Readers may be intrigued by a headline in the IHT, retailing a report from AP, telling us that, "South African says it will shift energy policy from coal to combat climate change".

The thrust of this piece is that the South African government has declared that it is planning to move away from cheap "dirty" coal as its primary source of energy – accounting for nearly 90 percent of its electricity - and embrace nuclear and renewable energy "in a bid to combat climate change".

View full article here

No carbon capture to see here...move along!

An 'intrepid' article as usual.

Has anyone noticed the decline in the Telegraph since its 'revamp'...not that the rot hadn't already set in some time ago. They ought to at least provide a decent link on the 'front page' to the 'articles' and blogs. I think most of us could do without the dross showcased as news and all the shiny new pics. Guardian and Times provide much better value for your click...

"Are we going mad, or have we missed something"?

I don't think so although it reminds me of the quotation - "Those whom the gods wish to destroy they first make mad".

Then the quotation "Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish", could well be applied to those who believe in AGW and respond to anyone who disagrees by calling them fools even when confronted by unassailable science.

Germany's decision is much older which explains the differences: At the time when it was decided that it wanted to leave nuclear power behind, the global warming (=carbon dioxide) debate was not yet as intensive as it is today. And, the decision was connected to supporting renewable energy.

In the last months, nuclear power has been receiving attention as a low-carbon source and countries who have not taken decisions about their energy future now try to figure out how to become "green" - which under the current situation seems to favour nuclear power. In Germany, similar discussions are under way, but as long as Greens or Social Democrats are in power, there won't be any change.

'Has anyone noticed the decline in the Telegraph since its 'revamp', asks saba7.

Yes I think we can all agree that it is a mess, hard to navigate and generally hopeless. They do this sort of thing with the print edition, the last change was to move the letters down the page and have an article at the top. This lasted only a couple of weeks before it reverted to the correct design again, although I would like to see a whole page of letters. I expect the website will do the same as not all pages have been put in the new format and they must be having a rethink.

No. It's just that there has been a change. We used to lock lunatics up. Now they find successful jobs running countries, but you have to be mad to want to do that. You are not trying to run a country, therefore, you are not mad. QED. Greg

If you fancy a dissenting voice, try this chap:

http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/ ... 722jk.html

"Are we going mad, or have we missed something?"

I suspect you have, yes. Buried away in the Spiegel article is the phrase "the plans are a direct contradiction of the climate goals formulated by Merkel". Presumably, the fact that abandoning nuclear in favour of coal isn't a green step was so obvious- unless you're trying to make a rhetorical point- that they didn't consider it worthy of greater prominence.

You can only deal with so much madness in one post ... when you put it all together, you have great difficulty believing that the outcome is the result of decisions by adults.

Julien Frisch,

I thought the Christian Democrats were in power in Germany now...

Yup-- they're certifiably nuts.

My city started drawing power from the Crystal River Nuclear Power Plant some time back (I can't remember quite when-- the plant has been online since 1979, but we didn't start drawing power until the power lines were built from the plant to the city, some years later), but my power bills have been very steady for years, ranging from $90-$120 per month with the air conditioning running full blast in this Florida heat. This USED to be "expensive" power. But that was "then", and I've gotten accustomed to the cost and what it will be at what time of the year. The only place the current fossil fuel crisis has bothered me is in my car's fuel tank.

I've been having fun watching the local "greenies" running around "saving energy in the home" here, undoubtedly because they've swallowed the kool aid and caught the Global Warming Flu from the news media, and reminding them that we're nuke and the "save the planet" ideas don't apply has been a riot.

If Germany's planning to SHUT DOWN their nukes, they've got to be out of their minds!

A breakthrough in nuclear fusion at this point would be come in handy in so many ways right now, not least for its effect on the outlook for all those Middle-eastern states who are funding the islamic terrorists with their oil revenues.

Fingers crossed.

Even if the headlines tomorrow were "Scientists achieve nuclear fusion" it would be in a high tech. lab using magnetic bottle technology. The further research still required before a feasible power plant was available would have to be ten years minimumm, with a barrage of computer models from Greenies showing that these things will inevitably explode like super H-bombs. Cold fusion, if it exists, is so kooky that only serendipity will find it, which of course mere funds can't buy.
Closer to discovery, I'd say, are room temp. super-conductors and massive leaps forward in energy stored per volume for various batteries. Within 5 years of them becoming available the only aspect of cars where petrol will still be able to compete with electric will free-running range at a guess.

Those would be them greenoid nucular confusion models then?

Why chase fusion, when we already have it; god gave us it, day one...

Just a minute, did you say greenies? Where are they...!?!?