UN clean energy forum accused of bias after excluding nuclear - Sensationalist Headlines

[quote]The UN has blocked the nuclear industry from participating in an international forum on clean energy, sparking accusations of institutional bias within the global body. The London-based World Nuclear Association was originally accepted by the organisers of next month’s Sustainable Innovation Forum as a £40,000 ($68,338) gold sponsor, but the deal was rescinded a week later after intervention by the UN environment program. The organisers then offered a watered-down sponsorship that would include no branding presence, but that deal was also vetoed by UNEP.[/quote] [quote]The forum’s approved sponsors include BMW and Toyota — responsible for a large portion of the world’s petrol- and diesel-powered vehicles — as well as utilities such as Orsted which continue to own coal-fired power plants. Last year’s sponsors included German utility Vattenfall, which generates much of its electricity from coal.[/quote] [url]http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/un-accused-of-bias-as-energy-forum-excludes-nuclear/news-story/ec0d7eaa39da6fcb3a11dc1ac8f18800[/url] Not sure if this is political enough for Polidicks. This just reinforces my belief that nuclear-allergic green groups with be the greatest obstruction to decarbonising our electricity grid. Excluding the energy source that has provided CO2-free energy for more than 50 years with minimal impact is stupid and is a planetary wide gamble.

Non-paywall source: [url]https://www.forbes.com/sites/rodadams/2017/10/30/un-environmental-program-unep-tells-nuclear-industry-even-its-money-isnt-green-enough/[/url] [quote]The UN Environmental Program (UNEP) has rejected the World Nuclear Association's (WNA) offer to provide financial support to the 8th Annual Sustainable Innovation Forum (SIF). Described by its chairman as the "largest business-focused side event during the annual Conference Of Parties" the event is scheduled to take place alongside COP23 in Bonn, Germany. Originally accepted as a gold sponsor and ready to pay the £40,000 ($68,338) fee, WNA was recently notified that its sponsorship had been rescinded upon intervention by the UN Environment Program (UNEP). The original rejection was accompanied by a tentative offer for a lesser sponsorship that did not include any branding or overt credit, but even that offer was later vetoed by the UNEP.[/quote] [quote]Ben Heard, the executive director of Bright New World, a climate and energy focused NGO, told The Australian that he was gobsmacked to see such a blatant example of bias and prejudice. "I’m an advocate for this technology on environmental grounds but it struggles, and part of the reason is time after time it faces this kind of institutional bias which means no-one can even have a conversation about it.” When contacted, Heard acknowledged that [B]some participants in the event might have been uncomfortable confronting evidence supporting the disturbing notion that nuclear energy is clean.[/B] He emphasized the importance of accepting new ways of thinking. "If institutions cannot deal with even this small amount of discomfort, we have no chance of coming together to resolve a challenge like climate change." [/quote] "uncomfortable" :thinking:

[QUOTE=daigennki;52839973]Non-paywall source: [url]https://www.forbes.com/sites/rodadams/2017/10/30/un-environmental-program-unep-tells-nuclear-industry-even-its-money-isnt-green-enough/[/url] [/QUOTE] It wasn't paywalled when I accessed it.

[QUOTE=download;52839977]It wasn't paywalled when I accessed it.[/QUOTE] Weird, might be paywalled to anybody outside of Australia. Does not hurt to have a second source though.

So a bit unrelated but Bright New World is seriously what they named their organization? Did no one think of the possible connotations or ways the name might misinterpreted?

[QUOTE=daigennki;52839983]Weird, might be paywalled to anybody outside of Australia. Does not hurt to have a second source though.[/QUOTE] Nope, its paywalled for me too, site owners might have made it so that only people who subscribed to the source got to view it and it wasn't like that when download viewed it

[QUOTE=download;52839954][url]http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/un-accused-of-bias-as-energy-forum-excludes-nuclear/news-story/ec0d7eaa39da6fcb3a11dc1ac8f18800[/url] Not sure if this is political enough for Polidicks. This just reinforces my belief that nuclear-allergic green groups with be the greatest obstruction to decarbonising our electricity grid. Excluding the energy source that has provided CO2-free energy for more than 50 years with minimal impact is stupid and is a planetary wide gamble.[/QUOTE] "Minimal impact" is wrong though. Disposal of nuclear waste is a major problem for which no solution has been found in the last 50 years.

