01/17 THREAD: World Nuclear Association’s Agneta Rising – chief lobbyist for the #nuclear industry – gave wrote her new year’s overview. The industry bases itself on a quick-sand of half-truths and full untruths. world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Viewp… Let’s pick it apart:
02/17 The discussion about whether nuclear should be part of a future energy mix has become more polarised, but because of the disinformation from the side of the industry. Nuclear can *never* be part of a *clean* energy mix, because it is risky and leaves toxic wastes.
03/17 IPPC SR1.5 concluded that nuclear is a political question. Viable non-nuclear pathways exist, which according IPCC AR5 are not more expensive than replacing some wind and solar with nuclear. It also warned for nuclear costs, risks, proliferation and social acceptability.
04/17 The IAEA in its report did not properly compare its nuclear options with non-nuclear alternatives. It overstated renewable costs and continued to under-estimate nuclear costs, as well as ignoring the costs of potential future nuclear accidents.
05/17 As did the OECD report on the Cost of Decarbonization. In contrary, the independent German economic research institute DIW concluded that nuclear always has been and will be too expensive to be a rational choice. diw.de/de/diw_01.c.67…
06/17 The IAEA conference on nuclear and climate was an insider job. The speaker list consisted of industry reps and nuclear lobbyists. The only, and most notable, critical speaker was Dr. Hoesung Lee, chair of the IPCC, who repeated the findings of AR5 and SR1.5 (see above).
07/17 Sessions on any nuclear role at the WEC and the IPCC COP were organised by the nuclear energy industry and/or lobby itself and are not reflecting the general opinion (as well as being poorly attended).
08/17 Vague declarations by parliament committees about consideration of new technological developments (that have not delivered yet!) are no indication for any need or justification for the use of nuclear power.
09/17 The European Parliament passed in a 127 point motion one scientifically completely unsound paragraph (59) (nuclear does emit greenhouse gasses, laser and fusion are no solution for waste) that can hardly seriously be passed as support for nuclear. europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document…
10/17 The EU discussion on sustainable finance taxonomy made one thing clear: nuclear is not sustainable in none of its definitions. And it is not a vital part of climate mitigation.
11/17 The floating nuclear plant Akademik #Lomonosov was supposed to replace the outdated Chernobyl type reactors in Bilibino – which it in the end didn’t. It’s to fuel more resource (incl. coal, gas and oil) extraction.
12/17 Small modular reactors continue to be a research hype. But can they deliver clean, sustainable and competitive electricity? Not likely.
13/17 #Onkalo in #Finland has not been fully licensed yet for operation. It therefore does not show that the industry has effective solutions. There is, next to a host of other technical issues, still the tiny problem of copper corrosion of its foreseen containers.
14/17 The nuclear fleet, after a two years of tiny growth, once more shrinked in 2019 – a tendency that will continue in the coming decades. worldnuclearreport.org/-World-Nuclear… Flogging ageing horses is not going to make the industry any safer.
15/17 Predicting the start of 46 new reactors between 2016-2020 is gross. From 2016-2019, 28 new reactors connected to grid, 20 closed down. 2020 will *not* see 18 new reactors.
16/17 The Harmony scenario from WNA to double or more nuclear capacity in 2050 (>33 reactors brought on-line every year between now and 2050!) remains a technically impossible pipe-dream.
17/17 The climate emergency and biodiversity extinction crisis demand action now. We should not be diverted from effective action by a dying nuclear industry trying to cash in on hollow propaganda. Nuclear looks to be as addictive as tobacco, and NWA like a tobacco propagandist.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
