Normally I’m not a “lesser of two evils” type, but nuclear is such an immensely lesser evil compared to coal and oil that it’s insane people are still against it.
Coal plants gives more radiation through radioactive mercury as a left over from processign
Nuclear power is neither safe nor ecologically sustainable. The waste is immensely toxic for hundreds of thousands of years. The model is centralized so wealthy oligarchs own the power source and sell it to everyone else. Better to move toward distributed power generation that isn’t massively toxic. Greenpeace must stay anti-nuke.
For the love of everything, at least let’s stop decommissioning serviceable nuclear plants.
Looking at you, Germany…
I live less than 2 miles from the last remaining coal power station in England.
I would much rather have nuclear instead of a chimney chucking god knows what into the air (and subsequently into me) for my entire life.
That’s a big no from me dog. I barely trust the government as it is, no way I’ll trust them with nuclear power plants. And besides we have vastly better options such as solar.
I read the 2 year old headline as 'unless green peace arms itself, countries will never take the environment seriously.
Anti-nuclear people in here arguing about disasters that killed a few k people in 50 years. Also deeply worried about nuclear waste that won’t have an impact on humans for thousands of years, but ignoring climate change is having an impact and might end our way of life as we know it before 2100.
They’re bike-shedding and blocking a major stepping stone to a coal, petrol and gas free future for the sake of idealism.
The biggest enemy of the left is the left
Why go nuclear when renewable is so much cheaper, safer, future proof and less centralised?
Don’t get me wrong. Nuclear is better than coal and gas but it will not safe our way of life.
Just like the electric car is here to preserve the car industry not the planet, nuclear energy is still here to preserve the big energy players, not our environment.
As a bit of a “young climate activist” myself (certainly more of a jaded, realistic one) , nuclear is still a bad idea. We don’t need a overabundance of electricity, we need more sustainable energy. The last thing we should be doing as environmentalists is giving governments and capitalists more resources to weaponize- ntm more opportunities to critically fuck up our planet. Yes, nuclear energy CAN be produced totally safely. However, from a logistics standpoint this depends on keeping a number of factors in check and one has to account for the materials involved. Storage of nuclear waste is already a problem on planet earth. The U.S has bunkers full of this sludge that will kill anyone who gets close- Not to mention how unethical industry practices are when it comes to mining on a world wide scale!
The European Commission is being sued by environmental campaigners over a decision to include gas and nuclear in an EU guide to “green” investments.
Eight national and regional Greenpeace organisations including France, Germany and EU office in Brussels are asking the court to rule the inclusion of gas and nuclear invalid.
I totally support Greenpeace in this. Neither nuclear nor gas should be considered a “green” investment. Ia Aanstoot, the “18 year old climate activist”, is wrong to support the European Commission’s stance on this.
I agree with not including gas. But not including nuclear is counter to the notion of being green. Nuclear does NOT produce carbon pollution and it is important to decarbonizing
Nuclear costs a huge amount. It does produce waste. There are still safety concerns regarding nuclear power, which only increase as our reliance upon it increases. Investing in renewable energy makes more sense.
I don’t think this is the solution everywhere. In my country there is no safe space to put the waste.
And then don’t forget France had real trouble keeping them going during summer heat waves because the rivers were so warm, they didn’t cool down their nuclear power plants enough.
I’m pretty sure I’ve read that nuclear power plants are the most expensive source of electricity. Might as well just use solar + wind + storage for cheaper?
Nuclear energy is a terrible idea in both a physically (climate change) and socially destabilizing world.
Even Gen4 proliferation-resistant reactors still represent a lethal threat in the event of a release of fissionable materials into the local environment. Building a nuclear reactor without a cast-iron guarantee that there will be a supply of engineering staff, components, materials and clear strong regulation to keep it running safely is a surefire path to disaster.
Whilst the technology and physics behind it are well understood, we have shown time and again in a few short decades of utilizing this technology that we lack the responsibility in our administrative structures to properly manage the risks.
It would take just one full-on reactor meltdown or disaster to poison an entire continent. We have consistently demonstrated that we cannot responsibly assume that risk, which is why there is opposition to nuclear power.
If you want to avoid bad things from happening, do not deploy a dangerous technology and instead focus on what we can do. Renewables are more than capable of providing for our energy needs, and the big kicker here is that they can do so without putting the literal power “off” switch in the hands of the grid or plant operator.
Wind and solar > nuclear > fossil fuels
Nothing really against nuclear except how it is being weilded as a distraction from better, cleaner, energy. We need to be going all in on converting everything to wind and solar, with batteries and other power storage like water pumping facilities filling the gaps.
Nuclear needs a few more issues figured out, like how to actually cheaply build and get power from all those touted newer cleaner reactor styles.
I swear to god all these “Omg nuclear will save us from climate change bro! Small modular reactors are right around the corner, trust me” tech bro types are fossil fuel industry plants to try and distract people from building renewables and instead build nuclear reactors that will ensure some construction company’s CEO gets a multi-million bonus every year for the next 15 years and not much else.
Nuclear, the costliest energy source available with massive room for long build projects and years of service contracts to manage the waste materials and deconstruction costs with at least nine figures. Cui bono?
Wind and solar ia cheap and save, batteries work. Build time is manageable.
Pretending that the baseload problem is solved for solar and wind doesn’t help anybody. “batteries work”, but not at the scale of the demands of a power utility when wind and solar happen not to be producing.
New nuclear installations will take 10 years and more. They will cost more then anyone is willing to pay. The math is clear, batteries and renewables like geo heat pumps, solar and wind are dead cheap in comparison.
Energy conservation is still the main goal.
Nuclear energy is the false promises that let us believe we can continue as we were.
But it is essentially solved. There are plenty of places in the world that use a variety of power sources including a large mix of renewables without needing nuclear. And they work just fine. I’m surprised that so many people here seem to be ignoring the reality that nuclear is unnecessary and very expensive compared with other power sources.
For example South Australia uses mostly renewable energy sources today - primarily solar and wind with some in-fill from battery and gas. The last coal plant there was closed in 2016. There’s no nuclear power in Australia.
