2/4 With only 3 years hitting 10 new reactors to the grid in the last 30 years and the rest well under that, dreaming of 28 new large reactors from now until 2050, year on year, every year, seems a bit optimistic - even for concerted action.
3/4 Even when extending the lifetime of the entire current ageing fleet (just put the accompanying risk for more Fukushima-like catastrophes aside for a moment), it would require 15 new reactors per year, year on year...
4/4 Urgent #ClimateAction requires results fast. Not diversion with too expensive, too slow to deliver, too risky, too dirty (radioactive waste, anyone?) #nuclear technologies. A UN body that claims to be evidence based cannot afford this kind of pink sky propaganda.
Addendum: I stand corrected. @Edvard_Sequens informed me that where @W_Nuclear_News speaks of a government loan of 70%, in reality, the law foresees a loan for 100% of the construction costs.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1/6 The #nuclear lobby in #Brussels#EU continues with its demands for more and more money. Les Entretiens Européen invites: "Nuclear power is a public good in Europe, and its role in terms of climate is no longer contested..."
2/6 Just, nuclear is no public good, it's big business. And contested. Some still believe it has some role to play. But it is nothing but a diversion from #ClimateAction.
"... Its revival is necessary for sustainable development, and to meet the growing demand for electricity..."
3/6 It simply isn't - it's not necessary, it's not sustainable, and there are cheaper, faster delivering and less risky (accidents, waste, proliferation) but clean #RenewableEnergy sources already available.
"... Heavy investment is required to secure its future..."
2/12 Eerst de feitelijke fouten in dit artikel. Waterstof is niet de backbone van effectieve klimaatactie. Het is een belangrijke maar dure en kleine niche. Kernenergie versus waterstof is net zo'n onzinnige dichotomie als kernenergie versus kolen.
3/12 Verouderende kerncentrales als Borssele zijn niet veiliger, hebben hooguit andere risico's dan bij de bouw 40+ jaar geleden. Nieuwe generatie III(+)reactoren hebben technisch mogelijk (niet zeker) een lager risico, maar risico is er nog wel en je zit er 60 jaar aan vast.
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.