Typical.
Subsidies for nuclear are bad, but support for renewable energy generation technologies is fine; even if instances of certain renewable technology deployment result in less generation, less reliability, more lifecycle carbon emissions and greater cost per megawatt of GENERATION than nuclear. Is that the point being made here?
Funding? Nonsense! In Germany, nuclear plant operators will enjoy a completely bogus ‘tax’ as a price for their newly approved life extensions (reversal of phase-out policy). Why don’t they just shutdown??? Can’t be that they have a winning economic model that can endure such malarkey and still turn a carbon-free profit…
Oyster Creek?? Spend a few years living in the area and you will discover the local communities fear few things more than the plant’s closure; the loss of many local jobs; the shuttering of many spin-off business that support the plant; and not least of all, the tax revenue supporting local public services. A heavily outnumbered minority of outspoken opponents do not represent the views of the community and it is a farce to represent them as such.
…and that’s just the first paragraph. I can’t bear to continue.
I keep reading Greenpeace articles, looking forward to the day they stop pandering to their quasi-fundamentalist base and produce a contribution to energy/climate issues worthy of serious consideration.
Posts
IAEA webinar about nuclear tech for maritime
-
I really love to talk and think about nuclear power in a maritime
environment. But strangely enough, until recently, not many other people
seemed to feel t...
5 weeks ago
No comments:
Post a Comment