7 ms·

This is even more hilarious: Germany oppose nuclear, which is the greenest energy source in terme of emissions, but managed to get funding to use "green" gas: h

by xroche 5y ago

This is even more hilarious: Germany oppose nuclear, which is the greenest energy source in terme of emissions, but managed to get funding to use "green" gas: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_21_2042 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_21_...

whoknowswhat11 5y ago
that is comical - funny to see how climate change doesn't really drive direct action even with environmentalists - looking into this they appear to be against nuclear while claiming carbon emissions are biggest issue?
- Syonyk 5y ago
  That's about the shape of it, yes. They grew out of movements opposing nuclear power in the 60s, for various reasons (some of the weapons proliferation concerns were valid enough then, though a detailed understanding of fuel cycles and what does/doesn't generate usable weapons material seldom factors into the objections). As the concerns shifted, the environmental groups seem to have simply added on various new concerns without re-evaluating old points. So you end up with a lot of the groups now being in a weird state where they're against nuclear, opposed to carbon emissions, and don't actually seem to care much about the actual environment beyond "We have to find a way to keep industrial civilization powered without carbon, and without nuclear." Blowing off mountain tops to extract materials to do this doesn't seem to be a huge concern anymore, and that certainly seems it should fall somewhere under the banner of "environmentalism" - but you mostly hear crickets these days. If you're looking for something resembling a self consistent environmental group, you can read some of the stuff by the Deep Green Resistance people - their latest, Bright Green Lies, is a decent enough read on their position. That position, simply, is that industrial civilization is incompatible with the planet, and they do a decent job of arguing their position, which is that it doesn't matter how you power an industrial civilization, it does massive and irreparable damage to the planet as a result of the focus on energy and exponential growth. They look at the resource requirements to implement some of the forecast green futures ("We need 3M windmills? Ok, what does that look like in terms of steel, copper, rare earths, and how does that compare with the global production during the timeframe required to build them?") and come to some depressing conclusions. But even if you disagree with them, they show their work decently enough throughout and it's an interesting set of problems to think through. But in general, you'll find an awful lot of "Climate change is a huge problem; someone else really ought to do something about it!" style thinking in the environmental groups, and I'm pretty comfortable saying that if the last decade hasn't done much useful on this front, continuing the same thing for years to come will accomplish roughly the same "almost nothing." I'm also not at all sold with the "You can buy your way to green!" solutions that are peddled constantly by those who are interested in ensuring that, no matter what happens, the core of the modern consumerist economy won't be bothered. I'll gesture in the direction of the standard "worried about the climate" somewhat senior tech worker who has a million dollar home, a six figure car, absurdly expensive solar that offsets at least a bit of their power use on their roof, and who feels that they've consumed their way to green, without having really considered any of the resources that actually go into the vehicle, or lower energy/material alternatives to meet their needs. You can directly reduce emissions by simply using less, but this isn't really discussed these days. I don't see a good path out, sadly. It's very possible we've accelerated growth in a direction that is simply a dead end canyon with no valid paths out that maintain a lot of what we've developed.
jcfrei 5y ago
A big part of the problem are the green parties themselves. They were in many cases started as a youth movement against nuclear power in the 60s. The basis of these green parties consists of people who are ideologically opposed to nuclear energy and their youth rebellion against it is now part of their identity. This is why the leadership of green parties cannot support nuclear energy even though opposing it is completely nonsensical at this point.
- nicklecompte 5y ago
  European nuclear advocates really don’t have a satisfactory political response to Chernobyl and Fukushima. Truthfully, the best argument for nuclear power is an extremely unpleasant one: a bit of radioactive contamination (an immediate and visceral threat) is a small price to pay for the emissions offset (still a somewhat abstract and distant threat). The numbers check out but it is undeniably ghoulish. But pretending people are motivated by sheer hippie-foolishness is just an ignorant ad hominem. It is not “completely nonsensical” to oppose nuclear power, even if the argument is badly flawed. Chernobyl was a traumatic event for many Europeans and they are correct to be suspicious of claims that a proposed nuclear technology is actually safe. Being so condescending and dismissive doesn’t help anyone.
  - jcfrei 5y ago
    Calling my explanation condescending seems exaggerated. The opposition against nuclear energy makes sense if Chernobyl is your reference in terms of safety. But modern reactor designs are a lot safer than Chernobyl and Fukushima. That's why I'm calling it nonsensical - the skepticism was warranted at the time but it's outdated now.
    - akarma 5y ago
      I agree with you that your comment wasn't condescending like the above commenter suggested, but disagree about modern reactor designs. They'll always carry this risk. Sure, reactor design has changed since Chernobyl in various ways that help mitigate it, but what about Fukushima? Fukushima was devastating, and the result was the NRC asking US reactors to reconfirm their flooding and earthquake preparedness. I don't know of any measures taken in European countries. As climate change progresses, there could be some disastrous consequences, and it's unfair to say that the skepticism is outdated. This isn't to say that nuclear is worse than coal (it's not), but that it isn't just handwaving.
kergonath 5y ago
It’s fine. They are going to get vegan gas from Greenpeace. I wish I were joking.
- LargoLasskhyfv 5y ago
  You mean like this? [1] https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2015/12/discovery-racing-extinction-methane-bags-timelapse/ https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2015/12/discovery-ra...
elric 5y ago
This issue is a tad more complex than the silly tropes of "greens oppose nuclear" and "greens claim gas is green". That's not quite what this is about. Nuclear is very slow to (up|down)cycle. It's very good at putting out a constant rate of power. Pretty cheap power, once it's operational and when conviently ignoring all externalities. However, having boatloads of cheap nuclear on the grid, means that there isn't much room for renewables at the same time. Which means they're often seen as a poor investment. Which means not much capacity gets added. You get the idea. What the greens want, is as much renewables on the grid as possible, as quickly as possible. You can't use nuclear as backup for intermittent renewables (clouds, lack of wind, etc) because it's too slow. That's why the gas peaker plants are a thing. Is this an ideal situation? No, of course not. Everything about the energy mix on the grid is a compromise. But it's slowly moving towards a situation where renewables become an attractive investment, which will hopefully lead to more green power.
- xroche 5y ago
  So the idea is that: (1) Nuclear is cheap and makes renewable like solar and wind useless (2) Solar and wind require fossile fuels My take is that intermittent renewable are a scam and will never help us fighting climate change. More of them is actually bad.