[QUOTE=DrDevil;52840309]"Minimal impact" is wrong though. Disposal of nuclear waste is a major problem for which no solution has been found in the last 50 years.[/QUOTE] ugh I just woke up please don't make me do this. [QUOTE=Snowmew;43252922]Nuclear waste is not some magic unknown thing. It is literally just unused fuel that can't be used in current reactor designs. The timeframe of dangerous radioactive decay in current waste is several million years - to compare, Gen IV reactors leave us with fuel that's only dangerous for around 300 years. An added bonus is that Gen IV reactors can use current "waste" directly as fuel, and doing so on our current reserves will be able to supply the worldwide energy needs entirely (eliminating all other generation methods and fuels) for several centuries without needing to mine any new uranium fuel and with no carbon output whatsoever.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Snowmew;52840338]ugh I just woke up please don't make me do this.[/QUOTE] On top of that disposal is purely a political issue, not an engineering issue. We know what to do with it if we just want to dump it and not extract more energy from it; bury it in a geologically stable area.

[QUOTE=DrDevil;52840309]"Minimal impact" is wrong though. Disposal of nuclear waste is a major problem for which no solution has been found in the last 50 years.[/QUOTE] no solution? well excuse me but I think chucking it in my neighbours skip when he isn't looking is a solution

I really hope that NSW pushes for a reactor again.. there are meant to be talks in the legislative council. It's a sensible solution, but can't see it going far given our vested bias in coal.

[QUOTE=Snowmew;52840338]ugh I just woke up please don't make me do this.[/QUOTE] I hope they do, I want to see you drop another nuke like the one in your title. :v:

[QUOTE=Bradyns;52842033]I really hope that NSW pushes for a reactor again.. there are meant to be talks in the legislative council. It's a sensible solution, but can't see it going far given our vested bias in coal.[/QUOTE] I'm surprised there's talk about a Jarvis Bay reactor again. It makes sense in a way. Coal is on the way out but a very large proportion of NSW is dependent on it. At the same time, many of the skills in thermal power stations transfer over.

hmm, nuclear might have its place, and the fear mongering around it is pretty extreme... but really is it fair to call it 'clean'? a bit extreme to just totally ban it from the forum, but I do personally prefer the focus on renewables... decentralised, mixed renewable sources are the future; replacing coal and gas plants with nuclear just seems like a lesser evil of sorts [QUOTE=download;52839954]more than 50 years with minimal impact[/QUOTE] uh, how many millions were effected by fukushima again? that was just 5 years ago dude. again I'm not condemning nuclear but really, would you be comfortable with a nuclear plant within a hundred miles of you? or having nuclear material transported on road or rail through your neighbourhood? I'd wager very few people would be

[QUOTE=krail9;52843490]hmm, nuclear might have its place, and the fear mongering around it is pretty extreme... but really is it fair to call it 'clean'? [/QUOTE] This was my initial reaction but upon re-reading the OP I noticed that the conference in question was about sustainable energy. The clean part is from the UN body that rejected them. The reason that this is relevant is because traditionally nuclear energy, while low carbon, still produces waste. But it is sustainable energy and its hard to see why the UN would reject their sponsorship due to anything but politics.

[QUOTE=krail9;52843490]would you be comfortable with a nuclear plant within a hundred miles of you? or having nuclear material transported on road or rail through your neighbourhood? I'd wager very few people would be[/QUOTE] Yes, because I'm not ignorant about nuclear energy, it's fuel, and it's production.

[QUOTE=krail9;52843490] uh, how many millions were effected by fukushima again?that was just 5 years ago dude.[/quote] No one was killed by Fukushima and most of the exclusion one could be reinhabitated if Greenpeace and other groups hadn't lied through their teeth and spread copious amounts of misinformation. [quote]again I'm not condemning nuclear but really, would you be comfortable with a nuclear plant within a hundred miles of you? or having nuclear material transported on road or rail through your neighbourhood? I'd wager very few people would be[/QUOTE] If someone wanted to store a nuclear fuel casket in my driveway I'd quite happily rent them the space. Because unlike most ignorant people (and apparently you) I actually bothered to educate myself on the topic.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;52843514]This was my initial reaction but upon re-reading the OP I noticed that the conference in question was about sustainable energy. The clean part is from the UN body that rejected them. The reason that this is relevant is because traditionally nuclear energy, while low carbon, still produces waste. But it is sustainable energy and its hard to see why the UN would reject their sponsorship due to anything but politics.[/QUOTE] yeah I think you're right, I did a bit more reading and given the diverse range of sponsors they have accepted, it sounds more political than practical... I don't know why they made such a controversial move when the sponsorship is fairly superficial anyway? [editline]1st November 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=download;52843525]No one was killed by Fukushima and most of the exclusion one could be reinhabitated if Greenpeace and other groups hadn't lied through their teeth and spread copious amounts of misinformation.[/QUOTE] right so when there's a disaster and I have to evacuate my home, I'll be able to come back in less than 5 years? oh no worries then :rolleyes: [editline]1st November 2017[/editline] I'm not talking about nuclear hysteria here it's just common sense. just like I don't want to live close enough to a coal plant where I'm going to be breathing in pollution, I don't want to live close enough to a nuclear plant that I'm going to be in a potential exclusion zone. especially not when my home could viably be powered 100% by renewables

