3 ms·

Big win for the environmental movement, big loss for the environment.

by WillPostForFood 1y ago

thinkingtoilet 1y ago
How is shutting down an already built nuclear power plant in favor of natural gas a big win for the environment?
- lupusreal 1y ago
  He said loss for the environment. It's a win for the "environmental movement" which has a hate boner for nuclear. For every nuclear power plant they got delayed or canceled in the 20th century, many megatons of carbon dioxide were added to the atmosphere. These days it's arguably different, insofar as solar is viable, but evidently it's not viable enough for Taiwan to not expand their use of natural gas. Still, it's better than in the 20th century when a nuclear power plant obstructed by activists almost always meant coal was burned instead.
Y-bar 1y ago
Honest question here. Which _specific_ environmental movement considers a switch from nuclear to NG a win? I'm only aware of movements who want solar/wind/hydro and other sustainable sources to replace nuclear, never have I seen a movement call for gas to replace it, which is why I ask.
- godelski 1y ago
  Sierra Nevada Club and Green Peace. The former famously has taken significant funds from natural gas companies with the explicit shared anti nuclear interests. Green Peace may not (always) tell you gas is better, but they do not operate in a way where they don't effectively believe that. They focus on shutting down first and dealing with ramifications later. Historically, those ramifications are installing more NG or coal, not solar. Clearly the NG companies understand this, with their findings of SN (and many believe funding of GP too but I'm not aware of any confirmations)
  - Y-bar 1y ago
    Sierra Club wanted NG as a "bridge" fuel for a few years while other sources took it's place, as a replacement for oil and coal, not nuclear. They have since grown more hostile to NG. Example sources: https://www.energyindepth.org/sierra-clubs-latest-attack-on-natural-gas-fired-power-plants-is-wrong-because-science/ https://www.energyindepth.org/sierra-clubs-latest-attack-on-... https://science.time.com/2012/02/02/exclusive-how-the-sierra-club-took-millions-from-the-natural-gas-industry-and-why-they-stopped/ https://science.time.com/2012/02/02/exclusive-how-the-sierra... Can you give a specific example where Green Peace activities have resulted in NG being used instead of nuclear power? In all historical records I can find they seem pretty consistent on actively protesting gas power plants. The most "gas-positive" quote I can find is here https://www.greenpeace.de/sites/default/files/publications/energyrevolutionreport_engl_0.pdf https://www.greenpeace.de/sites/default/files/publications/e... where they say > "A shift from coal and oil to natural gas in the remaining conventional applications will lead to a further reduction of CO 2 emissions" Which seems pretty consistent with their actions, no?
    - godelski 1y ago
      > Can you give a specific example where Green Peace activities have resulted in NG being used instead of nuclear power? No Because I cannot provide specific examples where Green Peace's efforts unequivocally have led to the shutdown of nuclear reactors. But it is not difficult to demonstrate that they have been highly involved in creating negative public sentiment of nuclear reactors and are one of the leading public organizations making efforts to do so. I believe our conversation and the fact that Green Peace is a household name is evidence enough. But if it isn't you can search their own website and their wiki page says as much. AND the claim that shutting down nuclear leads to increases NG and coal production is trivially verifiable. The two most prominent cases being Germany[0,1] and Japan[2]. By the graph's at the top of the wiki articles you can see that nuclear was not exclusively replaced by renewables. I should have stated the claim with this wording for clarity, I apologize. It is also important to note that they dedicate efforts to closing plants where nuclear provides at least half the zero carbon energy generated by a region. If you wish to confirm I suggest pulling up electric emission maps[3], look in the American East (south and north) and google the name of those nuclear facilities along with green peace. The TVA is a great place to start followed by PJM and SCS. > Which seems pretty consistent with their actions, no? The contention is about prioritization. I do not claim that GP (nor SNC) states they seek to increase global emissions. Only that they disproportionately dedicate resources to close down nuclear plants compared to those of coal and oil. The claim is that: - historical evidence shows shutting down nuclear power coincides with increased carbon emissions as the combined effect of growing energy demands with an energy production deficit leads to production of additional carbon emitting facilities - current economic conditions do not lead to strong preferences of renewable power production over carbon emitting ones. I'm fine with shutting down nuclear plants in favor of renewables, but only after we have eliminated the significantly higher priority carbon emitting facilities and can ensure our energy demands can be met through current renewable technologies. Neither of these conditions are currently being met. [0] https://www.bakerinstitute.org/research/natural-gas-balance-europe-germany-case-study https://www.bakerinstitute.org/research/natural-gas-balance-... [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_Germany https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_German... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_Japan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_Japan [3] https://app.electricitymaps.com/map/72h/hourly https://app.electricitymaps.com/map/72h/hourly

Big win for the environmental movement, big loss for the environment.

thinkingtoilet 1y ago

How is shutting down an already built nuclear power plant in favor of natural gas a big win for the environment?

lupusreal 1y ago
He said loss for the environment. It's a win for the "environmental movement" which has a hate boner for nuclear. For every nuclear power plant they got delayed or canceled in the 20th century, many megatons of carbon dioxide were added to the atmosphere. These days it's arguably different, insofar as solar is viable, but evidently it's not viable enough for Taiwan to not expand their use of natural gas. Still, it's better than in the 20th century when a nuclear power plant obstructed by activists almost always meant coal was burned instead.