by xroche 5y ago

whoknowswhat11 5y ago

that is comical - funny to see how climate change doesn't really drive direct action even with environmentalists - looking into this they appear to be against nuclear while claiming carbon emissions are biggest issue?

Syonyk 5y ago
That's about the shape of it, yes. They grew out of movements opposing nuclear power in the 60s, for various reasons (some of the weapons proliferation concerns were valid enough then, though a detailed understanding of fuel cycles and what does/doesn't generate usable weapons material seldom factors into the objections). As the concerns shifted, the environmental groups seem to have simply added on various new concerns without re-evaluating old points. So you end up with a lot of the groups now being in a weird state where they're against nuclear, opposed to carbon emissions, and don't actually seem to care much about the actual environment beyond "We have to find a way to keep industrial civilization powered without carbon, and without nuclear." Blowing off mountain tops to extract materials to do this doesn't seem to be a huge concern anymore, and that certainly seems it should fall somewhere under the banner of "environmentalism" - but you mostly hear crickets these days. If you're looking for something resembling a self consistent environmental group, you can read some of the stuff by the Deep Green Resistance people - their latest, Bright Green Lies, is a decent enough read on their position. That position, simply, is that industrial civilization is incompatible with the planet, and they do a decent job of arguing their position, which is that it doesn't matter how you power an industrial civilization, it does massive and irreparable damage to the planet as a result of the focus on energy and exponential growth. They look at the resource requirements to implement some of the forecast green futures ("We need 3M windmills? Ok, what does that look like in terms of steel, copper, rare earths, and how does that compare with the global production during the timeframe required to build them?") and come to some depressing conclusions. But even if you disagree with them, they show their work decently enough throughout and it's an interesting set of problems to think through. But in general, you'll find an awful lot of "Climate change is a huge problem; someone else really ought to do something about it!" style thinking in the environmental groups, and I'm pretty comfortable saying that if the last decade hasn't done much useful on this front, continuing the same thing for years to come will accomplish roughly the same "almost nothing." I'm also not at all sold with the "You can buy your way to green!" solutions that are peddled constantly by those who are interested in ensuring that, no matter what happens, the core of the modern consumerist economy won't be bothered. I'll gesture in the direction of the standard "worried about the climate" somewhat senior tech worker who has a million dollar home, a six figure car, absurdly expensive solar that offsets at least a bit of their power use on their roof, and who feels that they've consumed their way to green, without having really considered any of the resources that actually go into the vehicle, or lower energy/material alternatives to meet their needs. You can directly reduce emissions by simply using less, but this isn't really discussed these days. I don't see a good path out, sadly. It's very possible we've accelerated growth in a direction that is simply a dead end canyon with no valid paths out that maintain a lot of what we've developed.

