I will not be surprised if in the near future some intrepid journalist discovers that these “young #climate activists” are actually an #astroturfing #propaganda front group financed by the #nuclear power industry.
No surprise at all.
They’ve done this before & they’ll do it again.
#astroturf #energy #oligarchy #energy #renewables #climatechange #globalheating
I’m not anti-nuclear power, fwiw. I believe that existing plants that meet modern post #Fukushima safety standards should be used for as long as it takes to decarbonize the #energy sector.
However, #GreenPeace is absolutely correct that no new #nuclear plants should be built since they are too costly and take too much time to build.
New nuclear has no significant role in fighting the #climateemergency.
That’s just the science. I trust it.
Just found #Greenpeace’s position paper on #nuclear #energy and it is about as level headed and scientific as it gets.
Recommended reading for nuclear fans and foes alike.
If does turnout that the “young climate activists” are in fact a front group, I’m guessing the financing is coming from a group that includes the government of #France which is super vested in the nuclear power industry.
Pure speculation on my part, though.
With the costs and efficiency of renewable energy solutions improving year on year, and the effects of our rapidly changing climate accelerating across the globe, we need to take an honest look at some of the myths being perpetuated by the nuclear industry and its supporters. Here are six reasons why nuclear power is not the way to a green and peaceful zero carbon future.
- If fossil fuels must go to 0%, then why does Greenpeace prefer fossil gas before nuclear?
- (1) even if this were true as written, it is much more true for wind/solar/storage
- (2) is just false.
- (3) again does no comparison at all to alternatives and just tries to wow with absolute numbers (the alternatives are much more expensive)
- (4) again no comparison (the alternatives are slower)
- (5) again no comparison (these »huge« amounts are actually tiny)
- (6) strawman
That is /not/ the science, it's just what Greenpeace claims, unsupported by evidence.
Why does Greenpeace prefer fossil gas before nuclear?
#Greenpeace certainly does *not* promote #biogas. That is widely debunked disinformation. Please kindly correct your post. Also, please post a link to scientific proofs that an energy mix with nuclear is more efficient?
just based on the French webpage of Greenpeace and the fact that the Green Planet Energy (based on Greenpeace at first) promote the use of renewable biogas.
Sorry, but not sorry ;)
https://www.greenpeace.fr/climat-pourquoi-faut-il-sortir-du-gaz/
about scenarios for future.
Have a look at AR6 IPCC 2022 report.
Scenario with nuclear power allows the highest production of energy, based on a mix, higher than with renewable energy only.
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGIII_FullReport.pdf
@GSouchay The web link you sent says that Greenpeace opposes all forms of gas… except for 100% renewable gas such as green hydrogen and that such technology is still in its infancy.
Greenpeace does not “promote” biogas anywhere.
Anyhow have a good one.
@japanskier I will not be surprised if in the near future some intrepid journalist discovers that these “#greenpeace activists” are actually an #astroturfing #propaganda front group financed by the #fossilfuels power industry.
No surprise at all.
They’ve done this before & they’ll do it again.
#astroturf #energy #oligarchy #energy #renewables #climatechange #globalheating
Kevin
Svante
Guillaume Souchay
Nils Ackermann