What if you’d dedicated most of your life to trying to save the planet, but then you realized that you may have actually—potentially—made things worse?
Over the last few years, this has become one of my main concerns. I’ve been active in various green groups for over a decade, from setting up the first green society at my university and getting them to switch to renewable energy 15 years ago, to being one of the leading spokespeople for Extinction Rebellion as recently as last year.
Through writing, public speaking, and taking direct action (I was arrested multiple times for climate action in the early 2000s), I have done everything in my power to fight to bring down global greenhouse gas emissions.
And I have come to the stark realization that nothing I have done has worked. Worse, emissions have continued to rise despite public concern for the environment (in the UK at least) being as high as it has ever been. …snip…
The focus, therefore, needs to be on ensuring that our growing energy needs are met with clean and reliable sources, and without unnecessary additional costs to the individual that might deepen social inequality.
We need cheap, clean energy at scale and we need it now. Here’s another blunt fact: almost three-quarters of our emissions come from energy use.
To talk about climate change without mentioning emissions is like talking about baking a cake without mentioning flour. Yet many mainstream environmental groups are doing this, and have been doing this since the advent of cake-baking.
These groups regularly point to data from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) when calling for climate action. But the same groups ignore the key section of the IPCC report on mitigation—the chapter on energy, by Working Group Three.
All of the decarbonization pathways in this section outline a combination of renewables, nuclear energy, and carbon capture and storage to quench our greenhouse gas emissions. This is not speculation or opinion, but data in its simplest form: arithmetic.
The element of nuclear energy however has long been rejected by most of the major green groups, including Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth globally, the RSPB in the UK (which allowed a gas plant on one of their reserves but is protesting a nuclear plant on another), and the Sierra Club in the USA.
Some individual scientists and activists have joined them in calling for 100 percent renewable grids without nuclear power despite the fact that it is not feasible—in fact, only five countries with large electrical grids have low carbon emissions and they rely on constant large-scale hydropower and nuclear energy, with a little intermittent solar and wind power on top.
The fact that wind and solar technology require backup is not lost on all of us, as you can see from the comments on the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)’s recent tweet where they celebrate their victory in recently closing down a nuclear power plant in the US, Indian Point.
It’s been an honor for NRDC to work with our tireless partners and advocates who have fought long and hard to close #IndianPoint, to push back on fossil fuels, and to move New York forward on #CleanEnergy. 🎊 https://t.co/R4v28WbIc5
— NRDC 🌎🏡 (@NRDC) April 30, 2021
The response from almost everyone in the comments is that phasing out nuclear power during a climate emergency is bad news for the environment, as the consequence of this will be continued reliance on fossil fuels.
The NRDC is eerily silent in the comments section, standing by their victory and anti-nuclear ideology.
This scenario has played out again and again on social media, on Greenpeace posts as well, and it represents the divide between ordinary concerned citizens and out-of-touch NGOs.
Historically, whenever nuclear power plants are shut down, they are replaced by fossil fuels. The stark example of this is Germany, which decided to phase out nuclear power altogether due to an overreaction and sore misunderstanding of the facts about what happened at Fukushima.
Germany now has the dirtiest energy mix in Europe, as the closed nuclear plants have been replaced with imported coal.
Herein lies the rub. The very same groups that claim to fight for the wellbeing of our planet—the NRDC dubs itself “Earth’s best defense”—are pushing for and achieving policies that are actually the opposite of effective climate action.
And because they are well established as “green” groups, they get a pass. They don’t get criticized. They get funded. It’s business as usual, for them.
What they are calling for—wishful thinking with renewable technology that requires baseload power that almost always ends up being fossil fuels—does not get called “greenwashing” even though that’s exactly what it is.
No one wants to be the bad guy who takes on the groups that have long positioned themselves as the good guys. But the closure of Indian Point, for example, is not good news.
It means the loss of clean, firm power to over a million homes, and the loss of over a thousand jobs. I see no reason to celebrate.
I do understand the NRDC’s stance—since I once fell for scaremongering and conspiracy theories regarding nuclear power myself. I even protested against it.
