Shame on you. He does NOT say its better for climate. He says it does not effect CO2-emissions (as there is a European cap) AND he says gas is more flexible than nuclear. If you are so confident about nukes you do not need to lie.
-
-
-
The IPCC specifically calls lifetime extensions of nuclear power plants an effective co2 mitigation policy, yet this Climate DG is pressing for the opposite policy! He's actually recommending new fossil fuel as replacement for nuclear! Read the article before calling me a liar..
-
I've read it. And he is calling for gas instead of nuclear, indeed. But you said that he claimed/stated that it was better for the climate. And that was NOT wat he said. Ergo: you lied in your earlier tweet. And you know and did it on purpose
-
So when the DG Climate calls for replacing nuclear with fossil fuel, that does *not* mean he believes that replacing nuclear with fossil fuel is better for climate? How are we supposed to know that?
-
This is not about what you think (or want to think) he means to say. He says 2 things: gas is more flexible and closing NPP's does not lead to more CO2 as there is a European cap. He knows what to say and what not to say. On purpose mis-interpreting him is (lets be mild) childish
-
As you know, I believe it's essential for the sake of humanity to ensure that antinuclearism is eliminated from climate/energy policymaking, and part of that is calling out antinuclearism when it masquerades as climate policy, as is clearly the case here.
-
With Germany and now also The Netherlands struggling to reduce fossil fuel dependence - including natural gas - it is atrocious that the EU DG Climate is urging a switch from nuclear to fossil gas when the Belgian reactors can be extended at low cost for up to 40 more years.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
What?? That's mad.
-
It appears the EU Commission believes that renewable energy backed up by natural gas has lower CO2 emissions than a nuclear power plant. Absolute nonsense! I'm a firm believer in the EU, and I am shocked by this bizarre incompetence.

-
- End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Dangerous radiation leaked from three-quarters of U.S. nuclear power plantshttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2006250/Dangerous-radiation-leaked-quarters-U-S-nuclear-power-plants.html …
-
How can these leaks be called “dangerous” when they’ve never hurt anyone? Myth of “no safe dose” created by a series of traceable, documented investments by the oil & gas soaked Rockefeller Foundation in 1954-1960 Sustaining investments ever since
-
According to the National Academy of Sciences, there are no safe doses of radiation. Decades of research show clearly that any dose of radiation increases an individual's risk for the development of cancer." http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2011/03/31/3177889.htm …
-
You lie. There is no evidence that radiation doses similar in magnitude to thr natural background cause an increase in cancer risk. The *assumption* that there is always *some* risk is conservative and not meant to be interpreted as any kind of "proof" that there is in fact risk.
-
People like you - who fabricate and exaggerate radiation risk where none has been shown to exist - are dangerous scaremongers who cause uninformed members of the public to harm themselves and others due to radiophobia (depression, abortions, substance abuse, even suicide). Shame!
-
Facts give them a try Dorp.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
He apparently feels that adding renewables to the grid is more important than reducing carbon emissions. If reducing carbon emissions is not the goal, what is? smh
-
If it was the "Directorate for Renewable Energy", the claim would be bad enough, but its the Climate Directorate for crying out loud. Jeeeze!
-
Emissions may be capped; unfortunately, prices for consumers are not.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