jcfrei 5y ago

A big part of the problem are the green parties themselves. They were in many cases started as a youth movement against nuclear power in the 60s. The basis of these green parties consists of people who are ideologically opposed to nuclear energy and their youth rebellion against it is now part of their identity. This is why the leadership of green parties cannot support nuclear energy even though opposing it is completely nonsensical at this point.

nicklecompte 5y ago
European nuclear advocates really don’t have a satisfactory political response to Chernobyl and Fukushima. Truthfully, the best argument for nuclear power is an extremely unpleasant one: a bit of radioactive contamination (an immediate and visceral threat) is a small price to pay for the emissions offset (still a somewhat abstract and distant threat). The numbers check out but it is undeniably ghoulish. But pretending people are motivated by sheer hippie-foolishness is just an ignorant ad hominem. It is not “completely nonsensical” to oppose nuclear power, even if the argument is badly flawed. Chernobyl was a traumatic event for many Europeans and they are correct to be suspicious of claims that a proposed nuclear technology is actually safe. Being so condescending and dismissive doesn’t help anyone.
- jcfrei 5y ago
  Calling my explanation condescending seems exaggerated. The opposition against nuclear energy makes sense if Chernobyl is your reference in terms of safety. But modern reactor designs are a lot safer than Chernobyl and Fukushima. That's why I'm calling it nonsensical - the skepticism was warranted at the time but it's outdated now.
  - akarma 5y ago
    I agree with you that your comment wasn't condescending like the above commenter suggested, but disagree about modern reactor designs. They'll always carry this risk. Sure, reactor design has changed since Chernobyl in various ways that help mitigate it, but what about Fukushima? Fukushima was devastating, and the result was the NRC asking US reactors to reconfirm their flooding and earthquake preparedness. I don't know of any measures taken in European countries. As climate change progresses, there could be some disastrous consequences, and it's unfair to say that the skepticism is outdated. This isn't to say that nuclear is worse than coal (it's not), but that it isn't just handwaving.

kergonath 5y ago

It’s fine. They are going to get vegan gas from Greenpeace. I wish I were joking.

LargoLasskhyfv 5y ago
You mean like this? [1] https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2015/12/discovery-racing-extinction-methane-bags-timelapse/ https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2015/12/discovery-ra...

elric 5y ago

This issue is a tad more complex than the silly tropes of "greens oppose nuclear" and "greens claim gas is green". That's not quite what this is about. Nuclear is very slow to (up|down)cycle. It's very good at putting out a constant rate of power. Pretty cheap power, once it's operational and when conviently ignoring all externalities. However, having boatloads of cheap nuclear on the grid, means that there isn't much room for renewables at the same time. Which means they're often seen as a poor investment. Which means not much capacity gets added. You get the idea. What the greens want, is as much renewables on the grid as possible, as quickly as possible. You can't use nuclear as backup for intermittent renewables (clouds, lack of wind, etc) because it's too slow. That's why the gas peaker plants are a thing. Is this an ideal situation? No, of course not. Everything about the energy mix on the grid is a compromise. But it's slowly moving towards a situation where renewables become an attractive investment, which will hopefully lead to more green power.

xroche 5y ago
So the idea is that: (1) Nuclear is cheap and makes renewable like solar and wind useless (2) Solar and wind require fossile fuels My take is that intermittent renewable are a scam and will never help us fighting climate change. More of them is actually bad.