I believed that nuclear waste is unmanageable and poses a threat to life and that radiation warrants the closure of nuclear power stations. All of these beliefs were wrong.
For many years I had criticized anti-vaxxers for taking a position that goes against scientific consensus, but I had been anti-nuclear myself which also goes against the scientific consensus.
I shudder to think of the damage this may have done to our planet. Misinformed beliefs have consequences.
France did things differently back in the 1970s when they decarbonized in under 12 years through building nuclear power plants, which means that they have one of the cleanest energy mixes in Europe.
Yet the ideology that worships renewables and only renewables pervades. It has become the latest green god: sun-like, literally.
A once-leading boomer environmentalist in the UK recently wrote the headline in a national newspaper: “Don’t believe hydrogen and nuclear hype—they can’t get us to net zero carbon by 2050. Big industry players pushing techno-fixes are ignoring the only realistic solution to the climate crisis: renewables.”
See what he did there? Apparently, nuclear and hydrogen are classed as technology, but renewables are not. As if they are constructed with magic—by the solar gods. …snip…
It’s not an easy thing to stand for something that a large and powerful “tribe” is against. You will likely be attacked, mocked, and disregarded. You may lose friends.
If you change your mind and go against the status quo, funding is harder too. You may be canceled, censored, and publicly critiqued. But knowing that you’re doing the right thing makes it worth it. …snip…
The problems with nuclear power are not technological, but political, and for too long the old-school environmentalist tribe that I once belonged to has dominated the narrative on what constitutes clean energy, what gets subsidized and built, and what doesn’t. They’ve had the stage for decades, and we’ve watched emissions rise. It’s time for someone else to have a turn.
This is why I’ve founded Emergency Reactor, a new green campaign for evidence-based environmentalism. In the battle against misinformation, every small act can make a difference.
We need to react now to the issues the world faces—air pollution, poverty, climate change—but we also need to react rationally.
For too long traditional environmentalism has led the way with unscientific beliefs and ideologies, attacking anyone who holds opposing opinions, while demanding that the world’s largest cake be baked without flour.
This ideology has held us back, and this gatekeeping over environmentalism needs to end because in too many cases, these groups are doing more harm than good to the planet they claim to defend.
Read rest at Quillette
PROBLEM STATEMENT The simple problem here is ignorant or weak minded people become activists in subjects they are not educated to understand or don’t bother to check the facts if they did, to accrue some personal value from the group to improve their self importance or meaning of their life which it will likely never have in their pathetically weak minded ignorance, rather than preferring to research and understand the natural reality. The same people who need religion?
The tyranny of the unknowing opinion of this easily manipulated mob is led and exploited by charlatans – for power and profit. The Branch Davidians of pseudo science. How can you believe something about a determinstic technology that is overtly wrong on the scientific facts without being schizoid or simply deeply ignorant of the subject you claim to understand. BY your overt statements regarding known science your opinions are valueless – received, not understood.
CONCLUSION: Environmental activist students are mostly useful idiots from non physics based disciplines trying to have a purpose in a modern technological life they don’t understand the reality of so are scared of, shared by a collective of cult believers with the same weak minded problem. Most never will understand. Zion is getting there.
STILL PARTIALLY DELUSIONAL: She still believes CO2 is a significant cause of the small obsserved actual climate change we observe, in terms of changing the atmospheric lapse rate to space by the scattering of LWIR radiation passing from the surface to the tropopause, which it self evidently is not. The Lapse rate is barely affected by CO2 related GHE, it is dominated by solar energy that creates the atmosphere by warming the surface and gravitational pressure on the atmosphere that releases from the surface, as any meterologist knows. Any change to oceanic SSTs is strongly controlled by the evaporation of water vapour from the dominant ocean surface and the transport of that latent heat by convection to the Tropopause, where it is released as IR to space. No tipping points, strongly controlled.
All thsi reality is versus the what the IPCC models promise is “coming soon” , even though change that is anomalous from the variations of natural planetary cycles hasn’t been observed since we really knew from satellites, starting in 1979. Still not happening, still coming soon, like most stories of catastrophe.
