The IEA is calling for more nuclear power to increase energy security and tackle carbon dioxide emissions.
How inconvenient... for Greenpeace.
It is an inevitability that their house of cards would crumble. Their motivations may be ideological, naive utopian visions of living in a simpler golden age of disease and poverty (Yes their ulterior motives don't invalidate their arguments. The fact that those arguments are rubbish is what invalidates them.), but for the rest of the world, environmental concerns remain genuinely environmental concerns.
As such, the more the threat of carbon dioxide is bigged up by the like of Greenpeace and Stern and Gore, the more people will see that the one large scale and readily expandable source of carbon free power, which has after all worked for the past 50 years without bringing about the apocalypse, is worth a second look in face of a new apocalypse.
Then there's the news of a second African nuclear power station on the cards.
And China planning to add to their already growing list of nuclear projects.
It looks like Eskom's provider is up for bidding. At the moment they have two Framatome units, so it might give the EPR a head start in the race, but that is by no means a guarantee. As for China, they have both many PWRs from a variety of vendors and a couple of PHWRs, so it really is anyone's game to win.