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.
And yes, land use *is* a huge concern here, especially if you have to cover ~300 ha of land with glass.
@kravietz @nicksellen Hi there! Since I read your debate, I would like to add some thoughts.
1. Rewilding by nuclear power can really be effective. Demonstration sites can be visited in the Ukraine and in Japan.
2. Solar power can be integrated very well into the built environment. There is still a huge potential of space, even if it is more costly than solar farms. And it has the potential of democraticing the energy production and use (please don't start with mini nuclear plants, it is a difference if I get my energy from the sun, or from fission, including handling the waste).
3. If people decide to live with and from nuclear power, I respect that. As long as people who do not trust in this technology get a chance to live in nuclear free zones. And I personally would rather reduce my energy consumption than to live near a nuclear power plant. Besides, the question should not be nuclear vs. regenerative, but how do we want to live on this planet.
> Demonstration sites can be visited in the Ukraine and in Japan
Please, do not use such cheap propaganda.
If you want the latter, demonstration site for renewable energy can be visited at Mountain Pass mine or hundreds of unregulated mines in Africa or China. Hydro power demo site can be visited in Banqiao where 230'000 people died. Thousands of hectares occupied by coal ash. Hundreds of km2 occupied by wind farms. Etc etc.
@kravietz @nicksellen
These sites I mentioned are no propaganda. They just show how much space can be liberated for nature by this technology. It was not me who shared this meme about the space requirements of these technologies. Sorry that this fits not into your preferred energy solution.
Taking two nuclear accidents over 70 years history of nuclear power *and* ignoring areas polluted and people killed by any other sources, including renewables, is a textbook example of propaganda.
@kravietz @nicksellen Well, than the shared meme would also be propaganda, since it ignores so many things. By the way, do you ignore that these two examples prohibit human settlement over a very long time period? And do you ignore that the caused long-term death rate of only the first incident is estimeated to be in the million? (and yeah, I know, the WHO has a different estimation)
And you know perfectly well that the Greenpeace estimates are bullshit and just as biased as DuPont estimates of deaths from PFOA. Also there's no such thing as "long term death-rate", you can only estimate possible years of life lost as result of early thyroid cancer because this is what the iodine isotope released in Chernobyl can impact. The best estimate was ~200 cases of thyroid cancer over 20 years. This is how many people died in UK on wind tower accidents.
@kravietz @nicksellen Greenpeace is no scientific body and there are hundreds of studies in that topic. And I already acknowledged that there are other estimates on the death rate. Of course, only the studies that you selected can be right. Isn't that so? If yes, then you already know THE truth. Concratulaions!
Well, Greenpeace is not scientific body yet it somehow "commissioned" a study but not even them claimed "a million":
"Another study critical of the Chernobyl Forum report was commissioned by Greenpeace, which asserted that the most recently published figures indicate that in Belarus, Russia and Ukraine the accident could have resulted in 10,000–200,000 additional deaths in the period between 1990 and 2004"
@kravietz @nicksellen Well there was one study from a university in the States, which made estimations for the global population. They came up with one million. Of course this is the upper end of several studies, while the WHO is kind of at the lower end. Always depends on what factors and estimations you put into the calculations.
Also the very fact that nobody can tell exactly how many people might potentially get cancer, and the estimates range from 200 to 1'000'000 tells you a lot about the quality of these estimates.
