Finland is a hero on nuclear energy development. After the US bailed on Yucca Mountain, Finland is the only country I know building a stable geological waste repository. Great to see the realist Greens coming along on nuclear as well.<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repository" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repo...</a><p>* to be anti-nuclear is to be anti-climate, and pro-coal.
The whole nuclear power situation is a total clownshow. Here in California we've regulated nuclear out of existence and we're replacing it with natural gas in an effort to save the environment/children. Truly as fucking stupid as it sounds.
The Green League party in Finland is kind of interesting when compared to other Greens worldwide. They used to be vehemently anti-nuclear, having for example previously left a government due to decisions related to investments in new nuclear power plants (as referred in TFA). However, since then they've:<p>- Removed the opposition to nuclear power from their official party program<p>- Just recently elected a known pro-nuclear vice-chairman<p>- Now this, lobbying for inclusion of nuclear energy in the EU as sustainable<p>Also, a sub-organization Finnish Greens for Science and Technology (Viite) (also pro-nuclear, pro-GMO, etc.) has taken a nice foothold in the party.<p>Commendable to see people coming around and updating their beliefs.
"Finland lobbied EU to declare nuclear power sustainable"<p>Well, isn't it? Am I missing something or is nuclear about as sustainable as it gets? The perfect baseload to cover us when solar or wind is out. Almost no CO2 produced, much lower deaths/GWh produced, plentiful fuel supplies?
Sometimes I feel crazy when people start arguing about nuclear. Up here in Ontario, 60% of our power comes from nuclear. If Canada can manage to have an indigenous nuclear industry with our culture of regulations and red-tape, what on earth is stopping an economic powerhouse like the EU.
Finland with its cold winters doesn't exactly have a lot of sunlight and it knows better than to depend on Russia for energy, so at this point geographical reality is that nuclear power really seems the best option.
What if we agreed that Nuclear energy could be considered green only if it isn't a design that provides dual use enriching fuel for nuclear weapons? Creating nuclear weapons seems incompatible with preserving the environment.<p>It seems that the nuclear reactor choices have historically been geared towards the dual purposes of
1) Producing power AND
2) Enriching fuel for the most environmentally destructive weapons ever invented. If we were to decouple those two things we'd probably unlock some interesting designs that have fewer problems with long-lived waste and provide a part of our green energy future.
The next good nuclear news from Finland will hopefully be about the new reactor entering production, currently expected in the next June. The EPR construction has been impossibly overtime and over budget, but one would hope constructing more of the same type of unit should be faster. Right?
Here is official press release from Finnish Government, which also links to the statement from the ministers: <a href="https://valtioneuvosto.fi/en/-/1410877/lintila-and-other-eu-ministers-joint-article-europe-needs-nuclear-power" rel="nofollow">https://valtioneuvosto.fi/en/-/1410877/lintila-and-other-eu-...</a><p>Also the relevant EC page has a section on nuclear energy that has some more information: <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/info/business-economy-euro/banking-and-finance/sustainable-finance/eu-taxonomy-sustainable-activities_en" rel="nofollow">https://ec.europa.eu/info/business-economy-euro/banking-and-...</a>
For the purpose of the climate crisis, we should talk about "carbon neutral" instead of "sustainable". It's both more clearly defined and more relevant to the current challenge.
They did that because they’re both deep into it and because that’s the right thing to do.
Just for comparison let’s have a look at the “green” Germany emissions.
I’ve been pro-nuclear for the past 20+ years and have echoed the same arguments and sentiments expressed here. However, I’ve started to waver.<p>Is it naive idealism to expect a future where nuclear technology won’t be weaponized? We have to maintain global peace for thousands of years without a large-scale war. It’s incredibly unlikely given that scale of time that global peace will be continuously maintained.
Arguably the _only_ real, reliable, sustainable energy option we have right now. That is if you believe that we're actually are in a "crisis" rather than virtue signal on the issue as you jet around the world in a private plane, which "climate advocates" have the habit of doing.
By the time all needed nuclear reactors are built, there won’t be anything left to sustain. Time to first watt for nuclear is so atrocious it isn’t even funny. You could install and end of life an equivalent amount of wind, solar and batteries for the same money and time (…hyperbole, but maybe not).
The lack of support for nuclear power is truly astounding, especially as we watch the slow motion car crash of climate change happening around us.<p>It's obviously unsurprising from anti-science Republicans, but the Democratic party as a whole should be deeply embarrassed that they're going toe to toe on irrationality with the other side on such an important issue.