Climate Change

Environmentalists Need to Get Real: The Nuclear Power Solution to Climate Change

Opposing nuclear power is not climate friendly

|

NukeClimateWECF
wecf.org

"Don't Nuke the Climate" is one of the more idiotic slogans being bandied about by activists at the Paris climate conference. Even James Hansen, the godfather of climate change concern, has argued in an open letter in 2013 which stated:

While it may be theoretically possible to stabilize the climate without nuclear power, in the real world there is no credible path to climate stabilization that does not include a substantial role for nuclear power

We understand that today's nuclear plants are far from perfect. Fortunately, passive safety systems and other advances can make new plants much safer. And modern nuclear technology can reduce proliferation risks and solve the waste disposal problem by burning current waste and using fuel more efficiently. Innovation and economies of scale can make new power plants even cheaper than existing plants. Regardless of these advantages, nuclear needs to be encouraged based on its societal benefits.

Over the weekend, entrepreneur Peter Thiel published an op-ed, "The New Atomic Age We Need," in the New York Times that reinforces the point:

Wind and solar together provide less than 2 percent of the world's energy, and they aren't growing anywhere near fast enough to replace fossil fuels.

What's especially strange about the failed push for renewables is that we already had a practical plan back in the 1960s to become fully carbon-free without any need of wind or solar: nuclear power….

In fact, in the 1960s, the Atomic Energy Commission projected that 1,000 nuclear power plants would be running in the U.S. by 2000. Think how much that would have lowered U.S. carbon dioxide emissions. Instead, there are only about 100 operating now. It is also worth noting that the host country, France, derives 75 percent of its electricity from nuclear power. By opposing nuclear power, environmentalists helped in large measure to create the problem they now claim is destroying the world. Thiel continues:

The single most important action we can take is thawing a nuclear energy policy that keeps our technology frozen in time. If we are serious about replacing fossil fuels, we are going to need nuclear power, so the choice is stark: We can keep on merely talking about a carbon-free world, or we can go ahead and create one.

We already know that today's energy sources cannot sustain a future we want to live in.

Anyone who claims to be worried about future man-made climate change and who still opposes modern nuclear power is not serious and should be ignored.

NEXT: One Year After Rolling Stone's UVA Rape Debacle, Fabulists Still Fool the Media

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. As a representative of the rare and endangered species known as a realistic environmentalist, I wholeheartedly concur.

    1. Your religion doesn’t allow for realism. It demands unquestioning faith, proof of faith through pointless actions and tithing.

      People who care about the environment but balance their concern with cost/benefit analysis are called, well, nearly everyone else.

      1. 100% Truth.

        ‘Realistic environmentalist’ is a lie you use to tell yourself you’re an environmentalist. Just like ‘Cafeteria Catholics’ is really a euphemism for unobservant, lapsed, or just plain not Catholic.

        1. That, of course, is nonsense.

          1. “of course” is shorthand for “[citation needed]”.

            1. I’m just being realistic in citing my sources.

        2. Or ‘agnostic’ for atheists.

          1. What’s the thought here, that all god-doubters are by definition atheists, or that agnosticism isn’t a thing?

            1. Agnostics are atheists who take skepticism seriously.

              1. Agnostics are atheists who are afraid to offend their religious friends/family.

                You doubt God exists = you don’t believe there’s sufficient evidence for God’s existence = you don’t believe in the existence of God.

                1. You’re still making an epistemological argument against the existence of God by flatly denying it. It’s an argument I find more compelling than the arguments for God, but it’s not an argument in keeping with proper scientific skepticism. Agnosticism is the position of a serious skeptic.

                  I’m an atheist because I don’t care to maintain that line, because at heart I am a lazy person and I like my shortcuts, but the militancy of self-righteous hardliner atheists irks me. You are still making an unprovable and therefore unempirical claim.

                  1. God exists, just not yet.

                2. Let me know when your telepathy serum finally produces an expected value a cunt hair above 0.5 and I’ll buy some from you.

              2. Agnostics are atheists who take skepticism seriously.

                Then there are those just don’t give a shit: if there are no gods, I’m not wasting my time on them. If there are gods, they are either assholes who deserve to be ignored, or nice guys who don’t mind being ignored.

                Or the free will angle: if all-powerful gods created me, they either included free will, in which case they must allow for me to not give a shit; or they left free will out of the mix, in which case they also created me as I am, with the attitude of not giving a shit.

                Fuck religion, including atheism. I really just don’t give a shit.

                1. About that them thar atheism v/s agnosticism thang?

                  I used to wonder a lot, but I had my agnostic friends convince me that God, if He does exist, does NOT want us to worship Him, because He does not believe in Himself (He needs self-esteem counseling, I was told). If God doesn’t believe in Himself, then we obviously shouldn’t, either. I was left to wonder, well then, WHO in the Hell is qualified to give self-esteem counseling to God Himself?!?! Never got an answer?

                  Then my devout atheist friends convinced me, that to get to Athiest Heaven, one had to NOT believe in God, and do that non-believing thing in JUST the EXACT right way? As for example, they’d say, “See, Madeline Murray O’Hair, SHE is the ONLY one who REALLY quite properly, understood EXACTLY how God does NOT believe in Himself, and only SHE in Her Devine (Anti-Devine?) Perfect Understanding, was fit to be “Ruptured” through the space-time vortex portal, straight to the Athiest Heaven that She deserved, and all the rest of us? Even the less-than-perfect atheists? Are “Left Behind” after the “Great Rupture”. To be continued?

                  1. And since Madeline Murray’s body was never found, I had to accept their argument, She was the PERFECT atheist, and only SHE, in Her Perfect Disbelief, had been Ruptured? Her and Her alone?

                    ?BUT THEN THEY FOUND HER DEAD BODY!!! The arguments of my atheist friends were utterly crushed! I had just BARELY started to think that maybe they were correct! Now, I just dunno WHAT in blazes to think any more!!! What do y’all say, especially you atheists?

            2. “I don’t know and I don’t presume to know” is a valid answer. Some people have a problem with that.

          2. Agnostic = I’m not sure whether god/s exists

            Atheist = I am sure god/s does not exist

            1. Agnostic = I don’t know if god/s exist
              Atheist = I don’t believe in god/s

        3. I disagree. I have concern for the environment and I want pollution to be halted or cleaned up at the expense of those doing the polluting. If it makes the products they produce more expensive, well that’s just a cost of making that product. The costs shouldn’t be externalized on the random critters, open spaces, or waterways of wherever you setup shop, which only makes clean up efforts a requirement of the government – and taxpayers – instead of the customers that have a demand for said product.

          That being said, pollution is based on an actual, scientifically proven (not “potential”) detrimental effect of whatever is being output. When you are outputting the same thing as nature (and, in fact, you are only putting out four percent of the total with nature putting out the other 96% each year as is the case with carbon dioxide) you are not polluting.

