Why are green politicians opposed to clean nuclear energy?

[Sheilbh]

I see you ignored my qualifier.

Not really I just don't see it's relevance.  It isn't crippling - I can't think of any economy crippled by renewable energy.  But it does take a lot of investment and support.  It's a question of priorities and spending - like all infrastructure spending.  In my view it's worth it but we shouldn't overdo the cost.  There isn't a country in Western Europe or North America that couldn't afford it.

Biomass. Please don't mention that. Burning trees is not renewable energy.

Biomass isn't just trees though that's part of it.  In the UK it's mostly animal waste.  It's whatever you have produced from living organisms.

Also if you manage forests well that's fine.  It's what the Forestry Commission are for in Scotland.

Is anybody but EdF seriously thinking about building a new nuclear reactor in the UK?

Yeah.  I know one firm's bidding as an operator that would be the biggest her company's ever won (the entire company not just the nuclear division, and they're a huge multi-national) and I think there's a few Canadian operators wanting to go into it.  I think EdF are best placed for the building though. 

Germany will invest lots of money into windpower in the North Sea and the power lines to transport it to Southern Germany where the industry needs it. We will also need more stuff like pumped storage hydroelectrics to cope with fluctuations in renewable output.

A big deal in the UK is offshore wind farms and wave power, but yeah, it's very expensive to build the cables.

Yeah, it's not really relevant outside sparsely populated places like Canada. It's like saying we should all be using hydroelectric because works wonders in Norway.

Obviously different countries should have different approaches based on their own situations and likely resources.

[MadImmortalMan]

It isn't crippling - I can't think of any economy crippled by renewable energy.  But it does take a lot of investment and support.  It's a question of priorities and spending - like all infrastructure spending.  In my view it's worth it but we shouldn't overdo the cost.  There isn't a country in Western Europe or North America that couldn't afford it.

Why though? When we're figuring out we're completely awash in natgas and it's cheap as hell and almost as clean.

[Valmy]

Not really I just don't see it's relevance.  It isn't crippling - I can't think of any economy crippled by renewable energy.  But it does take a lot of investment and support.  It's a question of priorities and spending - like all infrastructure spending.  In my view it's worth it but we shouldn't overdo the cost.  There isn't a country in Western Europe or North America that couldn't afford it.

I meant crippling in the sense that it is a huge investment that will not pay off in the forseeable future, it is always going to be a burden.  You are going to be paying more for energy and subsidizing long term.  I mean sure lots of countries in Western Europe or North America could use money in that way but it is not a good economic strategy.  It is, hopefully, a very long term one.  It requires a strong ideological commitment and faith that it will eventually pay off.  I mean I would feel similarly towards infrastructure where there is a cheaper equivalent alternative.  You are taking a handicap by choosing to spend more to get the same result.

[The Larch]

It isn't crippling - I can't think of any economy crippled by renewable energy.  But it does take a lot of investment and support.  It's a question of priorities and spending - like all infrastructure spending.  In my view it's worth it but we shouldn't overdo the cost.  There isn't a country in Western Europe or North America that couldn't afford it.

Why though? When we're figuring out we're completely awash in natgas and it's cheap as hell and almost as clean.

Almost as clean as what?

[alfred russel]

And it's not like renewable energies are pie in the sky projects: they apparently provide 1/5 of Germany's energy now: http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/industries/solar-power-in-germany-hit-new-record-high-in-may-producing-10-pct-of-countrys-electricity/2012/06/08/gJQAz3b3NV_story.html

Zanza, Syt, or someone else may know more, but I don't know if the Germany experience is a positive for renewables. From what I've read that took a massive investment, and Germans are looking at higher electric bills than the rest of europe.

[Iormlund]

If the question is properly phrased as should nuclear as opposed to other forms of power receive preferential subsidization, then one does not need to be a "green politician" to take a negative view to the question.

Every form of power generation receives significant subsidies.  'Preferential' doesn't make any sense in this context.