Nuclear is incredibly clean energy. There's nothing to worry about with the technology at this point - we can and should build reactors (in non-earthquake-prone areas preferably). The problem with nuclear is political and economic. Frankly, while I trust the technology wholeheartedly, I don't trust people to run nuclear reactors properly. I expect them to run brilliantly for a few decades, but then the owners will cut corners to save a bit of cash, the workers will become just every so slightly more relaxed with safety protocols, maintenance will be delayed too much in an attempt to save money - and suddenly you get a leak and everyone freaks out again and the plant shuts down. With waste, sure, bury it somewhere safe, until someone skimps to save a few grand and doesn't follow procedures and we get groundwater poisoned by nuclear waste. Accidents aren't a technology problem, they're a human problem, and I don't see any real solution. Nuclear is justifiably scary to people. Not because the tech is bad, but because people are too greedy and lazy and shortsighted to operate nuclear power facilities on the hundred-year-plus timescales they require. I want nuclear, but I don't trust any bureaucracy to handle it intelligently enough to avoid accidents.

I don't see why nuclear energy should be excluded, it's an important part of decarbonising our power production. As long as it's well regulated, and those regulations are enforced it's perfectly safe. Fukushima was a bit of a mess, and almost entirely caused by an attempt to cut costs, which simply shouldn't be allowed in the nuclear industry.

[QUOTE=krail9;52843590]I'm not talking about nuclear hysteria here it's just common sense. just like I don't want to live close enough to a coal plant where I'm going to be breathing in pollution, I don't want to live close enough to a nuclear plant that I'm going to be in a potential exclusion zone. especially not when [b]my home could viably be powered 100% by renewables[/b][/QUOTE] Nobody's home is powered 100% by renewables. Energy storage technology isn't developped enough to allow exclusively renewable power grids to be stable. When you've got no wind, no sun, and are in the wrong season, you can't get your energy through hydro, solar or wind. You've got to have a solid baseline power source, and that's either going to be coal or nuclear, basically. Your stance gives off some NIMBY vibes.

[QUOTE=_Axel;52843740]Nobody's home is powered 100% by renewables. Energy storage technology isn't developped enough to allow exclusively renewable power grids to be stable. When you've got no wind, no sun, and are in the wrong season, you can't get your energy through hydro, solar or wind. You've got to have a solid baseline power source, and that's either going to be coal or nuclear, basically. Your stance gives off some NIMBY vibes.[/QUOTE] Yeah, there's no way to build an energy grid off of exclusively solar and wind, but I wouldn't say that energy storage tech is necessarily the solution to that. It's popular to talk about, but there's other options for baseline energy supply. Geothermal's effectively renewable, and it can provide a constant source of power regardless of time of day, weather conditions, or anything else. Hydroelectric can, too, technically. The technology is just in their infancy, especially when compared to solar/wind/coal/nuclear. I think that once geothermal tech matures and the cost is driven down, it'll end up serving as a pretty significant renewable baseline power source. Geothermal's gonna be the way to go if and when the costs are driven down. Nuclear's a great way to reduce coal pollution for baseline energy in the meantime, but I hope that down the line geothermal takes over.

[QUOTE=.Isak.;52843661]Nuclear is incredibly clean energy. There's nothing to worry about with the technology at this point - we can and should build reactors (in non-earthquake-prone areas preferably). The problem with nuclear is political and economic. Frankly, while I trust the technology wholeheartedly, I don't trust people to run nuclear reactors properly. I expect them to run brilliantly for a few decades, but then the owners will cut corners to save a bit of cash, the workers will become just every so slightly more relaxed with safety protocols, maintenance will be delayed too much in an attempt to save money - and suddenly you get a leak and everyone freaks out again and the plant shuts down. With waste, sure, bury it somewhere safe, until someone skimps to save a few grand and doesn't follow procedures and we get groundwater poisoned by nuclear waste. Accidents aren't a technology problem, they're a human problem, and I don't see any real solution. Nuclear is justifiably scary to people. Not because the tech is bad, but because people are too greedy and lazy and shortsighted to operate nuclear power facilities on the hundred-year-plus timescales they require. I want nuclear, but I don't trust any bureaucracy to handle it intelligently enough to avoid accidents.[/QUOTE] This is pretty much what I've been saying for years; everyone says it's perfectly safe when handled responsibly but I've spent too long working on government to believe that nuclear power will be handled responsibly in perpetuity. Governments cutting corners is a fact of life, even in high-funding/high-risk areas, so these are real concerns, not ones that can be handwaved away by assuming optimal conditions. [i]That said[/i], even with a Fukushima every decade, we'd still come out ahead of coal and oil in both human cost and environmental destruction, and it doesn't have the drawbacks of depending on intermittent renewable sources. It's still the best choice, it's still the safest and most productive in the long run, it's still a technology that we could implement [i]right now[/i] rather than waiting decades for technological improvements to make it viable- I just wish people would stop downplaying what risks do exist, as if human factors don't 'count'.

