First souce link goes to an unsourced pdf of an anti nuclear pamphlet.
Embarassingly uncredible.
This is oil company propaganda. Nuclear is needed to transition. All of their complaints are oil company talking points about nuclear. Their solution is "just do nothing cause there isnt tech out there tonheat water besides ff"
Almost all of these are totally fucking wrong.
"Their solution is "just do nothing cause there isnt tech out there tonheat water besides ff""
To be clear, the psl's solution is not to "do nothing", it's to overthrow the capitalist government and do massive state investment in solar, wind and other renewables.
What about overthrow the capitalist government and do massive investments in solar, wind, other renewables and nuclear energy?
The biggest issue with nuclear (centralized and controlled energy production by a capitalist govt) dissapears without the capitalist govt.
Thats cool and good. The grid itself will take more than 50 years to modify in a way that can handle the intermittent production of wind/solar. That gap needs to be filled by something other than fucking coal plants. 10 -20 to convert to nuclear saves us at least 30 years of FF emissions. The problem isnt sheer generation, . Renewables can make the power. its about generating or absorbing at the right times. Load and output are in a constant balancing act.
Long term yeah nuclear should be phased out and replaced with massive hydro lake batteries but policy that refuses to build nuclear now is just forcing coal/oil plants to be needed. This is why oil companies lobby all these exact same talking points.
Hydro. There you go. We don't need nuclear we need a combo of renewables. Somehow it is possible do the top countries here just have an amazing magical grid? 70 countries with more than half from renewables https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_renewable_electricity_production
Geography olays a big role there. There are many places where the capacity of hydro needed requires more than is environmentally safe to dam. We would have to have gigantic mega projects to build new lakes and resivoirs. (Much slower and more labor intensive than building nuclear plants)
If nuclear doesn't fill the gaps it will be fossil fuels.In the current moment, an 'always no matter what' anti nuclear stance is just a pro oil and coal stance.
How much resivoirs does denmark have? You just bought imto nuclear pro stance
Nuclear is outdated, ineffective, expensive and dangerous. No its not needed.
Getting mad at badly written science articles is a favorite hobby of mine, and it has been ages since I saw something this dogshit.
This is the worst thing I have ever seen from PSL
Liberals with a background in power management have better takes than this
Comrades, hold me back before I strangle someone.
yes
This article is just the tip of an iceberg of very publicly available facts. US people have been indoctrinated to believe in nuclear power because of nuclear weapons and centralized energy corporations high on government funds. Elsewhere it's long between accepted as a scientific and economic fact that it can never be the solution. It's never been economically viable. It's ecologically destructive. It's technologically outdated. Other countries only need it to support or deter the imperial hegemon. US leftists need to finally rise above almost a century of propaganda and face the truth: in a peaceful communist world, no one would ever even think about building something as ineffective (in cost per kWh) and dangerous as a nuclear power plant.
Ecologically destructive to what? Nature in the area surrounding Chernobyl is thriving
"It's never been economically viable"
It's never been economically viable in four years. It's literally always been economically viable, you just need to be able to think further ahead than the next election, so it's not politically viable (for this and many other silly reasons).
Also almost everything else you said is wrong lol
No, it's never been able to compete on the market in terms of cost per kWh without massive amounts of government money. Just try building a nuclear power plant. Without this funding, no bank would give you credit, no insurance would insure you or any bank stupid enough to finance you. And alternatives are only getting cheaper, while trying to deal with the enormous risks continues to highten the costs of nuclear.
And that's not even talking about the enormous hidden costs off loaded on exploited people who have to mine the uranium. Or on future generations who are forced to take responsibility for nuclear waste in the only realistic way: actively guarding ever more and ever larger high security buildings full of poison (yes, the toxicity is just as problematic as the radioactivity) and hoping really hard against probability, that no natural or human made disaster will ever strike in basically all eternity.