          1. Internalizing externalities sounds like a Rothbardian argument. Environmentalists want externalities socialized.

            1. I think that only previously unknown externalities should be socialized.

              If Taco Bell has a type of bean that produces gas in a farts that kills toddlers, until it is proven that this is so, Taco Bell can’t be held responsible (unless you can prove that they did something negligent, coercive, suppressing evidence, etc about the situation). But they can be held responsible if they don’t change their food recipes to eliminate the toddler-killing bean after it is known.

              Risks are always taken with new ideas and new products. We can’t apply future penalties to those risks because then nothing would move forward. What if, for instance, Apple and Samsung get held responsible for all texting while driving incidents since 2007 because their phones really shot off the smartphone market? Who would ever develop something new under that threat?

              1. Mens rea? Boy, you know I don’t speak Latin!

              2. “What if, for instance, Apple and Samsung get held responsible for all texting while driving incidents since 2007” —— just wait, I see a class action lawsuit based on this very soon.

            2. Why do you get to define what an environmentalist is? Just because the movement has been largely taken over by watermelons, it doesn’t mean that other kinds of environmentalists can’t still exist.

          2. ” I want pollution to be halted or cleaned up at the expense of those doing the polluting.”

            If an evironmentalist’s definition of “pollution” is always expanding, and includes things like CO2 and the byproduct of agricultural processes, then no one should take them seriously.

            I’m willing to suffer people who focus on local ecosystems and specific threats from development. People who apply their thinking to the entire “planet” and pretend that cow-farts in must somehow be contained or their ‘cost’ calculated, on the other hand, should be mocked and pilloried as the morons they are.

            1. You seem to have missed my second paragraph.

              When we can prove that something is a pollutant, than that something needs to be cleaned up from that point onward – as long as we can’t prove collusion or conspiracy of some sort on the part of the business that is now found to be polluting.

              If we find out, for instance, that – I don’t know…..oxygen release in forests is killing trees and you have oxygen as the byproduct of your…..paper production, then you can no longer release that oxygen into the forests. If it increases your costs of production, so be it.

              1. Something like Lead Paint or Asbestos is probably the example you are looking for.

                When the products were first invented our knowledge of medicine and science were insufficient to realize that they would be harmful to peoples health.

                1. Actually, asbestos has been known to cause health issues since Roman times. Asbestos mining companies recognized the hazards starting in the 30’s. It was the government that truly suppressed the information because had it gotten out, the WW2 shipbuilding effort would have been severely hindered.

                  From that point on, everyone was trying to cover their ass by hiding and denying the truth.

                  1. Actually, asbestos has been known to cause health issues since Roman times.

                    Lead, too. From Vitruvius:

                    Water is much more wholesome from earthenware pipes than from lead pipes. For it seems to be made injurious by lead, because white lead is produced by it, and this is said to be harmful to the human body.

              2. “If we find out, for instance, that – I don’t know…..oxygen release in forests is killing trees and you have oxygen as the byproduct of your…..paper production, then you can no longer release that oxygen into the forests.”

                Paper production, by definition “Kills Trees”. Paper producers by definition have a greater interest in the long-term supply of their own raw-materials than the general public. Your example couldn’t be more inappropriate for defining “pollution’.

                My entire point is that defining “pollution” in any terms other than specifically harmful to human health and prosperity is bullshit, and endlessly expanding its own theoretical mandate. There is no “environment for its own sake”.

                1. Paper production, by definition “Kills Trees”.

                  Well, if we’re getting all technical and proper, logging kills trees and there is nothing in the definition of paper production that necessarily involves killing trees. And paper can be made from lots of things including trees that died on their own, parts of trees harvested without killing the tree, such as trough management by coppicing cotton or hemp.

                  Sorry, I kind of have a thing about people using “by definition” inappropriately.

                  1. Oh, come the fuck on. Way to miss the forest for the…. pedantic bitch point-scoring.

                    The Enviro-rationale being made was that there was some “Tree Harm” being effected by some human activity – and that said human activity must somehow be ‘environmentally neutralized’… as though the “natural world” is of some value completely independent of our use of it and residence within it.

                    i.e. the fact ‘paper production’ affects “trees” (or anything! – its actually far more of an issue for Water, obviously) was being treated as a ‘problem’ in and of itself is the essential stupidity. Of course certain processes have impacts. Everything has “costs”. The only relevant question is whether those costs are sustainable and whether they affect human beings. “Killing trees” is not a problem by itself in a vacuum. Paper Producers have an even greater interest in preservation of raw material sources than bystander humans living far far away.

                    The only way to measure whether something is “pollution” is by its adverse effects on human life and human economic prosperity. There isn’t any other calculation that makes any sense.

                    1. Hey, I acknowledged my pointless pedantry.

                      I think you also missed a bit of forest for the trees there. The example of the paper company killing trees wasn’t a great one. But human life and comfort does depend on things like healthy forests. The point that people and companies should bear the costs of their damage to things like forests and clean water that people do actually need is a reasonable one.

                    2. “The point that people and companies should bear the costs of their damage to things like forests and clean water that people do actually need is a reasonable one.”

                      That would be fine if that *were the point he’d made* that I was responding to. It wasn’t.

                      as i’m pointing out repeatedly = how you measure that “damage” or harm is exactly the point.

                      Measuring it as though any change to the ‘natural’ status-quo equates to ‘harm’ is bullshit.

                      Its when that damage or harm actually *affects people* in some adverse way and imposes measurable costs.

                      The point is that eco-tards don’t want to go that next step, and claim that “Damages to nature” itself are a form of “harm”.

                      Also – acknowledging your pointless pedantry is fine and all, but misconstruing the argument is worse.

                    3. Gilmore, you need to slow down. The example was simply placed as a hand wave for “Some sort of harm.” Pretending like the point is moot because the clearly terrible example would kill trees anyway is ignoring the day-glo neon point.

                      Killing critters in areas that are supposed to be untouched or private lands is bad. What if I piped that toxic oxygen stuff from my terrible example into your property? Hey, the trees and lawn, and any birds near your bird feeder don’t cost nothing. You have no claims on me.

                      But, really, the “measurable harm” is the cost to replace or fix the damage done. It’s really easy to go “It’ll cost $500 per tree to replace the trees killed via oxygen poisoning.” What if we just left everything after we had no use for it? My car broke down in the third lane on a highway. Whatever. I no longer own it – I abandoned it. It’s society’s responsibility, now. Right?

                      Or, we can make people responsible for their own actions as a part of starting that action. It is one of the few business regulations I can get behind – especially if enforced up front by a growable savings that is used to pay for clean up at the end. (Business licenses? Pah. Require that if you eff something up, you fix it no matter what? Yeah, I can see that.)

