4 ms·
I agree, but why set up a false dichotomy? Nuclear energy should be part of a "Green New Deal", which shouldn't just be about energy, but pragmatic environmenta
by sebmellen 6y ago
I agree, but why set up a false dichotomy? Nuclear energy should be part of a "Green New Deal", which shouldn't just be about energy, but pragmatic environmentalism in all fields.
- aaronbrethorst 6y agoFalse dichotomies generate controversy and get more clicks!
- sebmellen 6y agoI wonder how many clicks an article could get with a title like: "Alex Jones Denounces Satanic 'Green New Deal', Scientists Propose Nuclear Energy Alternative".
- bilbo0s 6y agoThey're pretty good for getting votes at the ballot box too. It's been my observation that the tenets of many political ideologies are predicated on false dichotomies. Or even out and out falsehoods.
- godelski 6y agoI always say this whenever nuclear conversations come up: > It isn't nuclear vs renewables, it is nuclear + renewables vs renewables. You use the best technology for the local environment and situations. Why take something off the table? Seems like the author is buying into the common false dichotomy because it is more sensational.
- Bud 6y agoOnly, not. The author never sets up any dichotomy at all, nor does he suggest the elimination of renewables. He merely suggests that nuclear have a higher priority, for reasons he then goes on to explain: "That is why any climate plan that doesn’t prioritize nuclear above all other energy sources is destined to exacerbate climate problems rather than solve them. "
- sebmellen 6y agoIf only the author didn't use such an inflammatory title. Why don't we need a Green New Deal (+ Nuclear)? A "Nuclear New Deal" is a myopic approach to a systems wide catastrophe which includes pollution, waste, emissions, food production, energy production, supply chains, etc. and more.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- manfredo 6y agoIt largely is a dichotomy, because nuclear power largely makes wind and solar redundant. Peak energy demand occurs right around or after sundown. If we're going to fulfill this demand with nuclear, then we could just run the nuclear plants all day long and build no solar or wind. Solar and wind are a good complement to natural gas. We can dial back the gas when the intermittent sources of energy are producing. This both saves carbon and money, since fuel is a substantial portion of a gas plant', operating cost. By comparison, a nuclear plant costs just as much to run at maximum capacity all day long as it does at partial capacity. If you have enough nuclear plants to full peak demand, which coincides with the trough of renewables' generation, then just run the plants at full capacity all day and skip building renewables.
- godelski 6y agoExcept this isn't true. We've always had and will continue to have a diversified portfolio of energy sources because the cost of production changes depending on your environment. There's this bad idea flowing around that prices are consistent. Some places nuclear is better. Some places wind is. Some places solar is. It is also good to not be solely dependent upon a single instance because of security issues (one of many reasons France is targeting a 50% nuclear power generation). You can't use averages and apply it to extremes. The world isn't homogeneous.
- pfdietz 6y agoIt's not a false dichotomy. Beyond a certain level of renewable penetration, nuclear's business case degrades, as the price of power is depressed too often for the NPPs to earn their keep. Nuclear and renewables are both inflexible sources, in their own ways, and they both use up the grid's capacity to deal with inflexible sources.
- GoodJokes 6y agoNuclear shills are shills. Look deep enough and they have a money in it or just want to be the person no one likes on contrarian day.
- rch 6y agoMy impression is that the GND is focused on jobs, social programs, and justice issues, which is great, just not environmentalism per se. It might be more effective to expand E. O. Wilson's efforts on biodiversity to include energy policy than to try to have the GND encompass absolutely everything that's happening at the moment.
- wmf 6y agoWhen I looked at a semi-detailed analysis of one version of the GND, $14T was for the green part and $2T was for the new deal part. I think of it as a small bribe to get more politicians on board.
- rch 6y agoI'd be curious to see that. I was only reading the text.
- wmf 6y agoIt might have been https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214629620301067 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221462962... which shows the line items.
- rch 6y agoI've seen that one, and it does the illustrate economics supporting a premise that leveraging "synergies between the goals of reducing CO2 emissions substantially and quickly and tackling income and wealth inequality" could be at least feasible. I'm not sure that it supports the cost ratio you quoted however.
- iso8859-1 6y agoGreenpeace is actively opposed to nuclear. And then you have articles like https://www.citizen.org/article/nuclear-power-is-not-clean-or-green/ https://www.citizen.org/article/nuclear-power-is-not-clean-o... Why even use the term "green" when you can say "low emissions"? That is harder to disagree about.
- jmull 6y ago> Nuclear energy should be part of a "Green New Deal" If Biden’s energy plan is the green new deal, then it already is... As a political football of a marketing term, people are never going to agree on what composes it. But it seems that nuclear has become practically mainstream as part of green energy plans. Not that there isn’t plenty of residual resistance from “green” groups with historical objections to nuclear. Hopefully every group that actually cares about climate change will take a fresh, objective look, to see if they can’t get aboard after all.