WWF does not consider nuclear power as a viable policy

option, due to its costs, radiotoxic emissions, safety and

proliferation impacts. In this report focusing on climate

policies, a policy approach that favors the use of nuclear

power is hence adjusted. The indicators emissions per

capita, emissions per GDP and CO2/kWh are adjusted as

if the generation of electricity from nuclear power had

produced 350 gCO2/kWh (emission factor for natural gas).

A country using nuclear energy is therefore rated as a

country using gas, the most efficient fossil fuel.

My, my. This is sort of like the Harvey Wasserman style of scatter shot exagerations and falsehoods, but Harvey can't usually put together well constructed sentences like this, nor write a serious report. They admit that a "...policy approach that favors the use of nuclear power is hence adjusted..." to make it look the opposite of what it IS!!!!!

Fortunatly, as my irregular series of reports here on the advance of the nuclear renaissance show, fewer people who make policy are listening.

This was a shorty. In a few days will have a 3rd installment of the lastest advances in alternative-to-renewables non-carbon fission power.

'nuff said.