                    4. “Pretending like the point is moot because the clearly terrible example would kill trees anyway is ignoring the day-glo neon point.’

                      No, the point was stupid and the example given was even worse. Unless the action causes harm to *people* and property in some specific way that results in a legitimate claim, there’s no basis for any a priori regulation.

                      Your claim =

                      “When we can prove that something is a pollutant, than that something needs to be cleaned up from that point onward”

                      You never establish what any definition of a “pollutant” even is. Your first example only suggested that ‘if something affects the environment’ it is de-facto ‘polluting’.

                    5. Since you don’t understand English, let’s start here:
                      Pollution: the presence in or introduction into the environment of a substance or thing that has harmful or poisonous effects

                      Does it cause a deleterious effect? Yes? Then it’s a pollutant. Did we discover the polluting effects yesterday? Then you need to start cleanup efforts for your outputs going forward. I even specifically stated this as “actual, scientifically proven (not “potential”) detrimental effect of whatever is being output.” Does your widget production kill squirrels? Then, yes, it’s bad. They get to die by snakes and/or heart disease just like any other critter, and not you or your business not caring.

                      Glad you could join us. Try to be less obtuse about common terms in the future. My example, which you missed completely, was about timing and not effect. It implied nothing else. The start example was supposed to illustrate “clear cause and effect” because I wasn’t looking for a “dose makes the poison” point – which is what you assumed.

                      You never establish what any definition of a “pollutant” even is. Your first example only suggested that ‘if something affects the environment’ it is de-facto ‘polluting’.

                      Yes, if whatever you produce alters the environment as a byproduct, it is undesired. Both by any future owners of said property who get to clean up after your butt and anyone who may want to wander by and see trees instead of whatever you did to them.

                    6. “Yes, if whatever you produce alters the environment as a byproduct, it is undesired.”

                      Everything “Alters the environment”. Its a retarded standard that assumes there’s any homeostatic state of nature which is ‘ideal’ only when Mankind isn’t ‘changing’ it.

                      Your removal of the requisite “harm to people” is where you fall short of any usable definition. There’s no rational measure of “pollution” that doesn’t involve a mechanism for affecting people.

                    7. This is a property rights issue.

                      If you kill your trees for paper production, fine. They are your damn trees. If it is determined that your paper production is killing other peoples’ trees, then you need to pay for that damage.

                    8. I find that logic lacking. By that logic, I can pump toxic leads into the Mississippi River because no human drinks from it except via a water processing plant that is already configured to pull out leads.

                      People and businesses are responsible for their own messes. You spend all your money on playboys and rum and can’t pay your rent? You did it and you need to fix it. Your company kills 100 acres of forest trees? Your company did it and you need to fix it.

                    9. “By that logic, I can pump toxic leads into the Mississippi River because no human drinks from it”

                      Of course. but then that’s not a good example either, because people do.

                      You seem to fall apart with these ‘example’ things.

                      The point is that if there is no “Human harm” then there is no “pollution”. Yes, moving “lead”, or any other “toxic” substance from one place to another… insofar as no humans are ever put at risk or harmed …. (and that would include via consumption in a food supply, or whether that toxic substance got to people from big fish eating smaller fish, etc)…. then its not “pollution”.

                      When it DOES affect people, its when it can be called pollution. If it doesn’t, then it is effectively meaningless. There is no “polluting nature” by-itself sans human impact.

              3. Methinks you have no clue about basic science and should probably STFU until you understand basic science.

          3. Re: MokFarin,

            I disagree. I have concern for the environment and I want pollution to be halted or cleaned up at the expense of those doing the polluting.

            That is called ‘liability’.

            If it makes the products they produce more expensive, well that’s just a cost of making that product.

            Companies can always find a way to make the product less expensive with less liability. Government assures us that companies which are “strategically important” can get away with anything.

            The costs shouldn’t be externalized on the random critters, open spaces, or waterways of wherever you setup shop,

            Random critters do not possess rights. If the critters are owned by someone and that someone can prove cause, then the polluter is liable. In the meantime, there is no liability.

            1. Companies can always find a way to make the product less expensive with less liability. Government assures us that companies which are “strategically important” can get away with anything.

              Governments aren’t supposed to decide that, though. If enough people think a company did wrong, they can donate to the company that effed up and fix it for them.

              Random critters do not possess rights. If the critters are owned by someone and that someone can prove cause, then the polluter is liable. In the meantime, there is no liability.

              I agree that random critters do not possess rights – but that flora and fauna shouldn’t be killed just because its’ convenient to a business’ bottom line. All of these current externalities (which is a type of liability) should be covered by a business. If it cannot stay afloat making widgets while having to clean up after itself, it shouldn’t be in the business of widget creation in the first place.

              1. “flora and fauna shouldn’t be killed just because its’ convenient to a business’ bottom line.’

                Tell that to your sneakers.

      2. “Everyone else” have a funny way of showing it. Plenty of people don’t care about the environment.

      3. Nasssttttyyy environmentalisstsss! Not magnificently rational actorssses like me and normal humansses!

      4. Oh, bullshit. Telling people what they must believe to adopt a certain label is just dickheadery. If he wants to be an environmentalist, he can be.

    2. The conservationists are extinct, their fire has gone out of the universe. You, my friend, are all that’s left of their religion.

      1. Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good SWAT team at your side.

  2. Has Thorium’s Time Come Again?

    http://energyfromthorium.com/

    1. The abundance of the element thorium throughout the Earth’s crust promises widespread energy independence through Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR) technology. A mere 6,600 tonnes of thorium could provide the energy equivalent of the combined global consumption of 5 billion tonnes of coal, 31 billion barrels of oil, 3 trillion cubic meters of natural gas, and 65,000 tonnes of uranium. With LFTR, a handful of thorium can supply an individual’s lifetime energy needs; a grain silo full could power North America for a year; and known thorium reserves could power advanced society for many thousands of years.

      1. What’s the downside on this stuff? Is the resistance purely political?

        1. I guess we all know now who’s firmly in the pocket of Big Thorium.

          1. My remunerations amount to a mere pittance!

            1. You spelled “remunerations” correctly!

              “Sweeeeet mysteries of life, at last I’ve found you!”

        2. The resistance is purely political. You mention this and you’ll be accused of wanting to introduce new, dangerous, unproven technology. Remember, the goal of the greens is not to generate more cleaner energy. The goal is to reduce energy consumption and force solar and wind on everyone.

          1. It just about has to be political. If you run down the list of benefits, it’s hard to formulate objections:

            LFTR operates at low pressure, is chemically and operationally stable, and passively shuts down without human intervention. Low pressures eliminate the need for massive and costly pressure containment vessels and alleviate safety concerns about high-pressure releases to the atmosphere. LFTR offers significant gains in safety, cost and efficiency with greatly reduced environmental impact relative to existing light-water reactors (LWRs).

