lowest level since 1990. (http://www.agora-energiewende.de/fileadmin/downloads/publikationen/Analysen/Jahresauswertung_2014/Agora_Energiewende_Review_2014_EN.pdf)

The only thing you try to do is to smear those who do innovate. Who come with new ideas and implement them, develop them, invest into a direction that makes sense. I do not find that convincing. And that all in defense of a technology that risks huge catastrophes, produces unmanagable wastes, drives proliferation of nuclear weapons, and crowds out real solutions for tackling climate change because of its too high costs.

Concerning Greenpeace Energy e.V., yes, there are German electricity providers who provide more capacity from wind and solar, but not necessarily reinvest as much into new renewables and innovation as Greenpeace Energy e.V. is doing. But if you want to discuss their policy, go ahead to their website: http://www.greenpeace-energy.de/index.html