Hacker News Reader

Comment by yakshaving_jgt | Hacker News Reader

> Coal is a fossil fuel. Its use has a substantial impact on the environment, with environmental organization Greenpeace describing it as “the dirtiest, most polluting way of producing energy.”

That may be true, but it hurts a bit that it was also Greenpeace who brought about increased coal mining by lobbying the German government to shut down all their nuclear energy facilities.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/05/10/germany-e...

View on HN

I agree. I'm a long time Greenpeace donor, and they've done a lot of good too, but I do think we were completely wrong about nuclear power. I'm still not a fan of nuclear power, but opposing nuclear power when the primary alternatives were coal and oil, was a massive mistake that has probably slowed the energy transition.

Opposing nuclear power only makes sense if the only alternatives are cleaner forms of energy. But if every nuclear power plant means that a coal power plant can close, that would be a massive victory.

Say what you will about the merits of this position, but it's entirely consistent to advocate for shutting down nuclear power plants and reducing electricity consumption, and it's reasonable if one holds this position to be dismayed when the plants are shut down but decreases in consumption do not occur, leading to more coal use.

How is it realistic that consumption would be reduced?

It's about as practical a position as Greenpeace-folk advocating for world peace and asking "why can't we all just get along?"

Sure, but still, the effort put into opposing nuclear power was better invested in opposing coal power.

If the global energy business operated according to the principle of what helps everyone the most- getting the whole planet to a cheap and abundant energy source as soon as it is possible, in order to create the greatest public good- rather than indulging corporations in extracting the very last penny of value out of old ways of getting energy regardless of the detriment it might cause society- I think we'd regard Greenpeace's lobbying as one of the contributors to that ultimate resolution.

You can't blame activists for the inertia of entrenched robber barons. Agitation doesn't always get the best results at the time, but in the long view it's one of only a few impulses that move the juggernaut not only forward, but forward in the correct direction.

What-ifs about how the world operates are non sequiturs. They apparently got their way in Germany even though nuclear is greener than petroleum energy (according to the premise of the GP comment).

I blame activists for moving us in the wrong direction.

As they say, the road to hell is paved with the best of intentions.

It doesn't stop at the climate, either.

Activist groups like Code Pink actually blame the victim when it comes to the Ukraine war.

https://www.codepink.org/ukraine

"Coal remained the main energy source in electricity production in Germany in 2022: 8.4% more coal-generated electricity fed into the grid than in 2021"

But also:

"Photovoltaics provided almost as much electricity as natural gas: electricity production from natural gas down 11.3%, photovoltaics up 19.5%"

It's not even true: burning wood is worse than burning coal.

Unlike burning coal, burning wood can be sustainable. That carbon was in the air a couple of years ago. Growing forests for firewood is probably not the most efficient way to use that land, but as long as you plant and grow new trees at the same rate you burn them, it is carbon neutral.

That doesn't mean it's always sustainable of course; there's a lot of destructive logging in the world, and that should stop.

The problem with burning wood is not CO2 but the particulate matter it produces if not properly filtered (which it usually isn't).

That is true, but also a separate problem. And also still a problem with coal.

Yes a separate problem.

Forest are far too valuable to just burn them, we should do everything we can to save ecosystems that are threatened by global warming. The obvious answer is more nuclear because it's by far the least intrusive source of energy.

Burning wood can even be carbon negative if you do it right - though this tends to create even more particulate pollution.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com