A big drama in the UK as Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace discover that solar farms occupy plenty of space and cannot decide what is more evil: 7 hectares of nuclear power plant or 298 km2 of solar power plant.
@kravietz that reads more like propaganda than coherent argument, as if land use were the only topic here. Very one-sided.
But not surprising as he is part of this "generation atomic" thing, that is basically a lobby group posing as a "grassroots" organisation, no? ... whilst also working in the nuclear industry.
This kind of communication gives me the feel of PR greenwashing like when oil companies try to rebrand themselves as environmental. Not the whole story.
I'm really pleased that you eventually acknowledge Green Party, RPSB, Greenpeace and the Campaign to Protect Rural England - who all came up against that Kent solar farm - as "lobby groups posing as a grassroots organisations". All the remaining part of your argument stands valid for them too.
@kravietz I didn't mention or share links from those orgs. I'm not sure I have a particular opinion on them either. In general I'm not that into big shiny campaigning organisations.
On the fediverse I hope to find balanced debate to engage in, not propaganda wars. That is already covered well enough.
Ok, but this guy made a very clear, personal and consistent argument - which you rather rudely dismissed as "propaganda", because he's "also working in the nuclear industry", zero discussion about the actual argument he made. And now you ask about "balanced debate"... 🤔
@kravietz you're right, I'm not engaging in balanced debate about the topic itself.
I generally wouldn't do that in response to one sided arguments that come across as propaganda to me. It seems a bad opening for debate, and kind of mocking the other side.
Nuclear is a very polarising topic and I'm not sure I've participated in or even seen a balanced debate about it.
5 years ago my knowledge about nuclear and renewable was no different from the average, so based on popular media titles. But I have engineering background and no problem to dig into scientific and technical articles, so right now I'm confident that 90% of the arguments raised against nuclear are based on a single fallacy:
For nuclear always take old designs and worst-case scenarios, for renewables - always take newest or future designs and best-case scenarios :)
@kravietz I read enough into molton salt and thorium to understand many common criticisms have been addressed (maybe that 90%?).
I am not so enthusiastic for nuclear though: high technical expertise required at all stages (time consuming and expensive), the likelihood of needing a lot of centralised state power to make it work, not easy for most countries to have (exacerbates global power inequalities), and it's basically lost the PR battle (for better or worse)
> high technical expertise required at all stages
How do you think *any* low-carbon energy source is different? Wind turbines? Solar panels?
> likelihood of needing a lot of centralised state power
Do you think you need less centralised power to occupy 300 km2 with solar panels?
@kravietz I probably won't have energy to get into a detailed point by point discussion. Could go on a long time!
But on one point about high tech at all stages: wind/solar can operate once setup without a person on site. I think that is not true for nuclear.
And solar can be scaled very well, such that I can have one on my bike, and very easy to use (not going to replace a coal/gas/nuclear power station... just that it's versatile and relatively low tech to use)
Neither wind nor solar can be operated fully unattended. Both are complex machinery which needs maintenance and servicing. And with thousands of panels and wind towers it's a continuous job. Majority of the solar and wind-related deaths (higher per MWh than nuclear) are related precisely to the maintenance accidents.
