WISE and NIRS promoting twisted campaign with slogan “Don’t nuke the climate”
It has been a long standing absurdity that the clean development mechanisms approved by the Kyoto treaty to reduce the risk of climate change exclude nuclear energy.
This year there is momentum building to reevaluate and change a rule that virtually eliminates the option for nations to use the most effective tool available to permanently reduce coal, oil, natural gas and biofuel combustion in power plants.
The Netherland based World Information Service on Energy (WISE), and “green” groups from Germany, Russia, France, Austria and the US — including the deceptively named Nuclear Information and Research Service (NIRS) — are promoting an effort to resist the insertion of logic and reason into the important effort to reduce global CO2 emissions.
Their twisted slogan is “Don’t Nuke The Climate.” As we know, nuclear power plants run inside sealed containments; fission is clean enough to operate inside submerged submarines.
Please visit Ban nuclear from Paris talks, green groups urge and participate in the poll to state your opinion that nuclear energy is an ultra low CO2 energy source that should be counted as a clean development mechanism that is eligible to earn full certified emissions reduction credit for its contributions to CO2 reductions.
Here is an early snapshot of the poll results.
Update: This screenshot of the poll results taken at 5:20 EDT June 18, 2015. Note the impressive shift in results from yesterday. Might have something to do with passing the word about the poll to people that are not part of the small, but loud antinuclear choir.
Update: (July 26, 2015 03:00) The edie web site has posted an article titled Poll: 85% of sustainability professionals support nuclear subsidies summarizing the results of its poll. Here is a quote from that article.
More than 85% of sustainability professionals and green experts currently support the continued subsidisation of nuclear power in the UK, a new edie poll has found.
More than 350 edie readers have so far responded to a question asking whether the UK Government should continue to support and subsidise nuclear power.
Circular Ecology’s Craig Jones, who recently wrote about the controversial Hinkley nuclear plant for edie, suggested the disparity could be the result of an educated pragmatism from sustainability professionals.
He said: “I believe it’s more likely they accept nuclear, rather than outright support it. This is likely in recognition that it provides a large amount of low carbon electricity to the UK (20%) and that replacing this without our carbon emissions going up would be a considerable task.”
Here is a screenshot of the vote tally as of June 26, 2015 at 3:00 am EDT.
Morals of the story:
1. Participate in opportunities to share your opinions about nuclear energy. More people may be paying attention to your voice than you think.
2. Take the results of any internet poll that doesn’t require a secure login process with a huge pile of salt.
How utterly deceptive and irresponsible. They are not even “environmentalists.”
Prevented mortality and greenhouse gas emissions from historical and projected nuclear power ( http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2013/2013_Kharecha_Hansen_1.pdf ).
Also, I am even more unconformable with social media and voluntary polls these days Rod. I dont know if you have read this, but I think its worth a look:
The Bot Bubble – The New Republic
“The researchers ran ten Facebook advertising campaigns, and when they analyzed the likes resulting from those campaigns, they found that 1,867 of the 2,767 likes—or about 67 percent—appeared to be illegitimate.” ( http://www.newrepublic.com/article/121551/bot-bubble-click-farms-have-inflated-social-media-currency )
It has implications on any side of a debate, but especially when taken in consideration with what even makes the final cut. ( http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/big-sky-big-money/ ),
Good news is the poll already turned in favor of nuclear power. 🙂
Thanks for the heads up. Voted on that one and I noticed that 83% so far are in favor – even of the expensive plant.
There are enough people aware of the vast subsidies for wind and solar that the price of Nuclear does not affect the debate that much.
And they call the Republicans “anti-science”….. Rod, I think you could even add this opposition to your smoking gun series.
The poll is now already more than 85% in favour of nuclear. Major fail for the antinukes. This is a significant development imo.
Well the 85% is good news I suppose, but the most significant figure is
“Total Votes: 193”
(It is up to 226 now…). I wouldn’t get too excited just yet.
Your right, but …
281 votes now, and 88%+.
Could be that only pro-nukes are finding this website.
@Joris van Dorp
You’re probably right, but I’m kind of disappointed with the numbers. After all, I have nearly 4,000 Twitter followers and 15,000 monthly readers on Atomic Insights and still we have only managed a few hundred votes to spike the results.
Maybe I need to find some more active fission fans.
Well, “vote early, vote often” has been MY watchword here.
(silly unscientific polls.”
There are two kinds of polls, those whose results you agree with; a credible poll…and those whose results you disagree with; a manipulated and inaccurate poll.
Checked it out today and it was at 307 and 86% in favor. It certainly seems to be a low number overall. I wouldn’t put much credibility in this poll.
NIRS should be an acronym for Nuclear Inaccuracies Resource Service. Regardless, I suspect the results of the poll (I voted, too) will never see the light of day.
