Greenpeace posts a comparison of CO2 emissions between gas, coal, wind and solar based... but they could not resists manipulating the IPCC data they used and remove nuclear power from the picture.

Let's bring it back: nuclear power should be next to Windkraft with 12 gCO2eq/kWh.

Β· Β· 2 Β· 9 Β· 11

@kravietz Nuclear power has advantages, drawbacks and tremendous implications on the political system.
It is too fragile and dangerous to be open, decentralized and transparent.
I means concentration, it implies an industrial-military-political complex, it implies further hinterland colonization by cities for production as well as long term storage. Also, mining in problematic conditions.


100% of what you wrote applies in 100% to renewable energy and any other energy source.

@kravietz I don't anderstand how a combination of thermic/voltaic solar panels on a family house -however relevant they be- need military grade protection, state secrets and violation of whole communities living space in order to store the long term waste under their feet, far away from the consuming cities.

On the other hand : yes, photovoltaic they need tragic mines, and so does the neodyme needed by windmills.


That's precisely the point. Any modern technology requires globally supplied resources - just have a look at this crazy diagram. And global resources require spying, diplomacy, military to protect etc.

@kravietz Not very resilient indeed.
Is everybody going to get their share?

Anyway, a corrupt official is always dangerous, but a corrupt official with hands on nuclear security and plutonium is …

I believe our choices should take corruption and cataclysms in account.

Image: SMBC :)


Nuclear weapons proliferation is a completely separate topic from nuclear power.

There are countries that have nuclear weapons (e.g. Israel) but no nuclear power, and dozens of countries with nuclear power but no nuclear weapons (e.g. Czech).

@kravietz I am not sure why you don't mention France (I am French): France developed nuclear power in order to have nuclear weapons.

The nuclear research center does a great deal of wonderful research but… still has military sections, and subsidizes a lot of scientific journalists. I am far from saying that paying is buying, but still, this is appalling for our democracy, and more so given that the opposition is mostly greenpeace.


Everyone developed nuclear reactors back in 50's to have nuclear weapons. The main reason to use uranium rather than thorium was driven by the weapons program.

But none of the modern reactors used in France or Germany, not to mention new ones built in Bangladesh, can be used to make nuclear weapons.

What France did however was the 70's civilian nuclear power which allowed it to decarbonize its energy sector at unprecedented scale.


The problem with environmental organisations is that many of them like Sierra Club or Friends of the Earth were openly funded by fossil fuel industry - see here

The problem with Greenpeace is that they do not reveal their sponsors and what they did in Europe for the last two decades very much coincides with interests of Gazprom.

@kravietz Everyone and their bank are funding lobbyists (most of whom, thankfully are sincere).
Shouldn't we chose the path where they all lose ?
I mean, *whenever possible* : no economic growth, no mined minerals.


I don't there's any that does not involve using more advanced technologies. Note that 100 years ago we were burning coal in every home, towns were full of smog, many towns even had no sewage and people lived for 30 years on average.

@kravietz Scientific and technological progress is indeed a wonderful gift of mankind to itself.

But we need to be wary of the limits of the planet (climate change) as well as of the adverse effects of speed and massification (high speed trading, SPOFs in electric grid/Internet, surveillance capitalisme etc).

The fear of nuclear power probably comes from the fact that a local problem can become global in our times.


Also, the picture was not about "industrial-military complex".

It was straightforward comparison of energy sources CO2 emissions made by IPCC that included nuclear power too.

Greenpeace manipulated the picture and removed one energy source they don't like. They don't like brown coal either but it has large CO2 emissions so fits their message.

This is precisely why Greenpeace must not be trusted. They do PR, not science.

@kravietz Fully agree.
But for me the problem with nuclear power or anything too big is a political one.

@kravietz Check out what’s happening with hydrogen @ nukes. Big shifts taking place.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Mastodon πŸ”

Fast, secure and up-to-date instance. PrivacyTools provides knowledge and tools to protect your privacy against global mass surveillance.

Matrix Chat:
Support us on OpenCollective, many contributions are tax deductible!