This statistic includes nuclear and bioenergy. I’m unsure about bioenergy, but nuclear certainly can not qualify as green. Unless you mean green glowing stuff, like nuclear waste is often depicted.
Also 100years are a very long time
Yes and humanity is sometimes very very very slow to change for the better.
They’re probably using green to mean “not CO2 producing” given the context of the discussion being about CO2 emissions. As far as I’m aware nuclear energy fits that criteria.
They’re probably using green to mean “not CO2 producing” given the context of the discussion being about CO2 emissions
I understand the argument and yes CO2 emissions are indeed lower. However, only marketing/sales/lobbyists/politicians would use that to sell it as green energy. It’s not green, it’s not environment friendly, it’s not renewable.
Actually one could argue that it is extremely environment friendly, seeing as Chernobyl has become a wildlife sanctuary.
In terms of carbon emissions, it’s pretty lean. You’re only really talking about the cost of concrete and of harvesting uranium fuel, which is negligible beside the cost of coal or natural gas.
humanity is sometimes very very very slow to change for the better.
The turnover to wind and solar has been genuinely shocking in its rapidity. Market forces are one hell of a drug.
This statistic includes nuclear and bioenergy. I’m unsure about bioenergy, but nuclear certainly can not qualify as green. Unless you mean green glowing stuff, like nuclear waste is often depicted.
Yes and humanity is sometimes very very very slow to change for the better.
They’re probably using green to mean “not CO2 producing” given the context of the discussion being about CO2 emissions. As far as I’m aware nuclear energy fits that criteria.
I understand the argument and yes CO2 emissions are indeed lower. However, only marketing/sales/lobbyists/politicians would use that to sell it as green energy. It’s not green, it’s not environment friendly, it’s not renewable.
Actually one could argue that it is extremely environment friendly, seeing as Chernobyl has become a wildlife sanctuary.
In terms of carbon emissions, it’s pretty lean. You’re only really talking about the cost of concrete and of harvesting uranium fuel, which is negligible beside the cost of coal or natural gas.
The turnover to wind and solar has been genuinely shocking in its rapidity. Market forces are one hell of a drug.