Greta won't be pleased.

Ten European countries are pushing to have nuclear energy labeled as a green energy.

With a worldwide push towards green energy and deadlines to meet, several counties are seeing the writing on the wall and realize renewables will fall short of future energy demands.

"A group of ten EU countries, led by France, have asked the European Commission to recognise nuclear power as a low-carbon energy source that should be part of the bloc's decades-long transition towards climate neutrality."

www.dailymail.co.uk...

www.euronews.com...

Mandates and fairy dust won't provide enough energy.


Eta... The second linked article spelled "recognized" wrong....
Gotta love modern editing....lol
Maybe lost in the translation?

"How dare you?"

a reply to: Bluntone22

this is "the new normal", who controls Websters Dictionary, controls the world.

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: Bluntone22

this is "the new normal", who controls Websters Dictionary, controls the world.

This wouldn't be changing the definition, it would be making a determination if something fits the current definition.
Nuclear is a zero emissions power source so it should be labeled as green just like coal powered.... I mean electric cars.

a reply to: Bluntone22

Nuclear is a great energy source and it doesn't belch CO2 into the atmosphere. What's not to like?

originally posted by: joejack1949
a reply to: Bluntone22

Nuclear is a great energy source and it doesn't belch CO2 into the atmosphere. What's not to like?

Nuclear is the boogieman....
Damn Godzilla movies ruined it's image..

originally posted by: joejack1949
a reply to: Bluntone22

Nuclear is a great energy source and it doesn't belch CO2 into the atmosphere. What's not to like?

it's super until you need to find a place to put the waste material, or a tsunami hits a reactor. I'd ask those in Fukishima and Chernobyl what's not to like. I'm not anti nuclear, but those are real factors.

a reply to: network dude

People still are living safely right next to Fukushima.

Chernobyl was a Russian crime against humanity

a reply to: Bluntone22

So you don't see Fukashima as a disaster without a fix? Currently pumping water to cool the core into the ocean. It's an amazing power source, but it's not without it's danger and challenges.

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: Bluntone22

So you don't see Fukashima as a disaster without a fix? Currently pumping water to cool the core into the ocean. It's an amazing power source, but it's not without it's danger and challenges.

Nothing is perfect.
Fukushima will slowly be cleaned up.

Unfortunately there are no viable power sources capable of providing the energy needed without either greenhouse gas or nuclear power.

I like the nuke plants that were hastily converted to coal because of Three Mile Island, then became Superfund Cleanup sites.

Nothing like planning and forethought abandoned in the wake (woke?) of blind activism.

a reply to: network dude

Fukishima was also a poor design. There are many safer designs in existence, and better designs in the pipeline. The primary energy source for Ontario/Canada is nuclear, and the CANDU reactor design is incredibly safe as there is not enough fissionable material in one place to melt-down, even in the event of a catastrophic disaster. Also the construction, operation and maintenance of such facilities provide thousands of well-paying jobs. Win-win? And we just throw our nuclear waste into big holes in the ground (but Canada does have a lot of unused space, so we have free reign in this regard).

a reply to: joejack1949

There have been many advancements in reactor design.
The general public doesn't really keep up on that kind of thing.

We also have a big hole in Nevada to throw waste in but legal battles have put the brakes on that.

originally posted by: Lazarus Short
"How dare you?"

"Blah blah blah"...."blah blah blah blah blah".

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: joejack1949
a reply to: Bluntone22

Nuclear is a great energy source and it doesn't belch CO2 into the atmosphere. What's not to like?

it's super until you need to find a place to put the waste material, or a tsunami hits a reactor. I'd ask those in Fukishima and Chernobyl what's not to like. I'm not anti nuclear, but those are real factors.

Or you switch to a plant that can't melt down using thorium.

a reply to: Bluntone22

Greta might be happy since Bill Gates is already working via his company TerraPower to make nuclear energy green.

www.cnbc.com...

But Gates was also interested in the potential of nuclear power as a clean energy.

After reading a paper about a new generation of nuclear reactors built with technical advancements to guard against such accidents, Gates founded TerraPower in 2008 to realize the benefits of these innovations.

Selected by the U.S. federal government to demonstrate the viability of nuclear power through its Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program (ARDP), TerraPower aims to build “fully functional advanced nuclear reactor within 7 years of the award,” according to the Office of Nuclear Energy at the U.S. Department of Energy.

“We envision a 2050 grid that is powered by very significant wind and solar power, but is complemented by” Terra Power nuclear reactors, TerraPower president and CEO, Chris Levesque, tells CNBC Make It.

a reply to: Bluntone22

"You have stolen my dreams and my childhood, now leave me alone while I stuff my face"



In all seriousness though, we need to have a larger electricity supply for all of the electric cars and other stuff that is going to be the norm. Nuclear power is a great, carbon neutral way to increase the supply.

Ahh yes the green glowing energy one hell of a way to kick the can down the road

I know it could be done safely but it won't the plants will be built bye the lowest bidder used 50 years beyond there lifespan and left for our children to clean up ... ahh progress fixing our problems now bye screwing the future

I don't think she'll ever be fornojd .

If we reverted to a pristine garden of Eden tomorrow she would still have a big bottom lip and move on to the next thing.

a reply to: markovian

We would have more new and safer nuclear plants if people hadn't been kicking the can down the road for decades.

Instead we have coal and unreliable"green".