            1. Water crisis in California you say?

              LFTR produces safe, sustainable, carbon-free electricity and a range of radioisotopes useful for medical imaging, cancer therapy, industrial applications and space exploration. LFTR waste heat can be used to desalinate sea water and high primary heat can drive ammonia production for agriculture and fuels or synthesis of liquid hydrocarbon fuels.

              1. LFTR waste heat can be used to desalinate sea water and high primary heat can drive ammonia production for agriculture and fuels or synthesis of liquid hydrocarbon fuels.

                And greenies are against modern agriculture and against hydrocarbon fuels.

                Srsly, TLA, these people are anti-energy. They really, really want to reduce energy consumption.

                1. Their ultimate goal is to kill of as many people other than themselves as possible, because man is a parasite hurting Gaia…

              2. THIS!

                I always find it telling that so many progressives rail against hydrocarbons, CO2, coal, etc. and claim that solar is all we need. How amazingly small minded of them.

                No mention of the utility of nuclear power in doing all these things that end lots of energy and are too expensive or outright idiotic if done with “fossil fuels”.

                Ethanol from whatever only makes sense if the power comes from a non-carbon emitting source, and it would require too much land for solar.

                With enough power (energy), household waste could be reduced into raw components and landfills could become far and few between. Recycling wouldn’t be as pointless from a Co2 perspective if the power came from non-carbon emitting sources.

                1. “With enough power (energy), household waste could be reduced into raw components and landfills could become far and few between. Recycling wouldn’t be as pointless from a Co2 perspective if the power came from non-carbon emitting sources.”

                  The day could come when old landfill sites are mined and reduced in size.

            2. Worried about proliferation?

              LFTR and thorium are proliferation resistant. Thorium and its derivative fuel, uranium-233, are impractical and undesirable for weaponization efforts relative to well-known uranium enrichment and plutonium breeding pathways. Thus, despite 60 years of thorium research, none of the world’s tens-of-thousands of warheads are based on the thorium fuel-cycle.

            3. This morning I was reading about the vulnerability of our power grid. Could modular deployment of LFTRs help mitigate that vulnerability?

              LFTRs can be mass-produced in a factory and delivered and reclaimed from utility sites as modular units. Modular LFTR production offers reduced capital costs and shorter build times. Modular installation near the point of need also eliminates long transmission lines. Higher temperatures and turbine efficiencies enable air-cooling away from water bodies.

              1. In a word yes.

                With a small number of big power stations there are any number of ways you can take down the power grid because it requires very long high power transmission lines.So if there is a disruption in the power supplied to one grid sector it can cause a cascade of failures across the whole grid

                Decentralized power generation shrinks the size and length of the transmission lines and allows for grid sections to be isolated from faults in other sectors. It is also more emp resistant because shorter power lines do not generate as much current from an EMP as longer ones do

              2. “Could modular deployment of LFTRs help mitigate that vulnerability?”

                Absolutely. Dispersion of generating capacity would mitigate the effects of generators going offline, whether due to security vulnerability or natural disaster or simple maintenance.

          2. Remember, the goal of the greens is not to generate more cleaner energy. The goal is to reduce energy consumption and force solar and wind on everyone.

            The goal is to have everyone living on self-sustaining communes that trade only with their immediate neighbors. People living in that kind of poverty have no use for energy.

            1. ^This. Well-put, Sarc.

            2. Except for them personally. Someone has to be independent of that lifestyle to police the others.

              They claim to believe in sustainable everything except government. The Federal government grows at a minimum of 7% per year and budgetwise doubles in size every decade.

              1. Well of course there will have to be a Priesthood to man the Temples of Syrinx. Who else will translate the will of Gaia to the people?

            3. They gaze longingly at North Korea as a model society.

            4. Think of how clean the air will be when we are all burning trees for heat.

              1. At least CO2 levels will be lower if we start burning trees, especially if we do it in older fireplaces and woodstoves.

            5. Some people have that fantasy, but most people don’t think about it that deeply. They think “I like trees and green spaces and nuclear stuff is scary”. And then they go look at some pretty pictures at I Fucking Love Science.

          3. Remember, the goal of the greens is not to generate more cleaner energy. The goal is to reduce energy consumption and force solar and wind on everyone.

            Ha! Try building a wind or solar farm on the favorite mountain of some environmental activist and then see what their goals are.

            The goal is to force a romanticized view of human beings’ place in the “natural” world onto everyone else.

          4. The goal is to reduce energy consumption and force solar and wind on everyone.

            You could have stopped there. They push solar and wind on everyone precisely because it’s not capable of providing for our energy needs. Just look at how they turned on natural gas.

            These guys are basically primitivists. It’s a aesthetic stance for them. They oppose energy because it means “the grazing masses” or “the sheeple” or whatever they want to call them today are no longer living “authentically”.

        3. What’s the downside on this stuff? Is the resistance purely political?

          My understanding is that while the science is significantly more sound, the state of the art is as nascent as other ‘green’ energy. There’s a 50+ yr. head start on mining Uranium and it got a big kickoff/boost during the cold war. The problems handling/storing/refining Uranium are, at a high level, the same as those for Thorium except they haven’t already been solved for Thorium.

          1. The mining problem is highlighted in this missive from greenpeace, but the commenters rip that argument apart:

            http://www.greenpeace.org/inte…..log/48625/

            You really have to wonder at the mendacity of these so-called friends of the earth.

            1. I don’t – we have Tony here to show us that.

            2. You really have to wonder at the mendacity of these so-called friends of the earth.

              The are friends of the earth, not friends of the human race. To save the planet, humans must necessarily give up all technology and go back to living a stone age lifestyle. Anything more than that is harmful to the planet.

              1. Good point.

              2. And don’t forget reducing the human population. They seriously want to reduce the human population.

                1. Do you know who else wanted to seriously reduce the human population?

                  1. The Chinese, in Kurt Vonnegut’s novel Slapstick?

                  2. Ebenezer Scrooge?

                2. Don’t worry, going back to a stone age level of technology would take care of that problem well enough.

                  The part the warmist priests always gloss over is that following their commandments would mean that we could not realistically support a population above a Billion at the outside

              3. And sometimes I wonder if they believe all of the myths about humans being transported here magically, instead of evolving over time. If you are a friend of the earth, then you must be a friend to humans, since we are of and from the earth.

                1. Like orcs?

          2. The Greenpeacers in that article state that it would take a least a decade before a reactor could be online.

            Well see that’s the problem right there. We don’t have a decade.

            We must act NOW. The earth has a fever and the time for action has arrived. If we don’t do something, anything, by next weekend it will be too late.

            We need Obama’s legacy to sign a legally binding treaty before the world’s Top MenWomen leave Paris where they already are killing Gaia with nukekler pollution.

        4. The biggest downside is because it can’t be used to produce nuclear weapons then it has to compete against methods which do produce nuclear weapons and has had trillions spent on it.

