5 ms·
> ecologists want to reduce our nuclear capacity more and more How can a person having some idea about ecology ever advocate opening coal plants and closing nu
by qwerty456127 7y ago
> ecologists want to reduce our nuclear capacity more and more
How can a person having some idea about ecology ever advocate opening coal plants and closing nuclear ones?
- henrikschroder 7y agoBecause much of the modern environmental political movement had its roots in the anti-nuclear (war and power) movement. They simply hate nuclear power more than they hate fossil fuel power, and then they push for idiotic swaps like this. There's an extra layer of irony in that coal power plants cause more radiation and more cancer than nuclear power plants.
- maelito 7y agoAlso because of defiance against science / cherry picking. The French "ecological" party, EELV, has prominent anti-vaccine advocates.
- qwerty456127 7y agoI believe anti-vaccine advocates are there for the sole reason of getting the votes of the anti-vaccine-minded people (and for pushing some into this category just to get their votes). It's improbable real politicians are suicidal enough to actually risk facing a pandemia once they get to power.
- wazoox 7y agoExactly. Greenpeace even goes as far as plain lies, pretending that nuclear power is a significant source of greenhouse gas. Shame on them.
- xenonite 7y agoActually, nuclear power indeed _is_ a significant source of greenhouse gases. Please take into account: a) construction and teardown of the power plant (massive amounts) b) uranium mining c) responsible contaminating radioactive waste (in mountains, etc) I didn't research for numbers now, but I think one can find them.
- wazoox 7y agoIt emits much less greenhouse gasses per MWh than "green" energies. Plus you admit yourself that you didn't research the numbers, that's patently ridiculous. Shame on you, too.
- cycomanic 7y agoThat us simply not true, I will dig out the study later when not on mobile, but wind has an energy (which is closely related to co2) ROI of 18 month or less, that is in about 19 month you have recouped the energy you put into building it. For nuclear this is around 40 years (I'm not sure if the numbers included decommissioning). Considering that both produce relatively little to no co2 during operation it's clear that relative wind wins by quite a margin. For solar the time was quite a bit longer IIRC (not 40 years however)
- ip26 7y agoThe only way I can understand it is incredible shortsightedness. In other words, it's not "close the nuclear plant and open a coal plant". They see it as "close the nuclear plant" and don't think about it any further than that.
- pfdietz 7y agoCoal is on the way out also. It won't be "close nuclear and replace with coal". It's "close nuclear and replace with things much cleaner than coal (gas or, increasingly, renewables.)
- godelski 7y agoI'm going to need a few citations because this is an ongoing and highly controversial debate within the climate community. Considering that, it isn't a smart decision to remove nuclear from the conversation all together. I'd go as far as saying removing it from the conversation is anti-scientific.
- pfdietz 7y agoI want you to look up how many new coal plants have been built in the US in the last five years. Answer: just one, a tiny oneat the University of Alaska. During that time, many nuclear plants were retired here. Shutting down nuclear did not lead to a resurgence of coal. Instead, coal is collapsing. Large steam thermal baseload plants are increasingly uncompetitive, coal or nuclear.
- simloo 7y agoNot the parent poster, but you should add what's actually being built: a lot of gas plants. They're cleaner than coal, but lets be honest, still not particularly good for the environment.
- pfdietz 7y agoYou mean, I could have written something like "gas or, increasingly, renewables"? Which is what I actually wrote.
- rtx 7y agoState of fear gives the answer.