WE do know this “exceptional” change has been a bit over 1 deg in 150 years, from the coldest this interglacial record. We know the ice core record at both poles shows a roughly 2 deg range every 1,000 years with a rate of change of around 0.8deg per century when it kicks off. What we observe is not significantly different from this. Just isn’t. It was probely warmer at the MWP, definitely in ROnan ton mes, anither 1 degree in Minoan and warmest 8,000 years agi. FACTS of the geological record.
So where is the existential threat of anomalous change supposed to be coming from… soon….’ish?
BUT as with ZIon being correct re nuclear realities and wrong about CO2 as a significant cause of climate change, your mixing if facts on generation costs with your own incorrect beliefs is also bad, and detracts from your good points.
FACTS MATTER WHEN CONSIDERING WHAT WORKS:
Re your statement “Nuclear isn’t as bad but is still a lot more expensive than fossil fuel power. ” REALLY?
How much is a lot? Numbers? That single assertion falls into the unknowing opinions area and defeats your own claim to be rational and objective, on the facts I can find of what people pay for the energy, at least.
I would like to see the evidence that nuclear power is “a lot more more expensive” on a whole life basis, e.g. what it cost to generate over the plant’s lifetime per KWh, or LCOE, or what the grid pays for it, versus gas or coal. Taking CAPEX alone is simply misleading and overtly partial approach.
https://www.iea.org/reports/projected-costs-of-generating-electricity-2020
Please provide your sources. I attach, for the consideration of others interested in the reality, a link to the 2020 version of the IEA’s regular costings so people can calibrate your assertion for themselves. Easy to find by any serious researcher. They suggest nuclear is fractionally cheaper than coal and gas generation. Of course CAPEX is highest, yes. But fuelling costs hence OPEX are trivial so overall lifetime costs are very low, and predictable, not at risk from primary energy supply costs, whereas the reverse is true for fossil fuel generation. Gas is cheap currently because fracking. etc.
POINT: Writing good points followed by overtly wrong claims on the facts serves no one in establishing the facts of what works best for most paying for it. Better to clearly separate your beliefs from what science and engineering knows to be the case? Just sayin’.
PS As for the IEA’s renewable costs, the analysts conveniently “forget” to factor in the massive costs of supporting their innate intermittency with battery or pumped storage at roughly £50 Billion per annum replacement cost per Terawatt hour capacity, and pretend they are a cost of the grid, or the 100% CCGT backup that is the most common and clean burning support for their subsidy habit currently.
That is why I decided to cost this unseen subsidy a couple of years ago. At the time industrial grade lead acid batteries were the best battery solution on cost/KWh. Although Li-Ion have increased in price since then, their life is now claimed to be 8 years in deep discharge mode, where I had allowed them 4 years, so twice the cost per unit energy of lead acid using the same 4 year life. So that change to 8 years makes Li-Ion close to lead acid with a 4 year life, cost per KWh delivered wise. Its still £50 Billion per annum per TWH capacity, that is just one day of UK average consumption, £350 BIllion pa for a weeks back up when the wind don’t blow and the sun din’t shine. during a freezing February High Pressure spell.. For which you could build a lot of nuclear power stations that last 60 years or more, 70GW capacity for one years worth of batteries that generate no energy themselves and add massively to the already high cost of the renewables that they support and must develop at least twice their plated capacity to charge the batteries when there is wind.
What could possibly go wrong? Is this a prudent way to for a developed economy to supply the energy it needs? Where is the sense in such a policy for the UK?
The effect of factoring in the cost of this storage across the annual energy supply of the actual renewable energy generated is what matters and is not discussed. Yet it is essential and dominant cost of renewable energy without fossil backup, it would increase average electrical energy cost by a factor of c.10 IF it were possible to generate 100% using wind/renewables. It isn’t. We have few deserts in the UK, and low power intermittent sunlight at 50 deg North, at its lowest in the winter at an effective 73 degs North, when we use most power, mostly heating and not much air conditioning. So peak demand is synced to lowest renewable supply. What could possibly go wrong?
