4 thoughts on “If we want a low-carbon future, we have to drop our nuclear-phobia”

  1. Posted 20/01/2021 at 13:44 | Permalink

    Roberto, you have clearly fallen for the spin of Shellenberger. There is no need for nuclear an obsolete technology which leaves hazardous nuclear waste at risk of climate change for up to 200 years on flood prone sites. There is no UK site for “disposal” even if the high burn up fuel can ever be placed in a cask which only has a 25 year licence. Hugely expensive to decommission as well . Fixed output always on nuclear conflicts with variable renewables risking grid instability. The cooling water systems destroy fish stocks and add to damage to the marine environment.
    The health risk particularly to females is underestimated, Fukushima is still contaminated and waste cannot be disposed of. Hugely carbon intensive construction over 12 years.

  2. Posted 21/01/2021 at 10:50 | Permalink

    Mike Taylor is correct, but he understated just how wrong Robert White’s article really is. It is based on misguided understanding of facts and very poor scholarship. Before tapping his keys, Roberto would do better to read some credible primary sources instead of relying on secondary or tertiary anecdotal evidence. I would recommend he start with the work of Stanford University’s Professor Mark Jacobson

  3. Posted 21/01/2021 at 19:17 | Permalink

    Hi, interesting read, I hope you are enjoying the time with the IEA. I agree with you that the risk from radiation is probably less than we have had from air pollution and risks of other fuels. I also, am not that concerned about storage, although you are talking about amounts of time that are impossible to put a risk on.
    It is on the free market in nuclear that we disagree. Nuclear has always been backed by government because it needed subsidies, see (Hinckley Point C @£95 MWh). I think they always will have implied subsidy, in the sense that they are the classic “too big to fail” infrastructure. I support your theory of nuclear competing in an open market, and it is there that they are really struggling. As the market in zero-carbon energy has expanded it has become clear that wind and solar are much cheaper, even allowing for balancing costs. Even the National Infrastructure Commission suggested that we may not need any more new nuclear because of the declining costs of renewables and balancing. I am a fan of nuclear in principle, I think it is good that we are moving to a free market in energy, with all the benefits that brings. It is that free market which is creating the fundamental challenge to nuclear, not the radiation and waste material.

  4. Posted 25/01/2021 at 17:11 | Permalink

    the free market will bring forward nuclear? utter nonsense

Leave a Reply

Your e-mail address will not be published.