| 
  • If you are citizen of an European Union member nation, you may not use this service unless you are at least 16 years old.

  • You already know Dokkio is an AI-powered assistant to organize & manage your digital files & messages. Very soon, Dokkio will support Outlook as well as One Drive. Check it out today!

View
 

the other downside of the anti nuclear campaign

Page history last edited by Andrew Alder 2 years, 1 month ago

a page of energy issues and one of my hobbyhorses

 

To those of us who have done even a minimum of homework, it is tragically obvious that the anti nuclear power campaigns of Greenpeace and the Fiends of the Earth and other generally well-meaning environmental groups are doing far more harm than good. They are directly contributing to global warming by leading to the replacement of nuclear power by fossil fuel, both coal and natural gas.

 

But there is another downside, equally tragic and in my opinion far more important. They are unwittingly supporting climate change scepticism and denial.

 


 

The obvious consequence

Are CO2 emissions really such a problem? This is controversial. But it shouldn't be. It is only controversial because some people, sometimes even deliberately, are asking the wrong question.

 

The question they are asking is, what are the consequences of CO2 emissions? And we don't really know, scientifically. We have only one planet on which to experiment.

 

But we do know that there is a risk. And we should know that this risk is unacceptable. So if we take no action, we are stark raving bonkers.  

 

The more serious consequence

So, why despite all the talk on climate change, is there no affective action?

 

Part of the reason is climate change scepticism.

 

And part of the reason for this scepticism is the obvious hypocrisy of the environmental movement when it comes to nuclear power. In Germany, the Government is giving the nuclear power phase-out absolute priority over their coal phase-out. Now German energy politics is a basket case for other reasons too. But the real problem is, the environmental movements active in Germany (and both Greenpeace International and the Friends of the Earth are headquartered just next door in the Netherlands) are strangely silent on this.

 

To prematurely close down a perfectly good PWR is environmental vandalism pure and simple. And when the self-appointed and so-called environmentalists duck for cover and say, well it is pure economics, this only convinces the deliberately blind. Yes, the main problems of nuclear power are the costs of construction and possibly of decommissioning (which should be covered by a tiny levy on the power produced and are in some countries but not all), and of the long timeframes involved in construction. But these power stations had already been built and paid for. There was no advantage in premature closure. Just the opposite.   

 

That silence is just not good enough. And even if their own members do not notice it or think it matters, other members of the public are doing both. And we do not like what we see, and for good reasons.  

 

Afterword... what really replaces nuclear? 

Mainly, natural gas. Not all of it. But...

 

Natural gas companies love wind and large-scale solar, and promote them both whenever they can. In most parts of the world, the only practical way to balance a grid with lots of wind and/or solar is natural gas.

 

There is also some coal. In fact if you're serious about replacing a large coal-fired power station, the best plug-in replacement currently available is a PWR. It has a very similar load-following characteristic.

 

More to follow

 

 

 

Comments (0)

You don't have permission to comment on this page.