[QUOTE=krail9;52843590]right so when there's a disaster and I have to evacuate my home, I'll be able to come back in less than 5 years? oh no worries then :rolleyes: [/QUOTE] When, not if? With this mindset no wonder you think like this. There are hundreds of nuclear power plants, they aren't some sort of ticking timebomb. Most nuclear accidents were when they were still in a pretty infant stage and not as sophisticated as systems today, and the fairly recent Fukushima accident was found to be the fault of human error (like every single other nuclear accident). Why has there never been a single incident with nuclear subs in the decades that they've been running?

[QUOTE=krail9;52843490]hmm, nuclear might have its place, and the fear mongering around it is pretty extreme... but really is it fair to call it 'clean'? a bit extreme to just totally ban it from the forum, but I do personally prefer the focus on renewables... decentralised, mixed renewable sources are the future; replacing coal and gas plants with nuclear just seems like a lesser evil of sorts uh, how many millions were effected by fukushima again? that was just 5 years ago dude. again I'm not condemning nuclear but really, would you be comfortable with a nuclear plant within a hundred miles of you? or having nuclear material transported on road or rail through your neighbourhood? I'd wager very few people would be[/QUOTE] Fukushima failed because of poor planning and maintenance, not because of some inherent instability with Nuclear reactors. I would rather have a nuclear reactor 50 miles north of me instead of the coal mine and coal plant thats actually 50 miles north of me. [editline]1st November 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=krail9;52843590]yeah I think you're right, I did a bit more reading and given the diverse range of sponsors they have accepted, it sounds more political than practical... I don't know why they made such a controversial move when the sponsorship is fairly superficial anyway? [editline]1st November 2017[/editline] right so when there's a disaster and I have to evacuate my home, I'll be able to come back in less than 5 years? oh no worries then :rolleyes: [editline]1st November 2017[/editline] I'm not talking about nuclear hysteria here it's just common sense. just like I don't want to live close enough to a coal plant where I'm going to be breathing in pollution, I don't want to live close enough to a nuclear plant that I'm going to be in a potential exclusion zone. especially not when my home could viably be powered 100% by renewables[/QUOTE] Youre more likely to have a semi plow through your house or a plane crash into it than have to leave your house because of a nuclear plant failing. You are blatantly playing into nuclear hysteria.

[QUOTE=krail9;52843490] but really, would you be comfortable with a nuclear plant within a hundred miles of you? or having nuclear material transported on road or rail through your neighbourhood? I'd wager very few people would be[/QUOTE] Considering that I live less than 25 miles from one that has been providing cheap and affordable energy for roughly 30+ years, I'd say I'm pretty comfortable.

Must feel nice to live in a country where you can just ignore nuclear power entirely. It's Finland's only realistic option - we're burning peat for power, for crying out loud. The more anti-nuclear bullshit we have, the bigger of an excuse there is to burn peat instead of building something that produces no waste.

[QUOTE=krail9;52843490] would you be comfortable with a nuclear plant within a hundred miles of you? or having nuclear material transported on road or rail through your neighbourhood? I'd wager very few people would be[/QUOTE] I currently have a freeway that passes by around 3 blocks from my house. General car pollution aside (it's literally visible on all buildings that don't clean themselves weekly (which most do, but the point stands)), if I was living when my parents were my age, I'd be receiving terrible lead poisoning due to the fact that we didn't even know that leaded gasoline was dangerous. Who knows what other terrible compounds are released from cars/combustion sources that are hazardous to health that we don't know about, in addition to the ones that we do? I'd gladly take nuclear traveling down my damn street over having to deal with the overall low air quality resulting from cars in a city. Shit, put a reactor beneath my back lawn. As long as it follows modern engineering spec, I would have 0 problem with that.

[QUOTE=download;52840384]On top of that disposal is purely a political issue, not an engineering issue. We know what to do with it if we just want to dump it and not extract more energy from it; bury it in a geologically stable area.[/QUOTE] Not sure about that. At least in Germany there's problems with stored nuclear waste leaking every now and then.

[QUOTE=Baazul;52844652]Not sure about that. At least in Germany there's problems with stored nuclear waste leaking every now and then.[/QUOTE] Germany doesn't have any large open stable deserts like America too.