          Conventional nuclear has had vast amounts of taxpayer money spent on it, thorium not so much.

          1. I think this is probably the heart of it, along with the fact that it can be decentralized, which poses a risk to consolidation of energy and the inherent political perks associated with such consolidation.

        5. The USG R&D funding was stopped after the Three Mile Island fiasco. But the Chinese have picked it up.

          http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/f…..k-to-them/

            1. This is pretty interesting:

              http://gulfcoastcommentary.blo…..-work.html

      2. Well said, the fucktards that think renewables are the answer are hilarious, But these retards hate nukes.

        A reason to mock them for the idiots that they are.

  3. Ron, you realize that very few, if any, of the participants in the charade are interested in actually stabilizing the climate?

    The ones who understand how the climate works know that the climate is too variable for man to stabilize it.

    The ones who don’t are really uninterested in the working of the climate because they don’t care about it; it’s merely a means to an end.

    The crusade against fossil fuels is really a crusade against energy gluttony! It’s a hysterical religious movement attacking one of the deadly sins!

    1. “The crusade against fossil fuels is really a crusade against energy gluttony!”

      A crusade against OTHER PEOPLE’S gluttony, that is.

      Never their own of course.

      1. Crusaders against porn always have the biggest collection.

        1. Man, I gotta find me the biggest crusader locally. I wonder who that is?

      2. A crusade against OTHER PEOPLE’S gluttony, that is.

        They consume only as much as is necessary to do God’s Gaia’s work, Gilbert.

        “Comrades!’ he cried. ‘You do not imagine, I hope, that we pigs are doing this in a spirit of selfishness and privilege? Many of us actually dislike milk and apples. I dislike them myself. Our sole object in taking these things is to preserve our health. Milk and apples (this has been proved by Science, comrades) contain substances absolutely necessary to the well-being of a pig. We pigs are brainworkers. The whole management and organisation of this farm depend on us. Day and night we are watching over your welfare. It is for your sake that we drink the milk and eat those apples.” George Orwell Animal Farm

        1. Private jets for me but not for thee /Al Gore

    2. Continued use of fossil fuels is the same as rounding up Shia Muslims, shooting them in the back of the head, and burying them in mass graves, if you really think about it.

      1. I only became aware of John Sutter in the past week.

        The guy is the most pathetic sort of propagandist.

      2. A journalist with shame that had authored that piece might look back on this screed a few years from now, and actually feel embarrassed. This isn’t one of those journalists with shame.

      3. Pretty much every country in the world has signed a treaty saying that 2 degrees Celsius of warming, measured since the Industrial Revolution, is all we can tolerate. Cross that line, and we’re expected to supercharge droughts, make storms more intense, commit low-lying islands to a watery death as seas rise, push millions more into poverty and put many plants and animals at risk of extinction. It’s not an exact trigger point (1.9 degrees of warming is monumentally less catastrophic than 2.1 degrees, for instance), but diplomats had to draw a line in the sand.

        Not 1.9 degrees, not 1.95 degrees, not 1.999 degrees, 2 degrees and WE ALL DIE.

        What an idiot.

        1. BTW, the 2 degree number has an interesting provenance.

          It was essentially pulled out of a hat ~ 1990. Actually, it was pulled out of a hat in the late 1970’s.

          1. “The power of the 2?C target is that it is pragmatic, simple and straightforward to understand and communicate, all important elements when science is brought to policymakers.”

            In other words, it’s an oversimplication of a problem that we don’t really understand, but we can sell it because it sounds good.

          2. Even the 5 degree number they used to bandy about was ridiculous.

            They looked back into history and said that they saw evidence that a 7 degree rise in temperature caused a mass extinction and they are afraid that we could trigger the same result today.

            First, the creatures that went extinct from that event were significantly less evolutionary advanced, however every creature alive today has in it’s family tree several species that went through large climate changes and so there is no guarantee that simply warming the planet up a few degrees will have that large of an impact.

            Second, they never deal with the question of warmed from what to what. A 5 degree change in temperature isn’t that big of a deal when you are going from 65 to 70 degrees, it is a very big deal when going from 30 to 35 or 92 to 97 degrees and we know that the earth as been both significantly warmer and colder than it is today in it’s past.

            Third, They completely overlook the fact that there is now a species on the planet that will purposefully alter the local environment to match what they want it to be which will mitigate a lot of the effects of climate change on local flora and fauna (especially in areas that are well civilized by humans).

            Obviously there exists some level of warming that would be catastrophic but it is absolutely higher than 2 degrees and almost certainly warmer than 5 degrees

      4. I enjoyed the part where he held the note pad.

    3. I actually think it’s all game now.

      The beau running Canada is willing to spend billions to ‘fight’ climate change but is unsure on exactly what needs to be done.

      I thought it was all settled and that we know what’s required.

      It’s all so absurd. Alas, I’m afraid at the very least one thing they did manage to drill into people’s minds – and I heard a radio commentator say as much – is that we need to ‘conserve more’ and ‘adjust the way we live’.

      All based on bull shit.

      1. The beau running Canada is willing to spend billions to ‘fight’ climate change but is unsure on exactly what needs to be done.

        He knows exactly what needs to be done ? subsidize his campaign donors.

      2. I’m certainly planning on “adjusting the way I live” at some future date.

        It’s called “dying.”

        1. Screw that noise. I plan to live forever. And support technology that lets people do so.

          The screams of the greens will be my sweet music.

  4. Nuclear power like produces waste that must be stored for like millions of years or something, and that’s like not sustainable and stuff. And it’s like not natural. Wind and solar are like natural and sustainable and stuff, you know?

    1. Good try but you lost points for complete, if poor, sentences.

      1. Also, not enough screeching.

        1. They make up in volume what they lack in substance.

    2. Nukes are icky.

    3. Shhh, don’t mention Oklo.

  5. I keep hearing ‘Climate Justice’ lately. I wish I could ask anyone who says it to define it.

    1. I doubt anyone saying could define the individual words, much less the entire phrase.

    2. It means killing movie stars who live in arid climates and water their lawns. It means killing people who drive muscle cars.

    3. It’s like Social Justice only more Climatey

    4. Climate injustice is the intentional destruction of the planet by the evil fossil fuel corporations! Climate justice is shutting those corporations down and putting all the executives in prison! Or something.

  6. Judith Curry – kicked out of the tribe for speaking climate heresy.

    http://new.spectator.co.uk/201…..terviewed/

  7. How’s that tilting at windmills going, Ron Bailey?

    1. He always seems to enjoy it. Kind of like the rest of us.

        1. Look, I only advocate shunning.

      1. Ron’s the Amalthea to our Izzy, when you really think about it.

        1. …he is?

          1. I mean, when you really think about it.

  8. “Anyone who claims to be worried about future man-made climate change and who still opposes modern nuclear power is not serious and should be ignored.”

