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.
@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.
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.