Greenpeace Becomes A Denier Of Physics
As Europe and China are finding out the hard way, energy is life. Energy is food. Energy is warmth. Energy is order. Energy is civilization.
The absence of energy is death. It is hunger. It is cold. It is disorder. It is the end of civilization.
“The only countries that have successfully moved from fossil fuels to low-carbon power have done so with the help of nuclear energy.” – Michael Shellenberger
These are simply indisputable axioms of physics. The second law of thermodynamics is as brutal as it is undefeated: disorder is spontaneous, and life is the pinnacle of high order.
In a potentially watershed moment for a truly sustainable low-carbon future, several member countries of the European Union are pressing Brussels to officially label nuclear energy as green.
Doing so would have substantial implications for future investments, government policy, and, ultimately, an improved environment.
Here’s how Euronews describes it:
“A group of ten EU countries, led by France, has 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.
Tapping into Europe’s ongoing energy crunch, the countries make the case for nuclear energy as a ‘key affordable, stable and independent energy source’ that could protect EU consumers from being ‘exposed to the volatility of prices.’
The letter, which was initiated by France, has been sent to the Commission with the signature of nine other EU countries, most of which already count nuclear as part of their national energy mix: Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Finland, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia and Romania.”
What was Greenpeace’s response to this perfectly sensible policy recommendation? Here’s a tweet from their official account:
There’s so much wrong with that tweet that it is difficult to know where to begin. As a contribution to the environmental policy debate, it is decidedly unserious.
Putting aside the tired tropes of the alleged dangers of nuclear energy and handling of nuclear waste, one wonders if Greenpeace understands the basic concept of energy return on energy invested (EROEI), or where the “energy invested” comes from as we build out renewables and hope for a reasonable return.
There is no such thing as a perpetual motion machine.
How are solar cells made? They come from polysilicon, which comes from metallurgical grade silicon, which comes from sand.
It takes an enormous amount of energy (gasp!) to turn sand into solar-grade polysilicon. You can read about it here. That energy must come from somewhere.
Because of previous policy blunders, the vast majority of polysilicon is now produced in China. In case you haven’t noticed, China is a bit short of energy these days as well.
Guess what they took off the board first?
I guess Greenpeace China isn’t a thing? Does Greenpeace speak truth to Xi’s power, or are their dangerous platitudes reserved for us gullible know-nothings in the West?
For a dose of much-needed sanity, we turn to Josh Wolfe, co-founder of Lux Capital, technology investor, and all-around brilliant guy:
Wolfe is – as usual – utterly correct in his thought experiment. If the almost magical power of nuclear energy were discovered today, it would be heralded as a transformative and breakthrough invention to be widely celebrated.
We laid the groundwork for our views on energy in Why Are Cows Sacred and followed up with our proposed policy framework in America’s Energy Strategy is Bonkers.
The only ethical path to decarbonization at scale has nuclear energy as a core foundation:
“Under President Doomberg, the US would revitalize its nuclear power industry. If you claim to be serious about reducing our carbon intensity but you are opposed to nuclear power, you aren’t actually serious about reducing our carbon intensity – you are a scientifically ignorant poseur. That might sound a little harsh, and might even cost me a few subscribers, but it must be said. I’d be intellectually dishonest if I softened the message.
Nuclear power is safe, affordable, and must be a critical part of our energy future. In the past 25 years, the US has commissioned precisely one new nuclear power facility, a true failure of political leadership. Opposition to nuclear power is destroying the planet. Get over it. It’s time. Better is better.”
It is time for Greenpeace to get over it. An organization that opposes all development of fossil fuels while simultaneously opposing nuclear energy is actively working to kill tens of millions of the poorest humans on Earth.
More than unserious, more than a physics denier, Greenpeace is gross.
See more here: climatechangedispatch.com
Editor’s note: The second sentence in this article reminds me of the Hopi Indian word Koyaanisqatsi, which means ‘life in turmoil, life disintegrating, a state of life that calls for another way of living.’ It seems relevant to me, as the climate alarmists seem intent on taking us down the path which will probably lead to the collapse of our civilisation and the deaths of millions.
