Nuclear advocates overwhelm a clean energy poll with a write-in candidate
On January 12, 2022, the New York Power Authority posted a poll on its Twitter feed. It asked people to vote for the clean energy technology they would like more of in 2022. The poll listed electric vehicles, green hydrogen, solar and geothermal.
Within a couple of hours, more than sixty users had responded to @NYPAenergy with a write-in candidate – nuclear energy. More than 98% of the tweet responses suggested nuclear as the technology they would like to see more of in 2022 – outside of the people who chose one of the four choices offered.
The reaction was impressive. It was apparently overwhelming to the NYPA – the settings were changed to prevent any more responses from people that the NYPA did not follow or respond to. It’s possible that they did not want the write-in candidate to win.
Dr. Chris Keefer, the host of the Decouple Podcast, produced a recording of the way the tweet feed grew and then shared that recording.
Who knows if spontaneous actions from a disparate group of advocates will have any impact on energy policies? It is, however, one more data point indicating that the public conversation about nuclear energy is changing.
Yup, the attitudes, they are a-changin’.
Meh. No troll like a nuclear troll.
Let’s hope so.
Unfortunately, the German and Austrian Green Parties will likely “lawyer up” the system with every legal trick in the book. That and the anti-green sycophants will probably block any waste proposals, using big media events where they lay their bodies on the road and obstruct traffic. Makes for good TV. Maybe Ms. Thunberg will attend.
I meant anti-nuclear sycophants. woops.
My previous comments were more for the recent addition of nuclear as a “green” technology in Europe. The established environmental groups there are having a cow.
In regards to this article, I should have said that the NRDC, FOE, Greenpeace, and the Sierra Club will lawyer up. Especially in NY.
Go gently with our allies please. Greta Thunberg does not speak against nuclear. Her calls have been simply for “Action”, leaving it up to older generation to identify and execute appropriate actions to rescue the climate. The calls lay out a challenge that you and I know can best be met by converting the world’s power needs to nuclear. But it is up to our generation, not the next, to get that conversion underway as soon as possible. Today’s youngsters will be judging our performance along the way.
Understood, however, “our” generation tried and has been repeatedly blocked. Even Nuscale with its small light water reactor seems to be stuck in a stasis field. I realize these things go excruciatingly slow, but it’s difficult knowing how much bad press there is. It seems Nuscale should already be grading the Idaho property and fabricating the initial reactor vessels. Perhaps they are. I don’t have access to that information.
I certainly applaud the Rod Adams of the world for their patience and positive messaging of nuclear technology.
Roger Clifton writes:
“Go gently with our allies please. Greta Thunberg does not speak
against nuclear. Her calls have been simply for ‘Action’, leaving
it up to older generation to identify and execute appropriate
actions to rescue the climate. ”
Actually, AFAICT she has spoken clearly against nuclear.
Source: The Guardian, 21 Dec 2021
Article: “Activists including Greta Thunberg criticise ‘fake climate action’ in response to planned investment taxonomy”
URL: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/21/eu-in-row-over-inclusion-of-gas-and-nuclear-in-sustainability-guidance
Quote:
“However, the growing expectation of a Franco-German bargain that brings gas and nuclear into the taxonomy has triggered an excoriating response from Thunberg and nine fellow climate activists….’There is no space for cowardly decisions, like allowing for this fake climate action,’ they wrote, citing the taxonomy.”
Rather than descending into this name-calling melee, I would politely
suggest that if Ms. Thunburg does not do her chemistry and physics
homework before writing in an open letter, she should do so.
And, earlier in the same article (note the date 1 month ago)
I noticed this:
“An EU official said gas and nuclear were likely to have “amber” status, meaning they would not be in the “green” category with wind and solar power, but would feature in the taxonomy.”
AFAICT, the notion of an “amber” status did not make it into the final
draft of the document, so apparently the nuclear-tolerant faction was
forced to accept the ambiguous and loaded “green” label, or face
exclusion from the taxonomy.
So, actually I’m fine with Ms. Thunburg’s statement, because it tells
us exactly where she stands with respect to nuclear energy.