3 ms·
Because much of the modern environmental political movement had its roots in the anti-nuclear (war and power) movement. They simply hate nuclear power more tha
by henrikschroder 7y ago
Because 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)