• 0 Posts
  • 18 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
Cake day: June 13th, 2023
  • BrokebackHampton@kbin.socialtoWorld News@lemmy.world•Young climate activist tells Greenpeace to drop ‘old-fashioned’ anti-nuclear stance
    01·
    1 year ago

    That is factually false information. There are solid arguments to be made against nuclear energy.

    https://isreview.org/issue/77/case-against-nuclear-power/index.html

    Even if you discard everything else, this section seems particularly relevant:

    The long lead times for construction that invalidate nuclear power as a way of mitigating climate change was a point recognized in 2009 by the body whose mission is to promote the use of nuclear power, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). “Nuclear power is not a near-term solution to the challenge of climate change,” writes Sharon Squassoni in the IAEA bulletin. “The need to immediately and dramatically reduce carbon emissions calls for approaches that can be implemented more quickly than building nuclear reactors.”

    https://www.dw.com/en/fact-check-is-nuclear-energy-good-for-the-climate/a-59853315

    Wealer from Berlin’s Technical University, along with numerous other energy experts, sees takes a different view.

    “The contribution of nuclear energy is viewed too optimistically,” he said. “In reality, [power plant] construction times are too long and the costs too high to have a noticeable effect on climate change. It takes too long for nuclear energy to become available.”

    Mycle Schneider, author of the World Nuclear Industry Status Report, agrees.

    “Nuclear power plants are about four times as expensive as wind or solar, and take five times as long to build,” he said. “When you factor it all in, you’re looking at 15-to-20 years of lead time for a new nuclear plant.”

    He pointed out that the world needed to get greenhouse gases under control within a decade. “And in the next 10 years, nuclear power won’t be able to make a significant contribution,” added Schneider.