Michael Barnard responds to a Quora question from the perspective of a pro renewable energy advocate, with help from wind and other renewable views. He firsr addresses the NIMBY issue:
"NIMBY is a nice crisp acronym, but it is completely inadequate as a categorization of the various people fighting against broader penetration of renewables in energy grids world wide and their motivations. He then goes on to opine on other types of adversaries, such as:
2. True Believers
3. Fossil Fuel Profiteers
6. Anthropogenic Global Warming Deniers
7. Misguided Environmentalists
8. Armchair Economists
We will respond to his comments re nuclear power below with [ ]:
"5. Nuclear Advocates
These people may or may not believe that global warming is real, but they are invested heavily in nuclear energy as the answer to almost all of our energy needs and often have a poor understanding of grid management [Bias Check and Fact Check Required here]. They tend to be smart but ignore human dynamics of problems, and have a blind spot about the effort and time required to develop nuclear engineers and maintenance workers [Ignorance Check here]. Their greatest challenge to renewables campaigns is that their arguments are leveraged by others who are just against wind energy. Nuclear advocates are frequently zero-sum game thinkers, but do present the best opportunity for useful discussions of balance between low-CO2e, low health impact energy sources. Some leading lights in the environmental movement are in this camp, sadly, without understanding that their efforts will not lead to social license for nuclear and that their efforts are solely being used to delay moving off of fossil fuels.
If countered, the average nuclear advocate will drag out more and more factoids about nuclear energy's value and wind power's lack of value. They will likely reference amateur and professional studies which look good until you dig in and realize the biases. Generally a time suck, so avoid digging into their arguments in too much depth.[Bias Check! ...too obvious to need comment here].
[Can Barnard distinguish what are sound facts and which are factoids, or is it a matters of whichever doesn't match with his opinions on a subject related to nuclear power? The Liberal needing to go back to self sufficiency via windmills and sun farms becomes evident. The cited examples may well represent fact rather than factoids as Bernard suggests but he would likely not entertain such conclusions because he has been memed. The reader should call his bluff by reading the references provided.... see Willem Post (USA), James Lovelock (sadly, UK), Barry Brook (Australia), Eric Jelinski (Ontario) in the article.
For a fact-based review of similar anti-nuclear articles, take the following link to our discussion on bias in the media (here). The cartoon below is included in the article (at the end. The items discussed by the nuclear power representative (below) are presented on the "blackboard", which can be expanded.].
The other non-nuclear items discussed by Bernard make for interesting reading of a Liberal view.