Y-bar 1y ago

Honest question here. Which _specific_ environmental movement considers a switch from nuclear to NG a win? I'm only aware of movements who want solar/wind/hydro and other sustainable sources to replace nuclear, never have I seen a movement call for gas to replace it, which is why I ask.

godelski 1y ago
Sierra Nevada Club and Green Peace. The former famously has taken significant funds from natural gas companies with the explicit shared anti nuclear interests. Green Peace may not (always) tell you gas is better, but they do not operate in a way where they don't effectively believe that. They focus on shutting down first and dealing with ramifications later. Historically, those ramifications are installing more NG or coal, not solar. Clearly the NG companies understand this, with their findings of SN (and many believe funding of GP too but I'm not aware of any confirmations)
- Y-bar 1y ago
  Sierra Club wanted NG as a "bridge" fuel for a few years while other sources took it's place, as a replacement for oil and coal, not nuclear. They have since grown more hostile to NG. Example sources: https://www.energyindepth.org/sierra-clubs-latest-attack-on-natural-gas-fired-power-plants-is-wrong-because-science/ https://www.energyindepth.org/sierra-clubs-latest-attack-on-... https://science.time.com/2012/02/02/exclusive-how-the-sierra-club-took-millions-from-the-natural-gas-industry-and-why-they-stopped/ https://science.time.com/2012/02/02/exclusive-how-the-sierra... Can you give a specific example where Green Peace activities have resulted in NG being used instead of nuclear power? In all historical records I can find they seem pretty consistent on actively protesting gas power plants. The most "gas-positive" quote I can find is here https://www.greenpeace.de/sites/default/files/publications/energyrevolutionreport_engl_0.pdf https://www.greenpeace.de/sites/default/files/publications/e... where they say > "A shift from coal and oil to natural gas in the remaining conventional applications will lead to a further reduction of CO 2 emissions" Which seems pretty consistent with their actions, no?
  - godelski 1y ago
    > Can you give a specific example where Green Peace activities have resulted in NG being used instead of nuclear power? No Because I cannot provide specific examples where Green Peace's efforts unequivocally have led to the shutdown of nuclear reactors. But it is not difficult to demonstrate that they have been highly involved in creating negative public sentiment of nuclear reactors and are one of the leading public organizations making efforts to do so. I believe our conversation and the fact that Green Peace is a household name is evidence enough. But if it isn't you can search their own website and their wiki page says as much. AND the claim that shutting down nuclear leads to increases NG and coal production is trivially verifiable. The two most prominent cases being Germany[0,1] and Japan[2]. By the graph's at the top of the wiki articles you can see that nuclear was not exclusively replaced by renewables. I should have stated the claim with this wording for clarity, I apologize. It is also important to note that they dedicate efforts to closing plants where nuclear provides at least half the zero carbon energy generated by a region. If you wish to confirm I suggest pulling up electric emission maps[3], look in the American East (south and north) and google the name of those nuclear facilities along with green peace. The TVA is a great place to start followed by PJM and SCS. > Which seems pretty consistent with their actions, no? The contention is about prioritization. I do not claim that GP (nor SNC) states they seek to increase global emissions. Only that they disproportionately dedicate resources to close down nuclear plants compared to those of coal and oil. The claim is that: - historical evidence shows shutting down nuclear power coincides with increased carbon emissions as the combined effect of growing energy demands with an energy production deficit leads to production of additional carbon emitting facilities - current economic conditions do not lead to strong preferences of renewable power production over carbon emitting ones. I'm fine with shutting down nuclear plants in favor of renewables, but only after we have eliminated the significantly higher priority carbon emitting facilities and can ensure our energy demands can be met through current renewable technologies. Neither of these conditions are currently being met. [0] https://www.bakerinstitute.org/research/natural-gas-balance-europe-germany-case-study https://www.bakerinstitute.org/research/natural-gas-balance-... [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_Germany https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_German... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_Japan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_Japan [3] https://app.electricitymaps.com/map/72h/hourly https://app.electricitymaps.com/map/72h/hourly