3 ms·

> The majority of climate scientists are pro nuclear. Do you have any credible sources on that?

godelski 7y ago
I commonly quote IPCC recommendations because this is an easy reference with recommendations in several releases, but people rather don't like this and claim bureaucracy (this is easy to find and can be found from emission reports to the climate summits. I can explain some nuance if there are actual questions here). I can also anecdotally, working in HPC, tell you that I have yet to meet a climate scientist that is anti-nuclear or anti-sequestration (a politician that I really like sadly calls these "false solutions"). By anecdotally I mean that I talk to these people. https://world-nuclear.org/uploadedFiles/org/WNA/Publications/Working_Group_Reports/comparison_of_lifecycle.pdf https://world-nuclear.org/uploadedFiles/org/WNA/Publications... https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/SRREN_Full_Report-1.pdf https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/SRREN_Full_R... (you'll notice a lot of talk about "continuous energy" here and notice quite a lot of graphs about emission comparisons) https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy13osti/57187.pdf https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy13osti/57187.pdf I can provide more, if needed.
- Krasnol 7y ago
  The first compilation is highly selective (what are those Swedish Environmental Management Council sources for example? None of them are available and all lead to a page that is not the SEM council) in it's sources and would not even closely cover either the statement "pro nuclear" nor any "majority" and it's been selected for this publication by the World Nuclear Association... The second one consist sentences like: "Increasing the installed capacity of RE power plants will reduce the amount of fossil and nuclear fuels that otherwise would be needed in order to meet a given electricity demand." or "There are multiple means for lowering GHG emissions from the energy system while still providing desired energy services." where nuclear is just one option among many others or "There have been significant power reductions from nuclear and coal plants during drought conditions in the USA and France in recent years." and so on. The focus is clearly on RE and I don't see a clear "pro nuclear" message there. The third one is focused on emissions based upon unnamed sources from an unknown time range (which is relevant for RE as there is rapid development unlike in nuclear) ignoring relevant topics like nuclear waste management (https://worldnuclearwastereport.org/ https://worldnuclearwastereport.org/) and seems to end up being pro wind. I tried to find some more data on nuclear energy on their page but it seems they are not considering it at all: https://www.nrel.gov/research/data-tools.html https://www.nrel.gov/research/data-tools.html So yeah, you could provide something that focuses on that "majority" and "pro nuclear" parts. That would be nice. And please spare me nuclear lobby groups. We had enough of their marketing efforts in the recent months here.

I commonly quote IPCC recommendations because this is an easy reference with recommendations in several releases, but people rather don't like this and claim bureaucracy (this is easy to find and can be found from emission reports to the climate summits. I can explain some nuance if there are actual questions here). I can also anecdotally, working in HPC, tell you that I have yet to meet a climate scientist that is anti-nuclear or anti-sequestration (a politician that I really like sadly calls these "false solutions"). By anecdotally I mean that I talk to these people. https://world-nuclear.org/uploadedFiles/org/WNA/Publications/Working_Group_Reports/comparison_of_lifecycle.pdf https://world-nuclear.org/uploadedFiles/org/WNA/Publications... https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/SRREN_Full_Report-1.pdf https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/SRREN_Full_R... (you'll notice a lot of talk about "continuous energy" here and notice quite a lot of graphs about emission comparisons) https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy13osti/57187.pdf https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy13osti/57187.pdf I can provide more, if needed.

Krasnol 7y ago
The first compilation is highly selective (what are those Swedish Environmental Management Council sources for example? None of them are available and all lead to a page that is not the SEM council) in it's sources and would not even closely cover either the statement "pro nuclear" nor any "majority" and it's been selected for this publication by the World Nuclear Association... The second one consist sentences like: "Increasing the installed capacity of RE power plants will reduce the amount of fossil and nuclear fuels that otherwise would be needed in order to meet a given electricity demand." or "There are multiple means for lowering GHG emissions from the energy system while still providing desired energy services." where nuclear is just one option among many others or "There have been significant power reductions from nuclear and coal plants during drought conditions in the USA and France in recent years." and so on. The focus is clearly on RE and I don't see a clear "pro nuclear" message there. The third one is focused on emissions based upon unnamed sources from an unknown time range (which is relevant for RE as there is rapid development unlike in nuclear) ignoring relevant topics like nuclear waste management (https://worldnuclearwastereport.org/ https://worldnuclearwastereport.org/) and seems to end up being pro wind. I tried to find some more data on nuclear energy on their page but it seems they are not considering it at all: https://www.nrel.gov/research/data-tools.html https://www.nrel.gov/research/data-tools.html So yeah, you could provide something that focuses on that "majority" and "pro nuclear" parts. That would be nice. And please spare me nuclear lobby groups. We had enough of their marketing efforts in the recent months here.