Greta & Greenpeace Say "NAY!" To Nuclear & Natural Gas

Sustainable and renewable energy.

Moderator: Super Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Riddick
Pirate
Posts: 14559
Joined: 11-01-2002 03:00 AM
Location: Heartland USA
Contact:

Greta & Greenpeace Say "NAY!" To Nuclear & Natural Gas

Post by Riddick » 07-07-2022 11:38 PM

Nuclear power and natural gas are "green" and "climate-friendly" sources of electricity generation, sensibly voted a majority of the European Union's Parliament Wednesday. This resolution means energy investors can classify their investments in nuclear and natural gas projects as environmentally sustainable.

The vote was immediately denounced by a variety of environmental activists. For example, Swedish teenage climate scold Greta Thunberg tweeted, "The European Parliament just voted to label fossil gas as 'green' energy. This will delay a desperately needed real sustainable transition."

Similarly, Greenpeace's E.U. sustainable finance campaigner Ariadna Rodrigo in a statement declared, "It's dirty politics & it's an outrageous outcome to label gas & nuclear as green." She vowed that her group "will fight this in the courts."

First, let's consider natural gas. Global known reserves of natural gas would last nearly 50 years at current rates of consumption. Burning natural gas to generate electricity emits about half of the carbon dioxide that coal does.

This is why many environmental activist groups a little more than a decade ago hailed natural gas as "the bridge to the clean energy future." In fact, the mostly market-driven switch from coal to natural gas to generate electricity in the U.S. has served as a bridge to a cleaner energy future.

Despite the undeniable role that the switch from coal to natural gas has played in significantly reducing U.S. carbon dioxide emissions, many environmental activists now perplexingly denounce natural gas as a "bridge to nowhere."

What about nuclear power? The fact that splitting atoms to generate electricity produces no greenhouse gas emissions should be enough to establish nuclear power as a "climate-friendly" energy technology.

The International Energy Agency released a report arguing global nuclear power capacity needs to double from 413 gigawatts now to 812 gigawatts by 2050 to meet greenhouse gas emissions targets set in international agreements.

In the most optimistic scenario set out in a study by The Breakthrough Institute on development and deployment of advanced nuclear reactors in the US, nuclear power generation capacity would rise from 95 gigawatts from conventional plants today to as much as 470 gigawatts generated by advanced reactors in 2050.

Expanding nuclear power would both help smooth out the intermittency of wind and solar generation and further cut greenhouse gas emissions. Meanwhile, in response to pressure from environmental activists, Germany is going in the opposite direction, shutting down perfectly good nuclear plants while firing up electricity generation fueled by coal.

FULL STORY
---
Wind AND solar, Solar AND wind - It's one or the other. Nothing else is sustainable, nothing else is acceptable. To suggest otherwise is dangerously delusional and disinformative. We don' need no steenking nuclear & natural gas! End OF Story.

Shame on the EU Parliament for putting politics ahead of the planet.and refusing to follow The Science™ - Stiil, once they get the what-for in court, they'll be sorry they EVER crossed Greta and Greenpeace - Environmental Justice shall prevail!!
"Everything Woke turns to Image" - Donald J. Trump

Post Reply

Return to “Energy Policy”