First souce link goes to an unsourced pdf of an anti nuclear pamphlet.
Embarassingly uncredible.
This is the worst thing I have ever seen from PSL
Liberals with a background in power management have better takes than this
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 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.
Comrades, hold me back before I strangle someone.
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
yes
