Good luck with that, if they start to actually admit that they’ve been useful idiots for oil and gas interests, their little hearts will break. You’d do better to start an alternative to Greenpeace that isn’t run by acid casualties and rigid thinkers. Keep the save the whales stuff, keep the staunch protection of nature, lose the bullshit.
They really fucked up with that one
These younglings would fare better by creating a direct competitor to Greenpeace rather than hitting their heads into wall by trying to convince Greenpeace that something’s wrong in their dogma.
Anti-nuclear activists have had a devastating influence in the battle against climate change.
Had we focused our efforts on nuclear decades ago the situation wouldn’t nearly be as bad. You can shut down nuclear power plants but that energy demand remains the same. You have to feed that demand with something.
That something always ends up being oil and coal.
​
Renewables are great by all means but nowhere near ready to power entire countries. Especially those as energy intensive as European ones.
But these fools would rather burn oil that risk nuclear. Actual smoothbrains
We require clean energy sources, such as nuclear and renewables, in a world where energy consumption is rising and emissions need to be reduced.
Nuclear power is several times more expensive per kWh. It is only viable because of massive subsidies.
*Lazard’s report on the estimated levelized cost of energy by source (10th edition) estimated unsubsidized prices of $97–$136/MWh for nuclear, $50–$60/MWh for solar PV, $32–$62/MWh for onshore wind, and $82–$155/MWh for offshore wind.*
8 comments
She’s not wrong!
Good luck with that, if they start to actually admit that they’ve been useful idiots for oil and gas interests, their little hearts will break. You’d do better to start an alternative to Greenpeace that isn’t run by acid casualties and rigid thinkers. Keep the save the whales stuff, keep the staunch protection of nature, lose the bullshit.
They really fucked up with that one
These younglings would fare better by creating a direct competitor to Greenpeace rather than hitting their heads into wall by trying to convince Greenpeace that something’s wrong in their dogma.
Anti-nuclear activists have had a devastating influence in the battle against climate change.
Had we focused our efforts on nuclear decades ago the situation wouldn’t nearly be as bad. You can shut down nuclear power plants but that energy demand remains the same. You have to feed that demand with something.
That something always ends up being oil and coal.
​
Renewables are great by all means but nowhere near ready to power entire countries. Especially those as energy intensive as European ones.
But these fools would rather burn oil that risk nuclear. Actual smoothbrains
We require clean energy sources, such as nuclear and renewables, in a world where energy consumption is rising and emissions need to be reduced.
To the rescue, young climate activists!
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/28/climate/united-nations-children-climate-lawsuit.html?action=click&module=Well&pgtype=Homepage§ion=Climate%20and%20Children in the Environment Have a Right to Sue Countries Regarding Climate, a U.N. Panel Says
Nuclear power is several times more expensive per kWh. It is only viable because of massive subsidies.
*Lazard’s report on the estimated levelized cost of energy by source (10th edition) estimated unsubsidized prices of $97–$136/MWh for nuclear, $50–$60/MWh for solar PV, $32–$62/MWh for onshore wind, and $82–$155/MWh for offshore wind.*
[Source](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_nuclear_power_plants)