US DEPARTMENT OF STATE INFILTRATED BY FALSE AND MISLEADING INFORMATION AND SINISTER PHILOSOPHY OF THE NUCLEAR INDUSTRY

The false and misleading statements are bold in the excerpts below.

As part of a $24.3 billion funding request for the U.S. Department of Energy, the president is asking Congress to provide $2.7 billion for his Advanced Energy Initiative that aims to accelerate research in advanced, clean and safe power-generation technologies based on coal, nuclear energy and renewable sources.
http://usinfo.state.gov/gi/global_issues/energy_policy.html

This article is the first in a series on nuclear energy.

Washington -- Nuclear energy is the best option for large-scale power generation that does not add to emissions associated with global warming, according to U.S. officials, industry representatives and an increasing number of foreign governments and international groups.

"Nuclear is the only form of energy from which you get so much electricity from so little fuel with no emissions," Andrew Paterson, a U.S. Energy Department policy analyst, said in an April 20 interview.

"Wide-scale development of safe and secure nuclear energy is crucial for long-term environmentally sustainable diversification of energy supply," the energy ministers said in a statement issued following their March meeting.

The International Energy Agency, which represents 26 developed countries, is expected to publish a study that is "highly likely" to support expansion of nuclear power as the best way to a greater energy security and the best solution to global warming, according to the Financial Times of London.

GLOBAL PARTNERSHIP AND PROLIFERATION

Developing countries alone are projected to use 125 percent more electricity by 2025 than they use today, according to the Energy Department. The department estimates that generating this much power entirely with coal -- the prevailing source of power generation -- would produce 5 billion tons of additional greenhouse emissions each year, more than double the level of current U.S. emissions from coal-fired plants. Nuclear power plants produce no gases such as carbon dioxide, the chief greenhouse gas, which contribute to global warming.

"People everywhere are coming to see nuclear energy not only as an acceptable or responsible choice, but as a desirable one," U.S. Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman recently said.

However, some experts and environmental groups doubt whether the program ever will work. And even if it does, says Thomas Cochran, director of the nuclear program at the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group, it is going to be "enormously" expensive.

In addition, it "would make proliferation risk to the United States worse rather than better” because as the United States starts reprocessing spent fuel “other countries will emulate us," he said in a March 23 interview.

According to Paterson, people like Cochran are missing the point.

"The GNEP could indeed be expensive," Paterson said. "But if it is providing a way of ramping up nuclear power worldwide and dealing more assertively with proliferation risk, then it might be worth the cost."

http://usinfo.state.gov/gi/Archive/2006/May/03-382182.html