As you can see on this thread, people would rather let climate change be worse than necessary than give up their anti-nuke religion. I understand - it is the reverse of Fox News: if you've only ever been exposed to your tribe's dogma, you can't rationally consider cost/benefits.
The question whether nuclear energy is low carbon or not is totally misleading. If it were low carbon this does not mean that it is good or that there is good reason to have it:
Nuclear energy is much more expensive than renewable energy. Hinkly point will get some 13 cents plus inflation per kwh for the next 40 years. Renewables cost half and their price will go down further.
Nuclear energy does not pay for sufficient insurance. Fukushima - as are all nuclear plants in the world - was insured for less than 2 billion dollar. The damage was - and still is - more than 500 billion dollar. It is the state and the general public who finally pais for the damage.
Nuclear energy is endangering peace in the world by making proliferation possible. Without nuclear energy Iran , North Korea and many other states who now have would not have the technology to build nuclear bombs.
After 60 years of nuclear energy we still have not developed safe disposal for nuclear waste. Nuclear waste is the most dangerous waste ever produced by mankind.
Nuclear energy needs cooling with the water of nearby rivers. In France every summer many nuclear plants have to be shut down because there is not enough cooling water. Energy then needs to be imported.
Nuclear plants make societies prone to acts of terrorism. Imagine the attack to the World Trade Center had been made to a nuclear plant.
etc., etc. … I could go on and on with arguments that make it totally useless to question the carbon footprint of nuclear.
“ As I’ve said many times before: it shouldn’t be renewables versus nuclear; it should be low-carbon versus fossil fuels. Nuclear is firmly in the former camp. We need to find a way of communicating this to the public.”
Let’s all work to understand the reality of engineering and scientific innovation as the route to helping the triple bottom line of People, Planet and shared Prosperity.
Sorry but I do not believe you! The information after surfing through every filter bubble, speak against you! Fusion maybe yes but like always a few years
1. There is radioactive waste that no one knows where to put.
2. As we can see in Ukraine, it's impossible to secure a nuclear plant from war or terroristic attacks.
3. The companies who run nuclear plants have a long historical record of lying, cover-ups, and bad management, resulting in constant problems.
Since it looks like you could live with these problems, why don't you move and live right next to a nuclear plant? Because it seems nuclear plants are similar to airports - everyone wants one, but no one wants it right around their house (better to build them right around someone else's house).
Since we are so unsuccessful in decoupling energy usage from overall consumption, and since energy usage is emitting CO2 (and since we use regenerative energy, our usage of fossil energy has grown), we need to maybe think about lowering consumption. What's so difficult to understand about this?
Nuclear may be low-carbon, but carbon emissions are not the only consideration in building a sustainable future. When evaluating and promoting nuclear, are you taking into account the environmental and cultural impacts of extraction for the uranium and other materials needed for nuclear power? How would the Navajo Nation and other communities living on the front lines of extraction respond to your claims? I ask the same about the waste from nuclear power production. I'm not trying to be anti-nuke, but so many pro-nuke advocates ignore the impacts of extraction and disposal, focusing instead on nuclear's carbon-free emissions without looking at the full life cycle. Thank you!
Remove the Earth’s atmosphere or just the GHGs and Earth becomes much like Moon, no water vapor or clouds, no ice or snow, no oceans, no vegetation, no 30% albedo becoming a barren rock ball, hot^3 (400 K) on lit side, cold^3 (100 K) on dark. At our distance from the Sun space is hot (394 K) not cold (5 K). "
--> Bro what is wrong with you??? Lately a friend told me:
Somebody posted some BS on the Internet?? And maybe that was you???
The Other commentators are clearly not idiots but you spam them with your Climate Change Denier BS Content??? Lying by Omission and so on??? To much day spare time?
Sad to see this thread be full with the same dogmatic science denier anti-nuclear nonsense."
-->
Sorry, but anyone who simply stands up and claims in such a controversial topic as nuclear power, especially fission reactors, despite the fact that very nuanced arguments have been made about dependencies on fuel, dependencies on a few, etc., is just making themselves ridiculous and uncredible with empty phrases like science denial...
"People see the white smoke from a cooling tower and assume nuclear and coal plants are similar."
should be "People see what they think is white smoke - but is actually water vapor - from a cooling tower and assume nuclear and coal plants are similar."
No need to waste our time by discussing nuclear power. Please reed the Artikel from J. Haverkamp, greenpeace: Whatever nuclear power could theoretically deliver, it does too low, too late and against too high costs.Furthermore the risks of nuclear energy are high and are growing by older plants and by the climate change itself (flood, Lack of water).
A lot of confusion comes from over-use of the terms "renewable" and "clean". Many people use these as synonyms for "good". Others jump in and argue over whether or not they're actually good. Facts get drowned out by opinions.
If the goal is to inform rather than polarize, and if what we want to talk about is carbon emissions, then let's follow this article's lead and use language that's clear: "low-carbon" vs. "high-carbon".
As you can see on this thread, people would rather let climate change be worse than necessary than give up their anti-nuke religion. I understand - it is the reverse of Fox News: if you've only ever been exposed to your tribe's dogma, you can't rationally consider cost/benefits.
But it is way worse. https://www.mattball.org/2022/10/environmentalists-are-literally-making.html
The question whether nuclear energy is low carbon or not is totally misleading. If it were low carbon this does not mean that it is good or that there is good reason to have it:
Nuclear energy is much more expensive than renewable energy. Hinkly point will get some 13 cents plus inflation per kwh for the next 40 years. Renewables cost half and their price will go down further.
