OECD Nuclear Energy Agency
Climate warning
Climate warning
Pia Jensen
195 w
Nuclear energy is not clean
Top down decision-making often disrupts the natural order of things. The OECD NEA advises us to choose nuclear energy when, in fact, new nuclear designs won't come online soon enough to make a positive impact on climate change. Other issues that make nuclear power undesirable are:
* History of cost overruns on new builds
* Higher costs to consumers than renewables present
* Uranium mining harms indigenous people and our water sources
* Cradle to grave, NPPs carbon footprint is greater than proponents admit
* Prevalence of corruption surrounding nuclear energy
* Nuclear industry & utilities inability to 'survive' market competition without massive subsidies
* Subsidizing and prioritizing nuclear by states and feds crowds out renewable energy R&D and technologies
* Nuclear waste lasts for millennia and we don't have secure waste management systems in place
* Proliferation opportunities, especially in India these days, puts millions of people at risk (dirty bombs)
* Decommissioning of old nuclear power plants requires a lot of money which the industry isn't interested in paying
* The 'watchdog' agency, IAEA, has a strong pro-nuclear bias and seems to be in over their heads (India, Israel, Iran, North Korea, Russia, China, etc..)
* The nuclear industry does not practice international standards (ISO) leaving supply chain and regulatory activities at risk
I could go on, but these are some of the most salient points that reveal nuclear power as a losing bet when it comes to meeting climate change goals.
A healthy market is driven by consumer choices. With international agencies/organizations advocating for nuclear energy, the people lose out on the many opportunities that renewable energy technology offers. I believe that the OECD and World Bank ought embrace renewables so we can achieve climate goals more rapidly and with fewer costs and risks. That is what most people want.
Do you agree?
85 more agrees trigger contact with the recipient
Watch our Latest Broadcasts!
We need to stop methane and #BuyMoreTime
We'll plant a tree for you
And together we've planted over 150,000 trees. One tree is planted for every climate review written to an organization that is Open for Climate Dialogue™.
How does this work?
The Climate Action App
We plant a tree for every new user
•
195 w
If you follow the science, the finances, and long term waste realities, there is no future for nuclear.
•
195 w
Really want to contradict you on science. The Ipcc reporting clearly shows the need for nuclear as well, existing and new. If you can find the JRC science report done for the European commission. Read the conclusion.
•
195 w
@jehannes_ros Are you familiar with the work of Mycle Schneider? You might find his World Nuclear Report informative. The IPCC is pro nuclear and relatively narrow in their analyses, whereas Mycle breaks down all the data related to nuclear energy production. Main page: https://www.worldnuclearreport.org Annual reports: https://www.worldnuclearreport.org/-The-Annual-Reports-.html
•
195 w
@pia_jensen yes its a selfmade reporting institute for the anti nuclear NGOs. Comparable to the anti-climate Institute's on different continents, imho. There is also wise and laka which report much and are financed in part by Greenpeace who use those selfmade reports.
•
195 w
@jehannes_ros It's unfortunate you can't discuss the content and choose instead to try and discredit the people who practice due diligence in analyzing the situations and data.
•
195 w
@jehannes_ros This is an enlightening review of the JRC report: Critical Review of the Joint Research Center policy report “Technical assessment of nuclear energy with respect to the ‘do no significant harm’ criteria of Regulation (EU) 2020/852” (‘Taxonomy Regulation’) Patricia Lorenz, GLOBAL 2000, Friends of the Earth Europe, March 27 2021 👉 https://www.global2000.at/sites/global/files/Hintergrundpapier%20Joint%20Research%20Centre%20-%20GLOBAL%202000%20Reality%20Check.pdf Snippet: The JRC report is very long, however, the key questions when it comes to nuclear energy use are: - Final repository for spent fuel - Nuclear safety and the risk of severe accidents These are both unsolved and the Joint Research Center tries to hide this under admittedly very clever phrases and arguments.
•
195 w
@pia_jensen A 54 page critique of the JRC taxonomy report: http://ecology.at/files/pr922_1.pdf
•
195 w
@pia_jensen no I am talking about there work. Why those Institute's are there. There is enough analysis by nuclear engineers, why there reports are inaccurate or misleading. If you do get. A response OECD NEA. I hope they can give you response to that as well.
•
195 w
@pia_jensen no thejrc not hiding anything and provide a real science based report. And they do Adress those points, it was the main goal to investigate those. Global 2000 will never acknowledge nuclear as part of a climate solution, that's why the exist.
•
195 w
@jehannes_ros Nuclear engineers have a vested interest in nuclear projects. Third party researchers bring to the table the information that nuclear employees tend to leave out of their analysis such as the need for epidemiological studies around NPPs, the enormous costs of and logistical nightmare of nuclear waste management, and the fact that without ongoing subsidies they can't compete.
•
195 w
@pia_jensen I thought you would go there, that's just not good. Wnisr isn't a third party, there openly anti-nuclear. And I don't see what all this will help solve climate change problems we have, I'll leave it as this as I think I spend enough time on these anti-group claims.
•
195 w
As an anti nuclear activist, I have learned that sharing my contact info is dangerous. Whatever you have to say must be said publicly.
•
195 w
Don't agree with you at all. If you follow the science, you will know that nuclear is part of the climate solutions. This attempt is counterproductive to the goals of climate solutions.