Climate activists who have successfully vilified nuclear energy, leading to plant closures around the Western world, may be surprised to learn that their efforts have actually increased greenhouse gas emissions, according to a report from The Breakthrough Institute, an environmental research center.
“Premature shutdowns of nuclear power plants in developed countries, for instance, have caused additional annual carbon emissions that now total 138.1 million metric tons (Mt) of CO2 equivalents a year,” the report states. [emphasis, links added]
“This yearly carbon footprint is nearly equal to the combined annual emissions from 37 African countries, with a total population of 455 million people.”
The paper explains that phasing out clean energy sources like nuclear increases carbon emissions because there has to be a replacement energy source, and more often than not it is fossil fuels.
The effect on CO2 emissions over the last decade from such moves has been significant.
In total, since 2012, the carbon costs of nuclear phaseout policies in developed countries add up to about 800 million tons of CO2. To place that number into context, that’s enough CO2 emissions to melt 2400 km2 of Arctic summer sea ice, plus or minus another 240 km2.
It equates to a full two years of nationwide fossil CO2 emissions from a medium-sized country like Turkey, Australia, or the United Kingdom, or more than 0.1 parts per million of the 416 parts per million of carbon dioxide in the planet’s atmosphere.
These totally unnecessary carbon emissions will continue to grow over the coming decades, with one academic paper estimating that added global emissions from Germany’s nuclear phaseout alone will total 1100 Mt of CO2 by 2035. With each additional year, the consequences of reactor shutdown decisions made years ago continue to accumulate around the world. (The Breakthrough Institute)
So called *green* activists are increasing emissions.
Nuclear phaseout policies added 800 million tons of CO2—equal to a full 2 years of nationwide fossil CO2 emissions from a medium-sized country like Turkey, Australia, or the UK.https://t.co/QvNSZTCjsr pic.twitter.com/8JVDrwMvPP
— Brian Gitt (@BrianGitt) November 17, 2022
As nuclear proponent Michael Shellenberger has explained, the true reason climate activists oppose nuclear energy is that it means renewables are unnecessary.
“The problem with nuclear is that it doesn’t demand the radical re-making of society like renewables do, and it doesn’t require grand fantasies of humankind harmonizing with nature,” he wrote in Forbes.
“Nor does nuclear provide cover for funneling billions to progressive interest groups in the name of ‘community-controlled renewable energy, local organic agriculture, or transit systems,'” he continued.
“All nuclear does is grow societal wealth, increase wages, and decouple the economy from pollution and environmental destruction,” Shellenberger added. “No wonder they hate it so much.”
Read more at Townhall
CO2 (not CARBON emissions) is not a problem but shutting down totally safe and cost effective electric generating capacity by replacing it with expensive and unreliable “green” generating wind and solar is totally stupid. But then that is what the left wing does.
Climate activists should all live in grass huts and find out what its like living without heat the trouble with them is they take their way of living for granted
The first half of this post plays into the warmist argument that CO2 is bad. The second half, from Shellenberger, is excellent insight into the Green energy scam. The payola is there for any up and coming journalist to uncover.
Watergate 2.0