Young climate activist tells Greenpeace to drop ‘old-fashioned’ anti-nuclear stance
Young climate activist tells Greenpeace to drop ‘old-fashioned’ anti-nuclear stance
Swedish teenager Ia Anstoot says group’s ‘unscientific’ opposition to EU nuclear power serves fossil fuel interests
You're viewing a single thread.
Ah, yes, teen figures out nuclear energy problems from bedroom. I'm sure she has a great career ahead spewing bullshit for some industry.
What problems do you think nuclear has that outweighs the problems with fossil fuels?
The fact that the girl in the article is the daughter of a dude who runs an ecomodernist organization funded (PDF) by fossil fuels investors.
Ok, so she's not a great source for truth, that still doesn't make nuclear bad though. Why is it always framed as "nuclear vs renewables" instead of "nuclear and renewables vs fossil fuels"?
@bric
Bad ? No but it distracts from what needs to be done becase it ignores two of the most important issues in regards usefulness for climate change, scale and timeliness.It can't satisfy either of those even if you ignire the myriad of other genuine serious concerns.
So the real question is why so many bad faith arguments from proponents offering it as a solution when it obviously isn't ?
My hypothesis on this is; addiction to technohopium. "Tech will save us, this is tech, therefore this will save us" and just ignores reality.
It may even make sense to build a few nuc plants in places with access to little renewables eg North Korea for example.
Also, the fact that girl is promoting the rhetoric of "greens killed nuclear!!" should be a red flag. This is simply false, nuclear was killed by its expensive electricity. While greens may have taken credit, that was unearned credit.
More reading for you:
Two’s a crowd: Nuclear and renewables don’t mix. Only the latter can deliver truly low carbon energy, says new study https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/10/201005112141.htm paper http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41560-020-00696-3
If countries want to lower emissions as substantially, rapidly and cost-effectively as possible, they should prioritize support for renewables, rather than nuclear power.
Slow, expensive and no good for 1.5° target: CSIRO crushes Coalition nuclear fantasy https://reneweconomy.com.au/slow-expensive-and-no-good-for-1-5-target-csiro-crushes-coalition-nuclear-fantasy/
Australia’s leading scientific research organisation, the CSIRO, has delivered a damning blow against the renewed push by the federal Coalition for nuclear power, saying it is expensive, and too slow to make a significant contribution to any serious climate targets.
Former Nuclear Leaders: Say ‘No’ to New Reactors https://www.powermag.com/blog/former-nuclear-leaders-say-no-to-new-reactors/
The former heads of nuclear power regulation in the U.S., Germany, and France, along with the former secretary to the UK’s government radiation protection committee, have issued a joint statement that in part says, “Nuclear is just not part of any feasible strategy that could counter climate change.”
To repeat myself a bit:
Renewables are more dynamic in production. You can turn them on and off quickly, you can scale them quickly too. You can’t do that with nuclear plants easily. Baseload is not a goal, it’s a limit.
That’s why the nuclear energy sector is friends with the coal sector.
Example of Nuclear-Coal friendship from Poland: https://twitter.com/stepien_przemek/status/1642908210913853442
Example of Nuclear-Coal friendship from the USA: https://www.energyandpolicy.org/generation-now-inc/
A deeper understanding here: “The duck in the room - the end of baseload” https://jeromeaparis.substack.com/p/the-duck-in-the-room-the-end-of-baseload