After the initial cost, it's literally the cheapest form of energy. Even including the initial cost, it's still competitive and is only just starting to be usurped by renewables + novel storage technologies. When you account for the cost of storage for grid stability, nuclear has been the overall cheapest form of electricity for decades, and may still be for some years to come. You're talking out of your ass.
Nuclear waste is also a solved issue. We can literally reprocess waste to be used again as fuel. France has literally been processing their waste since the 70s. Doing this reduces the radioactive life of waste from over a thousand years to only a few hundred years. America just doesn't like countries doing this because it produces plutonium. The low level waste (i.e. not fuel, but other nuclear related waste products like reactor cladding) can totally safely be stored underground in casks for the entire duration required for them to become safe. The casks can even be safely stored above ground, on the surface, outside, for fucking decades waiting to be put into the ground while fools like you push back against it. This is, again, a solved issue.
Your talking points come directly from fossil fuel companies wishing to forestall the drawdown of petroleum. They were wrong when they were dreamt up, and they remain wrong.
Greenpeace has been campaigning since 1997 for the shutdown of the site, which they claim dumps "one million litres of liquid radioactive waste per day" into the ocean; "the equivalent of 50 nuclear waste barrels", claiming the radiation affects local beaches,[9][10] although official figures are to the contrary.[11]
Sounds great.. nuclear is stupidly expensive anyway you count. The true cost is huge compared to renewables. And renewables can be done now.
"Although official figures are to the contrary."
Greenpeace has always been kooky when it comes to nuclear. Nuclear is quite literally safer to install and operate than solar for the same capacity.
Renewables can't be done now, or it would already be done. Yes it is cheaper to install 1 MW of solar than 1 MW of nuclear. So, if you don't think about it at all, it would be a financial no brainer to go solar. However, nuclear is always there. This is what I was saying when I was talking about the cost of grid stability and how storage technology is almost there. But we're not there yet. This is why when Germany closed it's nuclear plants they went back to fucking coal. Because, right now, you cannot build a grid on 100% solar and wind that runs 24/7/365. Some countries have done it for a few days on particularly windy stretches. Maybe in 10 years. Maybe in 5. But do we have that time? I'm not saying we should open new plants - clearly it's too late for that to be a climate solution - but we absolutely should not fucking close existing ones and switch to coal to bridge the gap.
And I'm not against renewables. Nuclear can load-follow to a point, but it's much better on the plants if they don't. And even if they do, renewables and storage can supplement the higher order fluctuations of the grid. You need much less storage that way.
"Although official figures are to the contrary."
Yea lets trust the French government and its owners.
Greenpeace has always been kooky when it comes to nuclear. Nuclear is quite literally safer to install and operate than solar for the same capacity. No
Renewables can't be done now, or it would already be done.
No, it is not being done because we don't have a planned economy.
Yes it is cheaper to install 1 MW of solar than 1 MW of nuclear. So, if you don't think about it at all, it would be a financial no brainer to go solar. However, nuclear is always there. This is what I was saying when I was talking about the cost of grid stability and how storage technology is almost there. But we're not there yet. This is why when Germany closed it's nuclear plants they went back to fucking coal. Because, right now, you cannot build a grid on 100% solar and wind that runs 24/7/365. Some countries have done it for a few days on particularly windy stretches. Maybe in 10 years. Maybe in 5. But do we have that time?
Again 70 countries have more than half in renewables. Seems Denmark can do it.
What we don't have time for is pipedreams about clean uranium.
I'm not saying we should open new plants - clearly it's too late for that to be a climate solution - but we absolutely should not fucking close existing ones and switch to coal to bridge the gap.
And I'm not against renewables. Nuclear can load-follow to a point, but it's much better on the plants if they don't. And even if they do, renewables and storage can supplement the higher order fluctuations of the grid. You need much less storage that way.
No build renewables. If you need stability do kinetic energy storage.
And since nuclear doesn't even work year round in say France due to climate change , seems like bad bet
The world’s #1 planet!
A community for the discussion of the environment, climate change, ecology, sustainability, nature, and pictures of cute wild animals.
Socialism is the only path out of the global ecological crisis.