    Has anyone thought about how much these 1000 nuclear reactors are going to cost and who is going to pay for them?

    1. The consumer. Isn’t that how business usually works? Someone produces a desirable good, and those who desire it pay a price that covers the production of it, plus a bit extra to make it worth the effort of the producer.

      Nuclear power is a good alternative, because it produces cheaper, and cleaner energy than coal, oil, wind, or solar.

      Anyone who is against it hate poor people.

      1. “Anyone who is against it hate poor people.”

        The only poor people who enjoy the benefits of nuclear power come from places like North Korea,.

        1. That may be the dumbest fucking sentence ever written.

          Cheers.

          1. “That may be the dumbest fucking sentence ever written.”

            What until you read the comments praising North Korea’s or Iran’s nuclear programme. Cost is no object when it comes to providing “carbon free” electricity to the poor of the world.

    2. A lot more than anyone proposing ‘renewable’ energy has thought about how much those millions of acres of solar panels are going to cost and who is going to pay for them.

      1. And the externalities they will produce. LOTS of rare earth metal will be needed, and the one place on earth currently producing them (China) isn’t doing so great from an ecological perspective.

        1. And don’t forget the ecological effects of paving over an area the size of North Dakota and covering it in solar panels just to replace the fossil fuels we use today.

          How many endangered owls, turtles, and salamanders will lose their habitat to that?

      2. ” how much those millions of acres of solar panels are going to cost and who is going to pay for them”

        You’re living in a dream. There’s never going to be millions of acres of panels any more than 1000s of nuclear reactors. It’s preposterous. There are, what 2 or 3 reactors under construction in the US now? How much do they cost a piece?

    3. Derp. Whycome dem power cumpneys gonnmay bild nachurl gas lectristy makin’ bildings?

      1. You guys are wasting your time with a real asshole who is here only to see his name on something other than his pathetic blog.

        1. Sevo you make fun of Mtrueman but he has 6 followers and that almost qualifies him for cult leader status.

          1. It also almost qualifies him for the rank of Corporal.

          2. “Sevo you make fun of Mtrueman but he has 6 followers and that almost qualifies him for cult leader status.”
            That’d be his mom, plus four socks and his dog?

  9. I think Ron, and the rest of you, need to watch a movie called The China Syndrome.

    1. Someone wants a word with you about fossil fuels.

    2. SPOILER ALERT: You’re hungry again two hours after watching.

    3. What about The Vagina Syndrome?

      1. They now have OTC products that will relieve the burning.

  10. The presumption here is that the folks with those signs actually give a crap about ‘the environment’. They don’t. They have a religion based on an Edenic, pristine past, before man acquired knowledge and became evil.
    If they cited Jesus, they’d be laughed out of the movement, so they hint around about ‘mother nature’.

    1. I see I’m late to the party again…

    2. Prelapsarian aggrandizement, Sevo. That’s a fancier way of saying “Edenic, pristine past,” but I like your phrasing since it’s more accessible. PA is normally used in theology but applies here as well. People always have a narrative about some mythical golden age when everything was oh so peachy.

  11. So the target of criticism here is a few specifically anti-nuclear activists whose concerns over the risk and cost of nuclear are perfectly factual? But it can’t be most so-called environmentalists, who generally think nuclear is preferable to fossil fuels. Curiously missing are believers in free-market capitalism, a system in which nuclear power could never exist.

      1. That is obviously a strawman of the claim I’m referring to.

        1. No – a private institution built and operated a fission reactor. Which is *precisely* the thing you said could never happen.

          1. No I didn’t. A private entity can in theory build anything a government can. That’s different from building something that is viable in a competitive free market.

            1. Get that guys?!?

              Because the atomic energy commission exists and exercises complete control of commercial nuclear power, thereby making it impossible for anyone to build a reactor without state involvement, atomic power cannot happen in a free market!?!

              This is right up there with the president of Iran announcing that there were no homosexuals in Iran because the execution squads and lynch mobs had driven everyone into the closet!

              1. It’s Tony – what do you expect? The government creates everything, including the free market.

            2. And yet, somehow, you believe that ‘renewable’ energy could be viable in a competitive free market.

        2. Which claim is that? Your “No True Scotsman” fallacy?

    1. whose concerns over the risk and cost of nuclear are perfectly factual

      Uh, the whole point is that their concerns are more religious than factual.

    2. ‘anti-nuclear activists whose concerns over the risk and cost of nuclear are perfectly factual?’

      Huh? No they’re not. Not from what I’ve come to learn.

      ‘But it can’t be most so-called environmentalists, who generally think nuclear is preferable to fossil fuels’

      They do? All I see are enviro-whackos protesting trying to shut down nuclear facilities. And if there are ‘moderate’ enviros who believe this, they’ve either been isolated or don’t exist anymore because what I do see are freak outs each time there’s a nuclear meltdown.

      Fossil fuels, thanks to technology, are cleaner than they’ve ever been and continue to be so. No one has in an interest in destroying anything.

      1. Yeah, there are some environmental activists that have been slowly coming around to nuclear because of concerns over climate change, but opposition to nuclear was a mainstay of the environmental movement for a long time, and nuclear never gets promoted the way solar/wind do.

        1. There is a very good documentary available on Netflix about this. It’s called Pandora’s Promise.

          It buries most myths about nuclear power, dangers of radiation, waste, risk, etc. and all through the lens of actual environmentalists who have seen the light on this power source.

          It briefly shows how the fossil fuel industry has advocated for wind and solar as an alternative to nuclear power, because they know those energy sources will never be a real competitor. Unlike nuclear power.

          It also shows the difference between the (very few) skeptically minded environmentalist, and those who essentially subscribe to a windmill cargo cult mentality.

    3. Kind of like spacecraft, and roads, and schools…..

    4. Re: Tony the Marxian,

      So the target of criticism here is a few specifically anti-nuclear activists whose concerns over the risk and cost of nuclear are perfectly factual?

      The problem is that the risks and costs are exaggerated in the best of cases. The worst nuclear accident ever was caused by government – a Marxian government, imagine that.

      Curiously missing are believers in free-market capitalism, a system in which nuclear power could never exist.

      But it does exist. There are plenty of nuclear power sources that are produced and used by private companies. What makes it onerous until now is government, not the Market.

      1. The worst nuclear accident ever was caused by government

        Not only that, they spent insane amounts of energy and money trying to evacuate an entire community.

        Interestingly enough, all the other reactors at Chernobyl stayed operational, with people going to work there every day for decades after. And not everyone was evacuated from the town, some people refused to move, and still live there, without terrible cancers or birth defects.

        In fact the highest levels of radiation in and around Chernobyl is dwarfed by the amount of radiation that people who live at higher altitudes are exposed to every day.

