4 ms·

That looks bad. Why would the environmentalists take the position that they did then?

NortySpock 2y ago
(A) not all environmentalists take a non-nuclear position. Be careful painting with a broad brush (B) some people's opinion is based on emotional reaction to a technology rather than a cold calculus of how much a technology could do to reduce global warming effects and reduce humans environmental impact.
- renewiltord 2y ago
  I was curious about the "not all" since it depends whether "not all" is 0.1% or 99%. So I did this: 1. Google for "largest environmental organizations" 2. Select the top 5 3. Search for their position on the subject Here's what I found are the top five largest according to a rudimentary Google: 1. Laudato Si' Movement "In addition to being unsustainable and failing to contribute to climate objectives, nuclear power is also proven to be a dangerous, dirty and expensive source of energy" 2. WWF: "Nuclear energy cannot, and must not, be considered part of the urgently required energy transition." 3. 350.org "Nuclear: a deadly and costly distraction" 4. Climate Foundation (couldn't find anything) 5. Greenpeace "Nuclear power is dirty, dangerous and expensive. Say no to new nukes." I think the environmentalists don't like it, man. I think I've seen enough. Nuclear power must be pretty bad if it is so broadly hated. Or the environmentalists are fools. Sources: https://donorbox.org/nonprofit-blog/20-global-nonprofits-environment https://donorbox.org/nonprofit-blog/20-global-nonprofits-env... https://laudatosimovement.org/news/laudato-si-movement-eu-taxonomy-statement-the-time-to-cut-ties-with-dirty-fossil-fuel-energy-market-players-is-now/ https://laudatosimovement.org/news/laudato-si-movement-eu-ta... https://wwf.panda.org/wwf_news/?10992441/nuclear-net-zero-WWF https://wwf.panda.org/wwf_news/?10992441/nuclear-net-zero-WW... https://350.org/nuclear-a-deadly-and-costly-distraction/ https://350.org/nuclear-a-deadly-and-costly-distraction/ https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/climate/issues/nuclear/#:~:text=Nuclear%20energy%20has%20no%20place,risk%20of%20a%20nuclear%20meltdown https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/climate/issues/nuclear/#:~:te....
GJim 2y ago
Crazy isn't it. A natural disaster (largest earthquake in Japans modern history) kills a sports-stadiums worth of people and causes massive infrastructure damage with over 2000 bodies never found...... .....yet the only thing the west remembers is a single nuclear plant being knocked offline with no resulting deaths due to radiation.
myrmidon 2y ago
Because advocating for more nuclear power would not really help their goals now. 1) Every GW of installed renewable power makes nuclear plants less useful (and renewables will continue to be built because they're too cheap to stop). People like to crow about "nuclear provides the baseload we need", but this is ill-informed nonsense; "providing baseload" is a privilege you get to enjoy if you are the source with the lowest marginal cost (which is absolutely not a given for nuclear power), and sure, you can operate a reactor in load-following mode by turning it off half the time but then the already bad economics become even worse. What you actually need is dispatchable power (thats cheap to install per GW, like gas) and/or more storage or better grid connectivity. 2) There is a lot of pushback from the population at large (especially in countries were regulators and operators are more corrupt/less trusted), building out nuclear plants is much more time consuming and expensive and the resistance against new sites is immense. Alienating half your support base by suddenly championing nuclear power for basically no reason is also a no-go.
- renewiltord 2y ago
  Yeah, this makes sense. Hopefully they're able to arrest this unfortunate outcome in Ukraine.
  - myrmidon 2y ago
    I don't see how it could. "Build expensive nuclear plants because aggressors are less likely to target them while they try to annex you" is not a very convincing value proposition.

(A) not all environmentalists take a non-nuclear position. Be careful painting with a broad brush (B) some people's opinion is based on emotional reaction to a technology rather than a cold calculus of how much a technology could do to reduce global warming effects and reduce humans environmental impact.

renewiltord 2y ago
I was curious about the "not all" since it depends whether "not all" is 0.1% or 99%. So I did this: 1. Google for "largest environmental organizations" 2. Select the top 5 3. Search for their position on the subject Here's what I found are the top five largest according to a rudimentary Google: 1. Laudato Si' Movement "In addition to being unsustainable and failing to contribute to climate objectives, nuclear power is also proven to be a dangerous, dirty and expensive source of energy" 2. WWF: "Nuclear energy cannot, and must not, be considered part of the urgently required energy transition." 3. 350.org "Nuclear: a deadly and costly distraction" 4. Climate Foundation (couldn't find anything) 5. Greenpeace "Nuclear power is dirty, dangerous and expensive. Say no to new nukes." I think the environmentalists don't like it, man. I think I've seen enough. Nuclear power must be pretty bad if it is so broadly hated. Or the environmentalists are fools. Sources: https://donorbox.org/nonprofit-blog/20-global-nonprofits-environment https://donorbox.org/nonprofit-blog/20-global-nonprofits-env... https://laudatosimovement.org/news/laudato-si-movement-eu-taxonomy-statement-the-time-to-cut-ties-with-dirty-fossil-fuel-energy-market-players-is-now/ https://laudatosimovement.org/news/laudato-si-movement-eu-ta... https://wwf.panda.org/wwf_news/?10992441/nuclear-net-zero-WWF https://wwf.panda.org/wwf_news/?10992441/nuclear-net-zero-WW... https://350.org/nuclear-a-deadly-and-costly-distraction/ https://350.org/nuclear-a-deadly-and-costly-distraction/ https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/climate/issues/nuclear/#:~:text=Nuclear%20energy%20has%20no%20place,risk%20of%20a%20nuclear%20meltdown https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/climate/issues/nuclear/#:~:te....

GJim 2y ago

Crazy isn't it. A natural disaster (largest earthquake in Japans modern history) kills a sports-stadiums worth of people and causes massive infrastructure damage with over 2000 bodies never found...... .....yet the only thing the west remembers is a single nuclear plant being knocked offline with no resulting deaths due to radiation.

myrmidon 2y ago

Because advocating for more nuclear power would not really help their goals now. 1) Every GW of installed renewable power makes nuclear plants less useful (and renewables will continue to be built because they're too cheap to stop). People like to crow about "nuclear provides the baseload we need", but this is ill-informed nonsense; "providing baseload" is a privilege you get to enjoy if you are the source with the lowest marginal cost (which is absolutely not a given for nuclear power), and sure, you can operate a reactor in load-following mode by turning it off half the time but then the already bad economics become even worse. What you actually need is dispatchable power (thats cheap to install per GW, like gas) and/or more storage or better grid connectivity. 2) There is a lot of pushback from the population at large (especially in countries were regulators and operators are more corrupt/less trusted), building out nuclear plants is much more time consuming and expensive and the resistance against new sites is immense. Alienating half your support base by suddenly championing nuclear power for basically no reason is also a no-go.

renewiltord 2y ago
Yeah, this makes sense. Hopefully they're able to arrest this unfortunate outcome in Ukraine.
- myrmidon 2y ago
  I don't see how it could. "Build expensive nuclear plants because aggressors are less likely to target them while they try to annex you" is not a very convincing value proposition.