I like the NRRDC: Natural resources REVENUE defense council.
Voted again today (Vote Early and Vote Often!). Now over 87% in favor.
Voted again??? Now there’s a sure fire way to render a poll meaningless.
I’m with you on this one, POA. Just now it is 337 votes (86% or 290 votes in favor of nuclear, 47 votes against). What if you checked in tomorrow and saw it as 71% opposed (with 663 new votes against nuclear)? I can hear it now: “Oh, I guess NIRS or NRDC or Amory Lovins put it on their websites… Stupid anti-nukes skewing the results…”
I realize it’s just a silly poll but really, what’s the point of voting repeatedly?? It just makes us look like horses asses.
The point of voting in such polls is not that the results are in any way valid, but that it prevents these people from claiming that a majority supports their view.
It is a blocking tactic.
Hypothetically, what if the results would actually illustrate a majority mindset, (were the poll not manipulated by those such as yourself, on both sides of the issue, by utilizing dishonest participation)?
Fearful of the truth? When advocating for dishonest polling tactics, you need to ask yourself what such an advocation does to your credibility. Why trust anything you say?
The Gallup poll may have some controls and may be more to your liking. It may be a more “honest” appraisal of the current inclination for or against nukes. You are a man of principle and expect others to do likewise.
I think the 59% approval rating means those that believe in nuclear power may have their work cut out for them. I wonder what their sample size is. What is the standard deviation, etc.
“Don’t Nuke climate change” has got to backfire.
A quick calculation shows the first capture had 8 people voting against nuclear, second 28, and currently its 29 (pro-nuclear % now 88% of 244 votes)
It’s still a very small scale vote with few people involved.
On the WISE site it appears at least that many organizations have signed their petition. ( http://www.wiseinternational.org/campaign/signed-petitions ). Which will hold more weight should I even ask?
This includes a very large number of anti-nuclear organizations, quite a few of which are very small. How surprised should we be that for anti-nuclear organizations getting rid of nuclear is more important than the climate ?
The entire country of Germany has those backwards priorities.
I support solar and wind, but I also support nuclear! Did you guys know that the guy who founded Greenpeace quit because he got tired of people being anti-nuclear? Check it out:
There are places, including here in the USA, that go for months without sufficient solar power to run everything. Such places need nuclear. It’s either that or coal, and nuclear won’t worsen global warming.
Of course, I’m preaching to the choir 🙂
–Brian 37 male, Silicon Valley, US Navy submarines veteran STS3(SS), 1999 to 2003
“Of course, I’m preaching to the choir”
Not really. There is a large percentage of commenters here that are anti solar and wind. Remarkably, they have the same negative “my way or the highway” mindset that they criticize the greens for having. They seem to think that young technologies will not evolve, and what you see is what you get when addressing solar and wind energy. Same mindset the anti-nukes have. One would think the amazing evolution, these last two decades, of battery technology would endear them to all alternatives to fossil fuel energy. Technologies advance, and there is no doubt that solar and wind technology, as well as nuclear energy, will do so through usage. The wisdom of turning the greens into allies rather than enemies seems to escape many here. In my opinion, they’re stepping on their own di….oh, never mind
Solar and wind energy is nothing new – humans have been collecting those natural energy flows of opportunity for tens of thousands of years.
There haven’t been any fundamental breakthroughs since the discovery of the photoelectric effect.
Solar panel prices have fallen with mass production and supply >> demand.
Wind energy prices have fallen in good locations and economies of scale/mass production.
Technology may evolve, but technologists must make good choices for fruitful paths. It’s not random, not accidental, and NOT inevitable.
There is no way we would have the computing devices we use today if technologists had insisted on continued use of magnetic amplifiers and vacuum tubes instead of semiconductor transistors.
“There haven’t been any fundamental breakthroughs since the discovery of the photoelectric effect”
Of course there has, Rod. To seperate the advances in energy storage, (batteries), from the issue of solar and wind energy, is disingenuous at best.
Improvements in the aerodynamics of the blades, resulting in increased generation during light winds…more advanced computer controls of facilities….hmmmm…wind.
Oh….well…need one go on? Also, many in rural america are now being able to leave the grid behind, thanks to solar. This isn’t more practical, efficient, and cost effective than it was ten, twenty years ago? Of course there have been advancements, and there will continue to be.
Evolutionary technical improvements don’t qualify as “fundamental breakthroughs.” If you want to talk about those kinds of improvements, please note that US nuclear plants have been producing about 20% of US electricity for 25 years, even though total electricity production has substantially increased and the number of nuclear plants has shrunk with only one large plant having entered commercial service during that time period.
There are numerous technical reasons for the improvement in production per plant.
Please describe the complete power system for a person in rural America who has left the grid behind. It would be surprising to my father and his generation, which couldn’t wait for the grid to arrive so they could stop working so hard to overcome the limitations of distributed power systems.
