Nuclear energy and renewable energy are the principal competitors for low-carbon electricity in many countries. As renewable energy technologies have grown in volume and investment, and become much cheaper, nuclear proponents and deniers of climate science have become deniers of renewable energy.
 |
| Associate Professor Dr Mark Diesendorf. |
The strategies and tactics of renewable energy deniers are very similar to those of climate science deniers. To create uncertainty about the ability of renewable energy to power an industrial society, they bombard decision-makers and the media with negative myths about renewable energy and positive myths about nuclear energy, attempting to turn these myths into conventional wisdom. In responding to the climate crisis, few countries have the economic resources to expand investment substantially in both nuclear and renewable energy. This is demonstrated in 2016 by the UK government, which is offering huge long-term subsidies to nuclear while severely cutting existing short-term subsidies to renewable energy.
This article, a sequel to one busting the myth that we need base-load power stations such as nuclear or coal, examines critically some of the other myths about nuclear energy and renewable energy. It offers a resource for those who wish to question these myths. The myths discussed here have been drawn from comments by nuclear proponents and renewable energy opponents in the media, articles, blogs and on-line comments.
Read the energypost story by Mark Diesendorf - “Renewable energy versus nuclear: dispelling the myths.”
(Associate professor, Dr Mark Diesendorf, was brought to the Goulburn Valley by Slap Tomorrow to talk about renewable energy and some 150 people gathered at Mooroopna’s Westbank about three years ago to hear him then say with confidence that Australia, and the world, could abandon fossil fuels completely and embrace a combination of renewable sources - Robert McLean)
