4 ms·

Why the issue with nuclear ?

• mjhay 4y ago
  Doubly so because the same oil and gas industry has spent quite a bit of money over the years to spread anti-nuclear hysteria, including covert support of environmental groups such as the Sierra Club. The effects can be seen now in EU, where gas has been labeled "green", while nuclear isn't. https://www.forbes.com/sites/kensilverstein/2016/07/13/are-fossil-fuel-interests-bankrolling-the-anti-nuclear-energy-movement/?sh=2e1ecce07453 https://www.forbes.com/sites/kensilverstein/2016/07/13/are-f... This link provides a breakdown (be aware that is from an explicitly pro-nuclear group): https://www.ans.org/news/article-930/sierra-club-natural-gas-money/ https://www.ans.org/news/article-930/sierra-club-natural-gas... The oil and gas industry has tremendous incentive to expose nuclear. It's still the only game in town for truly replacing them.
  • edhelas 4y ago
    Yup :)
  • mschuster91 4y ago
    > The effects can be seen now in EU, where gas has been labeled "green", while nuclear isn't. Gas plants have been labeled a transition technology on the path to a fully renewable grid, because they are cheap, fast to construct and can serve as peaker plants burning biogas. While they are currently burning fossil fuels, the emissions are way lower than for other fossil fuel plants - per each kWh produced, less CO2 gets emitted, and particulate emissions are additionally way lower. In contrast, nuclear plants take an extremely long time to plan and build - the EPR design took almost two decades alone for building it in Olkiluouto and almost as much in Flamanville. Add to that the many years of bureaucracy in obtaining permits, purchasing land and other activities, and suddenly you're looking at 25+ years until the plant is operational, and dozens of billions of euros in sunk cost. The future is many things, but certainly not nuclear fission!