  12. “James Hansen, the godfather of climate change concern”

    We are being polite today!

    James Hansen, Father of Lies

    James Hansen, Hysteric and Fraud

  13. Nuke the climate – its the only way to be sure.

    1. From orbit, dude! You always nuke it from orbit!

      1. Well, if you’re living in orbit then you don’t need to nuke the climate.

        http://www.techcircuit.net/wp-…..lysium.jpg

  14. future generations will hate us more for the debt we leave than the climate.

    1. Somewhere down the line a historian is gonna look back and conclude not unlike we tend to do with the middle-ages, ‘man, they were retarded’. The problems that faced the West were many and one of them WASN’T climate change. Or as my wife unwittingly called it but I immediately liked, ‘global change’.

    2. ^^^THIS^^^^

      But only if these enviro-waccos don’t send humanity packing to save Gaia…

  15. By opposing nuclear power, environmentalists helped in large measure to create the problem they now claim is destroying the world.

    Contest! By opposing ______________, ______________ helped in large measure to create the problem they now claim is destroying the world.

    Saddam Hussein / Neocons

    Audit the Fed / economists

    Deflategate / Patriots fans

    1. Christian businesses / SJW’s

    2. Peter Pan / Captain Hook

    3. The B1G / SEC fans

    4. Democrats / Republicans

      Republicans / Democrats

    5. birth control / your mom

  16. if the solution to so called “man-made climate change” were free market economics, low taxes and fewer regulations, these watermelons would find some other cause. They don’t care about the environment. They care about state control of every aspect of our lives and assume they’re the ones who are going to be in power. When you realize that, you won’t worry so much about what the weather may be 100 years from now.

    1. They think nice you start down their road, their one true path so to speak, that people cannot turn back and rebel against their imposition of rules and laws that make their life worse.

      Why do you think most ardent supporters of these quack climate science theories are also gun grabbers?

      1. Such is always the way of right-thinkers.

    2. We know that, RA. That’s why we’re here. Welcome aboard. Come for the free market, stay for the pot, ass sex and mexicans.

      1. ixnay on the exicansmay….. We reveal that later when they are to invested to flee.

    3. Climate change is the issue that binds all other leftist causes together.

      1. So it’s like the Force for morons?

        1. Or like the One Ring.

  17. Who the fuck do these idiots think they are that want to “stabilize the climate”? The climate is almost exclusively out of our control.

    Such hubris.

    1. During Clinton’s first speech he claimed democrats were going to tame killer tornados because one had just cut a swath through a mid western state.

  18. OT: Obama tells us, “Mass shootings don’t happen in other countries.”

    He says this in Paris, France, after 130 people were murdered.

    1. I would think the people living in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Chechnya – all would disagree that mass shootings only happen in the US.

      Or does it not count when the shooters are state or quasi-state actors?

      1. Or, Norway, France, and Canada.

        Mass shooting happen everywhere, except when they’re mass knifings.

        1. Pretty sure areas of China might have something to say, too.

    2. He is going to keep the “Evil, Idiot, or Both” debate going right through next year.

    3. “Obama tells us, “Mass shootings don’t happen in other countries.””

      The AP headline in the dead-tree news this morning had it that:
      “World Leaders Gather to Save the Earth”
      If we are to rely on that pathetic bunch of ego-maniacs to ‘save the earth’, I’m shorting the future…

    4. WTF do mass shootings have to do with the climate? It is amazing that after 7 years he is more of an arrogant, narcissistic embarrassment than ever.

      1. Same thing Freeing Mumia had to do with the WTO.

        Nothing and everything.

    5. That was Islamic terror, but he won’t acknowledge that either.

      1. Islamic terrorists engaged in a mass shooting in Paris and at other times (Charlie Hebdo). Regardless of their motivation, their action was a mass shooting.

        1. It’s not really the same thing, but keep trying desperately to make your point.

          1. Hmm. I didn’t say they were the same things. I said a group that uses a particular strategy (terrorism) used a specific tactic (mass shooting).

            1. I don’t see what you’re all arguing about. Everyone knows that all you have to do to convert a mass shooting into workplace violence is to shout Allahu akbar!

              1. HM, and the reverse conversion occurs if the killer is a white male.

  19. Anyone who claims to be worried about future man-made climate change and who still opposes modern nuclear power is not serious and should be ignored.

    FIFY.

    1. Pesky science…

      1. Does that word even have a definition anymore?

        1. Not once it’s been neutered and subordinated to the whims of PC culture.

      2. Pesky people who claim to speak for “science” but don’t.

  20. Environmentalists Need to Get Real: The Nuclear Power Solution to Climate Change

    Opposing nuclear power is not climate friendly

    Environmentalism was never about the environment or the climate, Ron. It is about repackaging Socialism as a solution to environmental problems as the earlier promise of material satisfaction never materialized. Marxians simply want to peddle their old ideology as a way to expiate our sins through sacrifice as if that was the idea behind socialism all along.

  21. We won’t need nuke plants if we can manage to get worldwide population down to 500 million or so. Of course, some undesirables will have to be culled but it’s all for a good cause, right? Those remaining can power their homes with earth friendly and sustainable unicorn farts.

    1. I wonder how many of those currently under house arrest in France have harbored notions much like this. Not altogether comfortable having that shoe on the other foot, is it?

  22. We understand that today’s nuclear plants are far from perfect

    Perfection is a stupid standard to begin with, but I would say that today’s nuclear plants actually are pretty close. U.S. nuclear power has a great safety record. Fukishima experienced a strong earthquake followed by a tsunami that did a lot of damage along the coast, and still no one died due to the accident at the nuclear plant. What more do you need?

    1. My cousin is a nuclear power plant engineer. He says that one of the twin breasts at San Onofre would have run at 100% for another 20 years. The other damaged one would have run just as long at 75% capacity. SCE mothballed the whole power plant last year.

      1. We talk every year around Christmas. He also notes that there is only one foundry in Japan that can manufacture a to-spec primary containment vessel and there is 5 year backlog of orders.

        1. I have a close friend that works for the NRC and he has expressed similar sentiments: these plants are insanely over-engineered with redundant safety systems. That’s not to say that a catastrophic failure could never ever happen (it’s hard to protect against failure modes you haven’t thought of yet) but the probability is low.

          The general public is also horribly misinformed about nuclear power and physics. It is widely believed that people died due to the failures at Fukashima and TMI. And almost no one in the general public or news media understands what radiation means in the context of nuclear physics or what constitutes a dangerous release of radioactive material. As a physicist that’s what gets me the most.

          1. The big problem is that when we lost Fukushima, there was tons of pants shitting, then a bunch of experts who hopped on the internet to say “This is stupid, you have nothing to worry about.” After the dust cleared, it turned out that Fukushima was a REALLY bad deal with lots of bad shit happening. So the final impression that people got was that the experts insisting safety were wrong, very wrong. They don’t think about how wrong the doomsayers were, because doom could come at any time, and its the experts telling you everything is safe that you cannot trust.