[Valmy]

Almost as clean as what?

As renewables maybe?

[MadImmortalMan]

Almost as clean as what?

As renewables maybe?

Yes. Cleaner than biomass actually. But nothing anywhere can come close in bang for your buck if you've got it, and both Europe and NA do.

[Sheilbh]

I meant crippling in the sense that it is a huge investment that will not pay off in the forseeable future, it is always going to be a burden.  You are going to be paying more for energy and subsidizing long term.  I mean sure lots of countries in Western Europe or North America could use money in that way but it is not a good economic strategy.  It is, hopefully, a very long term one.  It requires a strong ideological commitment and faith that it will eventually pay off.  I mean I would feel similarly towards infrastructure where there is a cheaper equivalent alternative.  You are taking a handicap by choosing to spend more to get the same result.

Yeah.  It's a long-term investment, that's the point of it.  But again that's a choice Europe and North America can and in my view should make.  It's also more effective to spread it out over a number of years than responding to a sudden looming shortage or gas/oil/whatever (I've read that if all the countries allegedly getting interested in nuclear did build then uranium costs would rise hugely) becoming too expensive.

[The Larch]

Almost as clean as what?

As renewables maybe?

It is cleaner than coal and oil, yeah, but I doubt that it's overall cleaner than renewables. It sill has significant GHG emissions, even if lower than those other two.

[Zanza]

Zanza, Syt, or someone else may know more, but I don't know if the Germany experience is a positive for renewables. From what I've read that took a massive investment, and Germans are looking at higher electric bills than the rest of europe.

Depends on how you define positive really. I've never in my life had a blackout in Germany, so our energy supply so far is very stable.

I can't tell whether prices are higher than elsewhere in Europe as I've never paid for power elsewhere. I think I pay like 28-30 Euro a month for about 100 kwh. Not enough to really care. 

In general I am very sceptical regarding the huge subsidies for solar power here, because I doubt the efficiency and think that the money could have been invested for other renewables better.

While I am sceptical of nuclear power, I guess it would have made more sense to phase out the lignite power plants we have for ecological reasons.

For political reasons, the nuclear power phase out is something I support though. Not because I believe in it, but because nuclear power gave the Greens way too much support and I dislike a lot of their other policies. So I rather sacrifice nuclear power which I am only lukewarm about anyway if that means the Greens lose one of their main topics that draws voters.

[Viking]

Almost as clean as what?

As renewables maybe?

It is cleaner than coal and oil, yeah, but I doubt that it's overall cleaner than renewables. It sill has significant GHG emissions, even if lower than those other two.

CO2 emissions wise
Coal 100%
Oil 65%
Gas 40%

I know somebody is talking BS when they use adjectives suggesting that natural gas is more than average polluting. Of all things that have Green House Gas emissions natural gas has the least.

[MadImmortalMan]

CO2 emissions wise
Coal 100%
Oil 65%
Gas 40%

I know somebody is talking BS when they use adjectives suggesting that natural gas is more than average polluting. Of all things that have Green House Gas emissions natural gas has the least.

That doesn't mean it's "clean" though. What it is, is a cheap as hell bridge fuel we can use until renewables become better economic performers.

[Viking]

CO2 emissions wise
Coal 100%
Oil 65%
Gas 40%

I know somebody is talking BS when they use adjectives suggesting that natural gas is more than average polluting. Of all things that have Green House Gas emissions natural gas has the least.

That doesn't mean it's "clean" though. What it is, is a cheap as hell bridge fuel we can use until renewables become better economic performers.

Use of the word "clean" as if it is an absolute terms also suggests to me that the person using it doesn't know what he/she/it is talking about. It is a relative term and using it in absolute terms suggests that there is a promised land or utopia of clean energy that can be reached which is without side-effects.

[DGuller]

Opposing nuclear power has become an important tribal identifying mark among greens.

What do you think about nuclear power?