Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Greenpeace has strongly condemned investment in the International ITER Fusion Project, claiming the money spent on ITER should instead be spent on renewables.
According to Australian SBS;
… Greenpeace nuclear and energy campaigner, Sebastien Blavier, said the cost and uncertainty of fusion mean investing in thermonuclear reactors at the expense of other available clean energy options is risky and ignorant.
“We are opposed to this argument of fusion being the future of power for humanity, that’s totally false for us,” he said. “Today the world is facing massive challenges like poverty, like access to electricity for people, poor people, for development.”
“We now how have the solution with renewables like solar and wind – they are affordable, they are cheap. For the moment ITER is presented as being the solution for the future power of humanity and I think that’s a big mistake.”
“If you look at the costs, it’s a massive amount of money that could be invested in renewables that are already ready to take off and be competitive; so it’s not a solution to future power, it’s only research.” …
Read more: http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2015/12/06/nuclear-fusion-shadows-clean-energy-debate
Greenpeace also opposes nuclear fission. From their website;
End the nuclear age
Greenpeace has always fought – and will continue to fight – vigorously against nuclear power because it is an unacceptable risk to the environment and to humanity. The only solution is to halt the expansion of all nuclear power, and for the shutdown of existing plants. …
Read more: http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/nuclear/
Given that leading greens like James Hansen, former NASA GISS director, think nuclear is an essential part of any plausible low carbon energy scenario, because renewables can’t be scaled up economically, and given that even Google couldn’t find a way to make renewables work, it seems likely that renewables will not “take off” anytime soon, regardless of how much Greenpeace thinks we should.
In my opinion, the evidence suggests Greenpeace vigorously opposes all low carbon energy solutions which might actually work. The question is, why?