The real solution to climate change: nuclear vs renewables/efficieny

A short film on nuclear power vs renewables and efficiency.

The single biggest use of fossil fuels isn't for electricity or for transport, but for creating heat (domestic and industrial). So any solution to climate change needs to contribute to heating, as well as to electricity generation.

Nuclear power contributes almost nothing to our enormous heating requirements. In the same amount of time and for less money, we could implement an energy system that will do far more to stop climate change and ensure energy security than nuclear power: a combination of renewables, efficiency, and combined heat and power:

More.

Nuclear _could_ contribute

Nuclear _could_ contribute to heating if the new plants are made that way. For example, Cernavoda 1 in Romania provides 10% of the whole country's heat as well as 10% of its electricity. All that from one compact machine.

And you know, wind turbines don't produce heat, do they? Only rubbishy little unreliable trickles of electricity.

Get real Greenpeace: The choice is not nuclear Vs. renewables no matter how many times you say it is. GP only say that to drum up support for their retarded suggestions.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
Add image
  • Allowed HTML tags: <img> <p> <b> <i> <a> <u> <br> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <blockquote> <del> <sup> <sub> <hr> <div> <table> <tr> <td> <thead> <tbody> <caption> <span> <strike> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <hr>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Images can be added to this post.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Image CAPTCHA
Copy the characters (respecting upper/lower case) from the image.