Thread by @MyrtoTripathi

News from the👾:

A new study just came out making sure that, everyone that doesn't have time to read it, think nuclear does not help reduce carbon emissions when wind and solar do.

Understand why you should neither read it nor believe its claims.
⬇️
sussex.ac.uk/broadcast/read…

- Nature Energy is not a peer-reviewed publication
- The author, a well-known anti-nuclear activist, already tried in the past to twist data to contradict reality and was forced to retract
- I let you vote which one of these arguments is more terrifying and add more to it 😁

- It correlates the presence of nuclear power in a country with its emissions/GDP/capita, hence with the fact that it is a relatively developed nation or not.
- The time frame used voluntarily avoids the period in time when nuclear growth has brought drastic emission reductions

- it uses the convenient and intellectually dishonest confusion between "renewables" when it includes hydropower and "renewables" which in the mind of many means solar and wind
- it does not pay any regard to the coal, gaz and oil consumptions of the countries under consideration

- the so-called "crowding out hypothesis" is nowhere even demonstrated...😱

So what do we do?
🗑️

Thank you for this waste of time, for not displaying a shred of a sense of responsibility, for instrumentalizing solar/wind that deserve better than your obsession against nuclear.

I have to make a correction here ("I" am peer-reviewed at least !!🙃) :
--> Natur
e Energy IS peer-reviewed 😱.
It may be less so than the main "historic" Nature but still is. It may hence mean that it was little reviewed or reviewed by people sharing the same objectives or...😑