And there is no need for this given CCGT then nuclear as that declines are so much better. So why try?
http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3274611
The UK is small country with a high population density, so land use if high, as its value for other purposes. Intense Nuclear with the lowest of all resource use per unit energy generated is by far the best long term energy solution for the UK, after gas is gone, not before. CCGT gas has a slightly higher output per acre than nuclear. Coal is third (need to truck in and c store the coal, etc.. Renewables use of natural resources of land and materials per unit energy are massively greater. Especially energy intensive materials like steel and concrete, far more per unit energy (roughly 5-10 times) than fossil or nuclear. Energy intensity matters.
All of this is costed engineering. It’s not what I believe, it’s something I or ANO engineering professional can prove on the costed laws of physics. What I or anyone believes doesn’t matter, only what can be proven by others using the same repeatable science based on laws and observations.
All of us make statements without providing a reference for each detail. When it comes to the cost of nuclear energy, I concur that needs some form of reference. Unfortunately I no longer have a link to the article I read that put nuclear mid way between fossil fuels and renewables, so I searched the internet. On thing that is immediately obvious is the internet is dominated by miss information from the activists and a Google gives those sites priority. I did a search on “cost of nuclear energy per kwh” and clicked on “Is nuclear energy more expensive than solar?” The result said that solar power ranges from $36 to $44 per megawatt hour, onshore wind power comes in at $29–$56 per MWh, and nuclear energy costs between $112 and $189. These numbers are very clearly a lie including those for renewable energy.
The website https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/economic-aspects/economics-of-nuclear-power.aspx is not bias but is poorly written and confusing. It appears they are using the unit kWe incorrectly. One piece of perhaps useful information is it lists the discount rate of $29/MWh in Korea to $64/MWh in the UK for nuclear power. It is very difficult to find a reliable cost for coal power with the internet dominated by misinformation. It might be $32/MWh in the US. Unfortunately I couldn’t find a good answer comparing nuclear to fossil fuels.
One thing I did find were many articles claiming that wind and solar were now cheaper than coal. If that were true the nations of Asia and Africa would be embracing renewables rather than rejecting the international pressure not to use coal.
The Rio Earth Summit had the Club of Rome stating (Maurice Strong etc) that “is it not our respinsibility to bring this (collapse of industrial civilisation) about?” The UN IPCC itself, apart from stating in its 3rd Assessment report, that predictions of future climate was impossible because climate is a non linear chaotic pattern (also, they could have added, cyclic), it was no longer concerned with environmentalism, but is aim was redistribution of money. It was a mistake they said to think otherwise. But of course, policies such as “Carbon tax” etc are their means to that end. “Zero carbon” is an absurdity. Life is based on carbon. taken literally, “zero carbon” in all senses means end of life and planet Earth. Mad. “Extinction Rebellion” – ultimately means extinction of everything. Are they rebelling against life?
No one ever says anything about Three Mile Island(TMI) because it was not big time disaster the Anti-Nuclear idiots claim it was
Liberals greatly amplify anything that supports their cause and ignore all facts that do not. The Three Mile Island accident exposed people to the radiation level of three medical X-Rays.
Traditional environmentalism and its corruption into planetary eco wacko ism
https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/03/30/the-humans-must-save-the-planet/
Environmentalists campaigning against nuclear power on the basis of public safety is at odds with just about everything else that they do. Their usual talk is of acceptable risk, which is code for ‘we don’t care if people get hurt.’
If a clearly dangerous tree is to be removed, they’ll campaign against it. If a road is to be realigned for driver safety, they’ll campaign against it. If a dam is to be built to alleviate dangerous flood potential, they’ll campaign against it. Yet, with nuclear power, they’re suddenly extremely concerned…
So was I, forty years ago. But a lot has happened since which demonstrates that the safety and technology of nuclear power has improved. I just don’t see the need for it that much. Fossil fuels are fine if used correctly.
