Here's a🧵to debunk today's article in @guardian by @jonathonporritt, which makes many false (& frankly irresponsible) assertions about clean energy. theguardian.com/commentisfree/… /1
First, the title calls nuclear & hydrogen 'techno-fixes' while advocating for (only) renewable technology. Newsflash: the large-scale development of renewable tech is also a 'techno-fix' > nationalgeographic.com/science/articl… /2
Second, @jonathonporritt's claim that energy experts are 'starkly divided on whether or not we can reach this global net zero target without nuclear power', is *false*. IPCC WG3 has long found that nuclear is part of effective mitigation solutions > archive.ipcc.ch/publications_a… /3
Re. 'ever-higher costs, seemingly inevitable delays', these are political, not technological issues. 18 reactors have been completed in 3 years - 12 in Japan, 3 in the USA, 2 in Russia & 1 in Switzerland. We can & should build nuclear reactors as fast > euanmearns.com/how-long-does-… /4
Re. there being 'no solutions to the nuclear waste challenge', this false claim has been debunked again & again & tends to come down to irrational fears of radiation > thoughtscapism.com/2017/11/04/nuc… /5 
Regarding 'security and proliferation risks', this is baseless fearmongering. A systematic analysis of the historical evidence found that the link between nuclear energy programs and proliferation is overstated > scienceforsustainability.org/wiki/Nuclear_p… /6
Porritt claims that nuclear will lead to increased costs for consumers. In reality, citizens in France pay 41% less for their electricity than in Germany where they've been phasing out nuclear power > energycentral.com/c/ec/germany-s… /7
In sum? To recycle Porritt's words, this article is 'speculative, unsubstantiated crap' from start to finish. Do better @guardian - there's too much at stake to peddle misinformation & pseudoscience when the health of millions & the future of the planet is at stake. 8/8
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
