[zvrba]

Nuclear has the highest energy density (kWh produced per km2). "Renewables" need much larger areas to produce equivalent power. This means that habitats for many species are negatively affected or destroyed.

This is an ongoing debate in Norway where local people are strongly against wind turbines because they want to preserve the nature as it is.

EDIT: Relevant poster in the picture. I once was approached by Greenpeace activist on the street who was collecting money. While I would gladly donate to WWF, I said sharp "NO" to him and explained that it was because Greenpeace opposes nuclear.

[LinXitoW]

I obviously don't know about Norway, but in most developed countries, the number one reason for habitat destruction or disruption is going to be animal agriculture, or highspeed road infrastructure. While I can't prove it, it seems too convenient that people suddenly care about "nature" right after they've fucked it up for so many other reasons.

[pqtyw]

> suddenly care about "nature"

Obviously its extremely arbitrary and selective.

https://www.wwf.no/dyr-og-natur/truede-arter/ulv-i-norge/ret...

Moral posturing and virtue signalling is a huge part of Scandinavian culture in general.

[LunaSea]

> the number one reason for habitat destruction or disruption is going to be animal agriculture, or highspeed road infrastructure

The surface of both of these things hasn't changed much in the last 30 years.

[iamflimflam1]

I wish more people would think along these lines: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/may/10/windpowe...

There’s a wind farm being built in your backyard? Demand one of them for free to power your village.

[lm28469]

> This is an ongoing debate in Norway where local people are strongly against wind turbines because they want to preserve the nature as it is.

Really ? They don't mind being one of the top oil exporter in the world though

[zvrba]

Oil and gas extraction is "invisible", platforms far, far away on the sea. Nothing to complain about. :)

[yread]

While that's strictly true, there are a lot of people who wouldnt mind living across the fence from a solar farm. Not so many want to live next to a nuclear power plant. Irrationaly perhaps but still.

[pfdietz]

Energy density is unimportant. What matters is cost. A source that has higher energy density but also higher cost is a loser.

The whole energy density meme was propagated by Vaclav Smil. He observed in the past that energy sources had become more energy dense, and then took the irrational leap to proclaim this was some sort of iron law of energy development.

[pqtyw]

> because they want to preserve the nature as it is.

In Norway? Or by nature as it is you mean managed nature "parks" or reindeer herding areas?

Don't Scandinavians generally vehemently support the eradication of native species like wolves (despite much bigger number of them doing just fine in much denser areas like Italy or Poland).

[zvrba]

By "nature" i mean e.g., mountains. Not necessarily managed park. IIRC, the people have also protested against high-voltage lines because... dunno, they "ruin the view" across the fjord I guess.

> reindeer herding areas

There was recently a case in the highest court, Sami people vs state where they wanted newly built wind park in Finnmark to be torn down because... reindeer, native land and rights. They (Sami) won. Funnily, some researchers have shown that reindeer got used to the windmills quickly with seemingly no adverse effects. (Truth to be told, Sami are also internally divided on many issues. There's also a bitter (relatively recent) history between Sami and the state where the state had suppressed Sami culture over decades.)

After the verdict, some lower-ranked politicians said that Finnmark is about to become a museum, no development will now be possible there. I jokingly once thought: give the whole area to Russia so Sami can demonstrate in front of Kremlj.

I don't think the windmills will get torn down, and what happens next, I have no idea.

(For reference: the area is about 48000 km2 and population is around 75000 people. Which gives about 1.5 person per square kilometer.)

> eradication of native species like wolves

Not eradication but controlled number reduction. I'm personally opposed to it, but farmers somehow have a strong-hold on the government there. ATTACKS ON THE LIVE-STOCK! I don't know how much financial damage they suffer yearly, but that's the official explanation.

[sandos]

"Don't Scandinavians generally vehemently support the eradication of native species like wolves" - Don't know where you got this idea from. Yes, Sweden has started allowing licensed (very regulated) hunting of wolf, but only because the population has increased a lot. There is already tension between livestock farmers and wolfs in places, and I believe allowing wolfes to become much more than what we currently would eventuallt results in _fewer_ wolfs because they would start getting hated.

The greens have long been staunch supportes of wolfs in Sweden, and its the right which is not. Atm we do have a right leaning government so... Im sure it will sway the other way eventually.