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
Ursula Harper
| #
OK, I get the idea that we might need some nuclear power to keep us going until we work out better solutions but can you please write something about the dangers, which worries lots of people. Chernobyl and Fukashima have not been forgotten. And what about the waste products; where do they go, what are the dangers?
Also, we have had enough of fear-mongering and enough of bullying – from all sides. It would be good if you kept your language calm and polite. Thanks!
Reply
Alan
| #
Why don’t you look up the information you are asking for and decide for yourself what is true?
Firstly, you could look up the deaths associated with fossil and nuclear power generation, based on the energy that each has supplied. You will find that there are fewer deaths associated with nuclear power. So why are you more worried about nuclear power?
Next look up the circumstances of the Chernobyl accident and you will see that it does not have any relationship to commercial reactor operation.
The Fukushima accident is perhaps the most concerning although I don’t think there are any deaths associated with the nuclear incident. I would expect the Japanese to pay attention to detail but the accident happened because of a failure of the emergency power supplies because the design did not allow for the cause of the incident. You could argue that is a reason not to use nuclear power, but life is never accident free and the benefits have to be consider in relation to the risks.
Reply
LLOYD
| #
Hey Alan. Was your answer so abrupt and to me nasty-sounding because a Woman asked the question, or do you hate questions about Nuke Power? The concern about Nuke Power has been as much about contamination and slow death rather than just about a nasty explosion. Nuke power would be an asset on a Lunar or Mars colony.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Ursula,
The design of the nuclear power plants you are worried about are antiquated. The latest Thorium power nuclear power plant have solved most of the drawbacks you mention. By using thorium as the fuel there can be no meltdown or explosion, it does not produce plutonium which can be used for bombs, it can use the nuclear waste, that the current plants produce as fuel to produce power, and you cannot have the problems that occurred at 3 mile island, Chernobyl, or Fukushima due to cooling failure. It is the perfect solution to our energy problems and if the idiot politician and green fools would stop wasting resources on wind and solar (that never produce more energy then that required to make them) we could prepare for the coming decades of cold resulting from the grand solar minimum.
Herb
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Ursula and PSI Readers,
“IT IS OFTEN VERY (MOST) DIFFICULT TO SEE THE OBVIOUS.” (JLK ???)
Do we not know we are all going to die??? I read that Pierre Curie slipped on ice along a Paris street, fell into the street, where his head was crushed by the wheel of a dray pulled by a horse (or horses). I read that recently in my city the wife of a MD, stepped off a curb into the path of a car and was killed. So, an observed fact is that ACCIDENTS HAPPEN and it does not matter what the ACCIDENT is. Some people might claim that it is not HEALTHY to worry about any POSSIBLE ACCIDENT THAT MIGHT HAPPEN!!! And I believe they are RIGHT.
For none of us KNOW the FUTURE beyond the fact we will ultimately die!!!
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Howdy
| #
“It takes an enormous amount of energy (gasp!) to turn sand into solar-grade polysilicon”
If you don’t click on the link in the article, you may not realize It is not beach sand as you might expect, and will find plastered all over the internet, but a particular type, Silica sand. Even Intel say “common sand”.
My information is that a pure quartz is required, hence large open mining projects to extract said crystal instead of robbing the desert. Anyone?
Reply
T. C. Clark
| #
The USA government is mostly incompetent…..just left $80 billion in military equipment to the enemy in Afghan….a MSR test reactor could have been built years ago for a few bill…the DOD actually built a “green” filling station in Afghan for methane or propane powered vehicles…there are very few such vehicles in the USA much less Afghan…..but it was “green” and therefore a good thing even though the DOD is not even supposed to be in the “green” business…..and some contractor made a nice sum of money.
Reply
Ken Green
| #
All these organizations have bought in to the carbon tax propaganda.
Reply