Nuclear energy does not pay for sufficient insurance. Fukushima - as are all nuclear plants in the world - was insured for less than 2 billion dollar. The damage was - and still is - more than 500 billion dollar. It is the state and the general public who finally pais for the damage.
Nuclear energy is endangering peace in the world by making proliferation possible. Without nuclear energy Iran , North Korea and many other states who now have would not have the technology to build nuclear bombs.
After 60 years of nuclear energy we still have not developed safe disposal for nuclear waste. Nuclear waste is the most dangerous waste ever produced by mankind.
Nuclear energy needs cooling with the water of nearby rivers. In France every summer many nuclear plants have to be shut down because there is not enough cooling water. Energy then needs to be imported.
Nuclear plants make societies prone to acts of terrorism. Imagine the attack to the World Trade Center had been made to a nuclear plant.
etc., etc. … I could go on and on with arguments that make it totally useless to question the carbon footprint of nuclear.
For anyone planning to read the comments on this piece, my advice is Stop Now. It's just angry people shouting from their trenches
A good read thanks.
Underlining it well with:
“ As I’ve said many times before: it shouldn’t be renewables versus nuclear; it should be low-carbon versus fossil fuels. Nuclear is firmly in the former camp. We need to find a way of communicating this to the public.”
Let’s all work to understand the reality of engineering and scientific innovation as the route to helping the triple bottom line of People, Planet and shared Prosperity.
and sorry what is wrong with you?
do you see yourself ?? while watching in a mirror or is it empty???
you old bad white man think you are the one person you think you are gallilei? and then writing BS on the Internet?
Aha????
Sorry but I do not believe you! The information after surfing through every filter bubble, speak against you! Fusion maybe yes but like always a few years
away like Helion e.g. Fission nope!
1. There is radioactive waste that no one knows where to put.
2. As we can see in Ukraine, it's impossible to secure a nuclear plant from war or terroristic attacks.
3. The companies who run nuclear plants have a long historical record of lying, cover-ups, and bad management, resulting in constant problems.
Since it looks like you could live with these problems, why don't you move and live right next to a nuclear plant? Because it seems nuclear plants are similar to airports - everyone wants one, but no one wants it right around their house (better to build them right around someone else's house).
Since we are so unsuccessful in decoupling energy usage from overall consumption, and since energy usage is emitting CO2 (and since we use regenerative energy, our usage of fossil energy has grown), we need to maybe think about lowering consumption. What's so difficult to understand about this?
Nuclear may be low-carbon, but carbon emissions are not the only consideration in building a sustainable future. When evaluating and promoting nuclear, are you taking into account the environmental and cultural impacts of extraction for the uranium and other materials needed for nuclear power? How would the Navajo Nation and other communities living on the front lines of extraction respond to your claims? I ask the same about the waste from nuclear power production. I'm not trying to be anti-nuke, but so many pro-nuke advocates ignore the impacts of extraction and disposal, focusing instead on nuclear's carbon-free emissions without looking at the full life cycle. Thank you!
"
Remove the Earth’s atmosphere or just the GHGs and Earth becomes much like Moon, no water vapor or clouds, no ice or snow, no oceans, no vegetation, no 30% albedo becoming a barren rock ball, hot^3 (400 K) on lit side, cold^3 (100 K) on dark. At our distance from the Sun space is hot (394 K) not cold (5 K). "
--> Bro what is wrong with you??? Lately a friend told me:
Somebody posted some BS on the Internet?? And maybe that was you???
The Other commentators are clearly not idiots but you spam them with your Climate Change Denier BS Content??? Lying by Omission and so on??? To much day spare time?
"Benji Semi coherent ramblings
Sad to see this thread be full with the same dogmatic science denier anti-nuclear nonsense."
-->
Sorry, but anyone who simply stands up and claims in such a controversial topic as nuclear power, especially fission reactors, despite the fact that very nuanced arguments have been made about dependencies on fuel, dependencies on a few, etc., is just making themselves ridiculous and uncredible with empty phrases like science denial...
Disingenuous bullshit it’s truly not appreciated.
I think it has something to do with nuclear waste and nuclear accidents, with people associating these with pollution, and therefore CO2 emissions.
"People see the white smoke from a cooling tower and assume nuclear and coal plants are similar."
should be "People see what they think is white smoke - but is actually water vapor - from a cooling tower and assume nuclear and coal plants are similar."
No need to waste our time by discussing nuclear power. Please reed the Artikel from J. Haverkamp, greenpeace: Whatever nuclear power could theoretically deliver, it does too low, too late and against too high costs.Furthermore the risks of nuclear energy are high and are growing by older plants and by the climate change itself (flood, Lack of water).
Good article!
A lot of confusion comes from over-use of the terms "renewable" and "clean". Many people use these as synonyms for "good". Others jump in and argue over whether or not they're actually good. Facts get drowned out by opinions.
If the goal is to inform rather than polarize, and if what we want to talk about is carbon emissions, then let's follow this article's lead and use language that's clear: "low-carbon" vs. "high-carbon".
Absolute Propaganda Shitshow here!
I show you for what we made the Internet!
Send stupid little funny Videos around and not this PR shit!
Today it is only marketing shitshow and a money and time consuming
shithole!
I am out here you Doom&Gloom Loverboys!
Take this!
https://youtu.be/N7itFdNE2Qw?si=xcOUSZ5StXpWjqcP