  23. Most activists don’t give 2 shits about actually fixing the problem they claim to care about. It’s all about political power, punishing “wrong thinkers” and various groups they don’t like, and social signaling so they can feel smug about how “enlightened” and “ahead of the curve” they are compared to those “idiotic rubes in flyover country.”

    1. The economics as a positional good, or, why liberal politics is like driving a luxury sports car or drinking a fine wine.

  24. Just give me the warm power of the sun
    Give me the steady flow of a waterfall
    Give me the spirit of living things as they return to clay.
    Just give me the restless power of the wind
    Give me the comforting glow of a wood fire
    But please take all of your atomic poison power away.
    Won’t you do this for me?
    Take all of your atomic poison power
    Take all of your atomic poison power
    Take all of your atomic poison power
    Away.

    1. No. I’m a big Energy Corporation and I’m going to make a lot of money putting a Nuclear Reactor in your back yard.

      WHat are you complaining about? Are you a NIMBY?

      We need Nukes, they gotta go somewhere, and it’s going to be where YOU Live.

      Me and my family, we’ll be nowhere near it.

        1. No.

          And I hope all is well on your side.

          1. No.

            Then it’s a bit invidious to claim that nuke plant owners and the like would be immune to the effects of an accident. It most of the country, a serious accident would affect a lot of people, energy magnates included. Nevertheless, you do raise a good point considering the probability for eminent domain abuse inherent with an expansion of nuke power.

            And I hope all is well on your side.

            Thank you. The kid responded well to her last round of chelation, and her ferritin levels are acceptable again.

            1. All of the Best. I just had a sigmoid colectomy last week…wasn’t fun. Keeping Dope Alive caught up with me. A very bad case of Diverticulitis. But I wish all the best to your daughter and your family.

              Back to troll’n: I think the Nuke Plant Owners would have the same immunity as Big Pharma has today with Vaccines. But who knows.

      1. Re: Alice Bowie,

        No. I’m a big Energy Corporation and I’m going to make a lot of money putting a Nuclear Reactor in your back yard.

        That’s an interesting proposal. What if I DO want a nuclear reactor built in my back yard? Don’t I have a say in that as well, or does the right to property only extend to things YOU like, you fucking twit?

        1. Vato…..It’s not just me that might object to “Nuclear Amateur Night” in your back yard.

          1. Re: Alice Bowie,

            Vato…..It’s not just me that might object to “Nuclear Amateur Night” in your back yard.

            You’re deflecting. Why?

    2. I had to look that up. My god that is awful.

  25. It is the seriousness of the cult that undermines its creativity.

  26. I think an Unregulated Free-Market for Nuclear Energy is the way to go.

    We don’t need the Gobmint telling us bla bla bla about Nuclear Power. We will act responsibly and the market itself will take care of bad actors.

    Plus, there’s nothing really wrong with the climate. The earth is just doing her thing.

    1. “I think ”

      Now that is something else that has yet to be proven.

    2. Re: Alice Bowie,

      We don’t need the Gobmint telling us bla bla bla about Nuclear Power.

      Especially if you don’t think the government is populated by people much smarter than you. I certainly do not think it. But maybe you disparage yourself so much you think anyone, even the DMV clerk, is a fucking genius. I don’t know – you tell me.

      Plus, there’s nothing really wrong with the climate.

      What is wrong with the climate, in your estimation?

      1. Old Mex, I should point out that you are wasting your time interacting with Alice Bowie. The last time I acknowledged the lickspittle’s existence, he was claiming that fallout from atom bomb testing was the fault of private actors on the free market.

        It’s pretty clear that that wasn’t some delusion; it’s merely an asshole willfully arguing in bad faith, getting pleasure out of diverting better people than him waste their valuable time arguing with him. He’s merely a stupider version of mtrueman.

        I recommend that anyone who values their time ostracize him rather than wasting it interacting with him.

        1. I’m definitely not arguing in Bad faith.

          I state things sometimes in a manner of satire. I love to throw the “Free Market” thing around.

          1. Alice Bowie|12.1.15 @ 2:09PM|#
            “I’m definitely not arguing in Bad faith.”

            Which makes you an ignoramus for not knowing so, or a lying POS for claiming otherwise. Or both.

            1. Sevo you make me feel so Bullied.

              1. Alice Bowie|12.1.15 @ 5:52PM|#
                “Sevo you make me feel so Bullied.”

                If you weren’t such a fucking ignoramus, you’d feel differently.

  27. Quite honestly, “environmentalists” are just a straw dog on this issue. They haven’t been responsible for existing nuclear power plants closing, nor new ones stagnating. It’s costs, both capital and operating. And the fact is that as nuclear plants age, they become even more expensive. And while costs for solar and wind have dropped, along with natural gas, costs for nuclear have risen.

    Now, that’s not to say there isn’t room for improvement, particularly on the regulatory side. And it’s a fact that the first nuclear plant is 2 decades is scheduled to go on line. Under a Democrat President, not like the last time we had a GOP President and GOP majorities in both houses.

    http://www.stratfor.com/analys…..lear-power

    1. From the article

      “High capital costs and regulatory hurdles have kept nuclear power from reaching its potential in the United States. Even during the “golden age” of U.S. nuclear power, cost overruns were astronomical; the 75 reactors built between 1966 and 1977 saw cost overruns that averaged more than 200 percent.”

    2. Wind and solar are going nowhere. They aren’t gonna power dick all.

    3. “And while costs for solar and wind have dropped,”

      So we can get something that doesn’t work for cheap?
      Hey, shitbag! Tell us when the rapture is to occur! How about how fracking it causing earthquakes no one can feel? Or those horrible storms that didn’t hurt anything?
      I love your fairy tales!

    4. You ignoramus. The costs rise with regulation. And regulation is a product of environmentalism.

  28. Unfortunately nuclear just does not work as it exists and it’s not because of regulations. France has much more reasonable regulations and nuke power is just as expensive as in America according to Cato.

  29. I don’t know many environmentalists that are anti-nuclear energy. It’s a feasible and useful source….however, the design of our power plants leaves a lot to be desired. Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and the recent and continuing Japanese meltdowns point to the issues nuclear produces. Those are (1) building on earthquake faults, (2) building near possible tsunamis, (3) storing spent rods ‘above the active reactors ..seriously? Yeah… that’s where they’re stored, (4) human failure, (5) energy as a for profit business, which encourages VW type issues, (6) obvious targets for terrorists .. and the main issue : (7) no sensible program for disposal of the spent fuel.

    1. “(7) no sensible program for disposal of the spent fuel.”

      However toxic and unpleasant this improperly disposed of nuclear waste is, at least it’s not CO2. That is progress.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.