Nuclear power won’t save the planet from anthropogenic climate change. Despite some local climates changing somewhat through urban heat islands etc, anthropogenic climate change is not happening globally. Therefore, stopping it from happening is both impossible and unnecessary.
I see lots of Useful Idiots in the pictures and the biggist idiot is wearing stupid gas mask all black outfit a white gloves and Fossil Fools sign in their stupid hand
From the article, “This is why I’ve founded Emergency Reactor, a new green campaign for evidence-based environmentalism. In the battle against misinformation, every small act can make a difference.” It would be nice if he fully followed the “evidence-based environmentalism” and “battle against misinformation” goals. If he did there he would realize that there is no need to reduce emissions. The actual warming is at the very bottom of what is predicted by the climate models. The climate model that most closely matches real world data, INMCM5, only predicts warming of 1.4 degrees by 2100.
He mentioned the IPCC recommendation of Working Group Three calling for “a combination of renewables, nuclear energy, and carbon capture and storage.” This contradicts his stated goal, “We need cheap, clean energy at scale and we need it now.” Renewables have proven themselves to be very expensive. Germany tripled it cost of power by adding 30% renewables to its energy mix. George Town Texas went to 100% renewables when available and the average household power bill went from $250 a month to $1,250. Early indications are that carbon capture will also be incredibly expensive. Nuclear isn’t as bad but is still a lot more expensive than fossil fuel power.
Not even many climate realists are aware that we don’t have the technology to make storage of energy feasible for when the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow. At least Zion Lights is aware of this. However, in addition to the storage issue, there is energy density. Renewable energy simply can not produce enough power to run a modern industrial society. This is especially true when we consider additional loads from electric cars, busses, and semi trucks.
David, one small correction: Zion Lights is female.
As to the costs of nuclear, if it wasn’t for the political difficulty to get permits, go thru all the environmental nonsense and fight constant battles with the environmentalists, the costs of construction would be much lower. And with the new smaller modular plants that are so different from the large pressurized water reactors the cost of building and running the plants would make them competitive with fossil fuel plants. Nuclear, like coal, are the ideal plants for base generating while natural gas are best used for the quick power up/power down for the quick change of demand.
As for the “green energy” other than being able to provide electricity for remote locations using a combination of solar and batteries for low-power usage I can see no value in wind and solar. There must always be a reliable backup source when the wind isn’t blowing (frequently when either in heat wave or cold snaps) and when the sun isn’t shining (like every night and in winter it is up even less). So if we have to have a backup source (fossil fuel, usually natural gas) to keep the grid stable.
One guess I have why there are scientists who insist we can go with “green energy” without nuclear and fossil fuel don’t actually understand how the grid operates. The loons who are out protesting clearly are clueless.
Zion is honest. However, the point missed is that the original plan of so-called ‘environmentalists’ (e.g. at the UNEP, FoE, WWF) was to de-industrialize, ‘re-wild’, prevent economic development in poor countries and reduce population sizes. These still remain the deliberate goals for many funders and NGOs shouting about ‘the climate crisis.’ Their hatred of humanity and any form of really useful energy production mean they won’t accept nuclear, they’re blind to any and all forms of true progress. Their anti-nuclear stance is not the issue. It’s their hatred of humanity which is.
Ariane, you are so right. The goal to de-industrialize society is not as well known because it is something you will never see introduced as legislation, yet groups have been working on that goal since the 1970’s. We know of their activities from defectors. In the 1970’s it appeared that we were running out of accessible fossil fuels. The natural replacement would be nuclear. That is why groups working for de-industrialization significantly augmented and perhaps dominated the anti-nuclear power movement. The goal was to force de-industrialization by energy starvation. When fossil fuels became abundant, it was natural for them to expand into the global warming movement.
There is no common sense in this modern day enviromental movement its whole bunch of nuts falling from the nut tree and rolling all over the place its movement backwards to a Primative way of living since these screwballs think they lived better and treated the Enviroment better what they need is jolt of reality
Oh my, a little common sense. If you believe CO2 is the boogey man, then how can you be against nuclear? Doesn’t make sense.