Not being a scientist, or someone that has availed themselves of solar or wind energy, I can only attest to the testimonials of those that have.
One recent experience was looking at an extremely rural 4 bedroom two story remodel for a contractor looking for someone to set finish. The house was powered by solar panels and a large battery array. The water well operates off this system as well. The system is backed up by a propane generator that only comes on if the battery energy diminishes to a certain point. The structure is the fruit of an original homestead, and never had grid power. The owner assured me that the cost of his system was far less than the cost of installing seven miles of power poles and transmission line. He has used the system now for two years, and is quite happy with it. He claims the generator goes days on end without running, and he has yet to experience technical problems causing an outage.
Tell me, do you have a nuclear solution for this homeowner’s energy needs???
No, but the problems I’m interested in solving are on a completely different scale.
Of course they are. But, point being, this homeowner has an efficient and cost effective energy solution, utilizing solar energy, that was impractical cost wise, and barely efficient a decade ago. So, where will the technology, for the individual homeowner, be in another decade? Is it possible that those in urban areas may find the technology a reasonable and cost efficient alternative to the utilization of power company services?
On another note, there is a small grouping of homes near where I live. For some years now one of the homes had a small wind tower and turbine in its yard. About two years ago I noticed it had been replaced with a slightly larger unit. In that time span two other homes in the small residential grouping have also acquired and installed what looks to be identical turbines to their nieghbor’s. Not knowing these people, I can only assume the reasoning behind their acquisition of seemingly identical wind systems. It doesn’t take a genius to guess about what I am assuming.
On the scale that you seem to be implying, I understand, barely, your disdain for the so called renewables. But being a product of the sixties, I tend to be a bit of a rebel; and independence, individuality, and self-sufficiency kinda floats my boat. Solar, and wind, offer immediate energy alternatives to me as an individual homeowner that NE cannot. Like EP with his electric automoblies, I like to think all options are on the table, and they all have a place in our energy future. I just watched an Isle Of Mann motorcycle race on TV and couldn’t figure out why the bikes were so quiet . Well, you know the answer to that, eh? Then, of course, theres the new Formula E series, patterned after Formula One. So, who coulda quessed, ten years ago, eh? Tesla?
The times they are a changin’, Rod. And NE ain’t leading the charge.
One of the reasons I’m so enthusiastic about nuclear energy is that its potential has been barely touched. I have the rare experience of having “owned” my own reactor and used it to provide power, fresh water, motive force, and clean air to 150 of my closest comrades. I spent 20 years pushing a refinement of the technology that I remain convinced has the potential to scale down to household size, but that will never be achieved unless a vast shift in public attitudes takes place and that shift enables well proven manufacturing economies to be implemented.
I live in a suburb surrounded by rural areas. I’ve worked in major cities. I’ve studied the details of unreliables technology and done the math. There is no way to build adequate collection systems in urban areas. That is not a “not yet” statement.
Most visions of high unreliables based systems start with a drastic reduction in energy use often described in the models as “energy efficiency.” In many areas, we are about as efficient as we will ever be and we keep finding new ways in which energy can improve our well being. Far too many people don’t have access to even modest levels of technology and comfort; enabling them to be productive enough to afford steadily improving their condition will require vast amounts of power over long periods of time.
Does this view of rural america being able to leave the grid behind via solar + wind only include electrcity or are you excluding the use of other fossil fuel such natural gas and petroleum for space and water heating (which are normally a larger share of household energy use) + cooking from that view?
I find this development interesting: that instead of saying nothing at all about nuclear power, killing it with silence, some anti´s now feel the need to actively try to keep nuclear out by trying to ban it as a discussion topic at a climate top. Enough has been said on internet about its advantages that some real discussion has started, and more people seem to be willing to at least consider it.
So it looks like the anti-groups are feeling their base is getting smaller, and go on the offensive a bit more. So we better step it up too!
As a side note, I talked with a German yesterday who, while he didn´t really like nuclear power, was realistic enough to see that it was”reliably enough, relatively clean, and that without it our CO2 goals won´t be met, and that closing NPP´s before their time was economic madness”. Interesting was that he kept his opinion to himself until I directly asked him about it, because he was expecting a negative reation to it.
Comments are closed.
Recent Comments from our Readers
The Clinton Nuclear Plant also in Illinois was shutdown essentially for almost 2 years before it was taken over by…
Good Podcast – Very informative One thing that was not discussed is how to deal with a particular fear that…
Renewables people are masters in marketing. Unreliable intermittent generators whose output is all over the place, and usually badly correlated…
Looking at their lineup, Westinghouse seems bound and determined to keep Gen IV in its “place” which is apparently the…
So they are developing a scaled down version of the AP1000, which is a scaled up version of the AP600,…