Greenpeace's comment is pretty disappointing. They refuse to back nuclear without offering any reasonable alternative (let's be honest if there was a good alternative we would already be using it). Hand-wavey stuff about hydrogen and turbines don't cut it I'm afraid. They have done good work in the past, but perhaps if they had backed nuclear a long time ago we wouldn't be in the mess we are in now?
I've actually been pretty critical of them for years because of this stance they have.
And before anyone comments about Chernobyl, my view is all energy production comes with risks. You have to weigh those up against global climate change IMHO.
I've actually been pretty critical of them for years because of this stance they have.
And before anyone comments about Chernobyl, my view is all energy production comes with risks. You have to weigh those up against global climate change IMHO.