The pro nuclear movement IS about protecting the climate for a lot of people!
In the US until a few years ago it wasn't the case, but, after years of activism, we made it so.
As I told you the other day, we are not the enemy. Find a way, seek solutions, not problems.
Ah, I had not seen this.
Thank you very much for your correction. I appreciate it. And I hope that you can understand where we are coming from. Even if we are wrong, we still agree on a lot and it's a big mistake to spend time and resources in the sort of campaigns that GetUp! Did.
I helped to save our local nuclear power plant. Every year that it is running, it's 7 million tons of CO2 that's not generated. I think I am a pretty strong climate advocate, pardon the lack of modesty.
Very few people in the nuclear advocacy movement are against renewables. We need every single tool we have to replace fossil fuels
If you actually bothered to speak to the people who you are too busy slandering you'd realize that they are against fossil fuels. I am sure that there are ways in which you could work together despite the differences. Instead, you are spreading lies and wasting an opportunity.
Another lie. I am not part of the nuclear industry.
Also, you deny the existence of a sector within the climate movement that's anti nuclear. Certainly not all climate activists, of course. But here in California, in Germany and also in Australia there are people like that.
Again, I am not at the BTI. Shellenberger is not its leader. You are not posting publicly available information. You launched an ill informed personal attack. Insisting on these lies proves your bad faith
Your shameful behavior here is another example of the mean girl activism you guys seem to love so much.
Rather than joining others trying to fight coal, you assume that everyone who doesn't think like you is evil and wrong.
I am very glad to say in the public record that Michael Shellenberger is an unscientific douchebag, a racist, an asshole and the Original American Chavista.
Not that any of that is relevant to this discussion.
And since you can't refute my arguments, here comes the guilt by (nonexistent) association.
If you are going to throw mud at me, at least be competent at it. I have not been at BTI for a year and Shellenberger had been gone for years by the time I started working there.
No, that's not what I said. What I said is that some do focus in the wrong metrics, such as percentage of renewables, on detriment of CO2 emissions. Again, Germany.
When you stop using coal I'll believe it is not needed. Had you started 20 years ago, you'd have a grid as clean as France's.
A lot of "climate activists" in fact spend more time attacking nuclear than coal. German energy policy is an example, and the praise it gets.
When they claim that Australia/Germany doesn't need nuclear and spend their time attacking nuclear rather than attacking coal, they are making the choice of defending their current system.
The relevant metric regarding climate is carbon emissions, not whether something is renewable or not.
Few things enrage me as much as patronizing, gaslighting "climate activists" attacking nuclear power while getting electricity from grids with monstrous carbon intensities that are a blight upon our planet.
Folks, you don't get to use the moral superiority card while burning that much coal.
Again, CSIRO is clearly biased.
You guys are smart and resourceful. You could do it. You just don't want to, and worse, you keep burning coal, just like the Germans.
And please, don't be patronizing. When your grid routinely has a carbon intensity of, 800+ gr CO2eq/Kwh of course I will fucking worry. It's madness and horror. I care about the climate
I don't trust CSIRO, when clearly Bangladesh is building a nuclear plant for way less than they claim is the cost of nuclear. Who am I going to believe? CSIRO or my own lying eyes?
I need my lights on more than 70% of the time, you know.
France decarbonized its grid in less time than Germany with older technology, with much better results. Japan built a reactor in 3.3, years. It can be done. But if you lack the will, of course it won't be done.
We know that grids with lots of hydro can be decarbonized and work reliably. We don't know that only solar and wind can keep the lights on without fossil fuels or hydro. Again, South Australia is importing right now nearly 50% from Victoria. And it has a tiny population.
Your shining star, South Australia, is importing right now nearly 50% of its power from Victoria. Decarbonizing the grid and reducing air pollution is not a passion project. It's the right thing to do.
Pardon me, but this is absolutely preposterous coming from Australia. Your grid right now, even South Australia is more than twice the emissions of the grid in California, sometimes 3X. And we realized that we still needed nuclear.
You don't get to pollute that much and make this claim.
Maybe that's not the way to go. Maybe you can run industrial processes with it. But we need to find solutions rather than finding excuses. We know nuclear works. Coal needs to go.
Well, I am fine with energy subsidies as long as we decarbonize. In California we pay $8.5 billion / year for solar.
Also, Bangladesh is building a nuclear plant. If they can afford it, so can you.
We are tired of having to fight fossil fuels supporters AND solar and wind supporters behaving like the proverbial mean girls, telling us we can't sit on their table. If you truly care about the climate, why are you attacking technology that decarbonized the grids of FR and Ontario?
Of course you don't have to agree with us, that's fine. There will always be disagreements in a free society. What's not acceptable is the bad faith and the character assassination that way too many people are engaged in. Maybe sit down, talk to us and find a way to cooperate in decarbonizing AU
Ma'am, while you are busy picking up fights with people who support decarbonization, your country's grid is a blight upon our planet.
If Australia had followed the example of France, their grid would be a lot cleaner today.
