Antinuclear
According to scenarios from the World Nuclear Association and the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency, doubling the capacity of nuclear power worldwide in 2050 would only decrease greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by around 4%, yet would require 37 new large nuclear reactors to the grid every year from now until 2050. In other words, nuclear energy delivers too little energy to matter.
Nuclear power plants are too dangerous and leave communities vulnerable. Power plants require some of the most complex set of resources to be ready at all times—this is not guaranteed with the growing climate crisis and resulting extreme weather events that will affect operations. Additionally, nuclear energy is too expensive to be sustainable. It costs on average more than double the cost of other energy alternatives like solar and wind—and those costs continue to increase. The large amounts of waste that is produced by the nuclear fuel cycle is highly radioactive, and will remain so for several thousand years—and yet no government has ever been able to find a way to safely manage it.
https://www.indigenousclimateaction.com/entries/nuclear-dump-threatens-kichi-sibi
Via https://antinuclear.net/2023/09/08/nuclear-energy-is-not-a-viable-option/
The Most Revolutionary Act 
Saying nuclear power will reduce global warming is like saying the bombs that hit Chernobyl, Nagasaki & Hiroshima sent them into another ice age. Fucking weird-ass logic.
LikeLiked by 1 person
1tawnystranger, I think we both know the real agenda is corporate profits, which is why the cover story doesn’t make any sense.
LikeLike
The WHOLE article is pointless… b/c it is based on assuming we are the cause of climate change in any meaningful way… It is a red herring.
That said, though I do not know a lot about nuclear, some suggest that thorium reactors are better; smaller, apparently no risk, less expensive, easier to deploy locally, waste is not an issue like uranium, etc.
LikeLike
Agree totally about the article being spurious. It’s my understanding thorium does produce radioactive waste but it only takes 200 hundred years to decay rather than tens of thousands. That being said, I have no confidence whatsoever in corporate regulators (who seem bent on reducing global population) in protecting us from thorium waste products while we wait for them to decay.
LikeLike
“The large amounts of waste that is produced by the nuclear fuel cycle is highly radioactive, and will remain so for several thousand years—and yet no government has ever been able to find a way to safely manage it.”
“But..but..but..nuclear energy is CLEAN energy,” they say. Our lives are in the hands of chronic, vicious, pathologically, lying lunatics! The Pacific Ocean is radiated to pieces thanks to that Fukushima mess, and they are continuing to pollute the oceans talking about how they are mitigating the radioactivity in the water released into the Pacific Ocean by treating (diluting) radioactive water from a tsunami-ravaged nuclear power plant before releasing it into the ocean and then Japan got mad because China refuses to buy Japanese seafood. SERIOUSLY???!!!! Since the Japanese claim to have “safely” treated the radioactive wastewater before pouring it into the ocean, then they should have NO problem eating ALL the seafood they pull out of it. But I am quite sure that the U.S. will buy it. The U.S. wants US all dead, anyway.
LikeLike
The US Department of Energy was presented with a way to safely decontaminate nuclear waste in the 1990s and rejected it in favor of storage. I published an article about Brown’s gas in Nexus Magazine back in April: https://studylib.net/doc/26062737/the-suppression-of-nuclear-waste-decontamination-technology
LikeLiked by 1 person
Pingback: Key US nuclear agency to send 80% of workforce home as shutdown drags on | Worldtruth
Pingback: IEA calls for working from home, driving slower and flying less to tackle energy crisis | Worldtruth