Nuclear Power

The Nuclear War Over Climate Change

If global warming is a problem, it is idiotic for environmentalists to oppose nuclear power.


Herbert Kehrer/Newscom

If you're concerned about climate change, it would be perverse to fight a technology that can supply copious quantities of no-carbon energy 24 hours a day—right? Well, when it comes to nuclear power, lots of leading environmental activists are indulging in just such perversion. For orthodox greens, the only untainted electrons are those jiggled free by sunlight or stirred by wind.

One battle in this intra-green war just played out in New York State this week. The good news is that the eco-modernist supporters of nuclear power were strong enough to win. The bad news is that the plan they were fighting for will lead to more government meddling in energy markets.

What happened? Unable to compete with heavily subsidized wind and solar power or electricity generated using cheap natural gas, the operators of four upstate New York nuclear reactors were planning to shut them down. Closing the plants would be a significant setback for Gov. Andrew Cuomo's ambitious plan to reduce the state's carbon dioxide emissions from the electric power sector. Currently the state gets 32 percent of its electricity from nuclear power, 19 percent from hydropower, 3 percent from wind, and 0.1 percent from solar. Burning natural gas currently generates about 41 percent of the state's electricity with the remainder from coal and oil.

In order to forestall these nuclear shut-downs, state regulators decided this week to subsidize nuclear power plants at a rate of $500 million per year. The deal was announced by the state's Public Service Commission when it adopted a plan to mandate that 50 percent of the state's electricity be produced using renewable energy by 2030. Under the new Clean Energy Standards, each nuclear plant will be allocated zero emissions credits, which utilities must purchase when buying power from them. It is estimated that the credits will sell for about $17.48 per megawatt-hour of electricity. That money will go to the bottom lines of the plant's owners, Entergy and Exelon. Now everybody's a subsidized rent-seeker.

The idea of subsidizing nuclear power plants sparked a furious round of recriminations among various environmental groups. For example, the Sierra Club opposed what it characterized as "massive ratepayer-funded subsidies to the nuclear power industry." The Alliance for a Green Economy organized a coalition of 112 activist groups, including Greenpeace, Food & Water Watch, Frack Action, and Upstate New York for Bernie Sanders, to sign an open letter arguing against the proposed nuclear subsidies.

Spearheading the pro-nuclear green campaign was a new group, Environmental Progress. Founded by eco-modernist Michael Shellenbeger, Environmental Progress, unlike most dogmatic green groups, fully understands that poverty is the biggest threat to the integrity of the natural world.

In its open letter to the Public Service Commission, Environmental Progress argued that the subsidies "embody a fair and equitable standard in treating nuclear power on a similar footing with other low-carbon sources." The letter added that the subsidies were "critical to safeguarding New York's low-carbon nuclear power, ensuring the security of the electricity supply, and meeting the state's decarbonization goals."

New York State's electric power sector currently emits 30 million tons of carbon dioxide annually. If the four upstate nuclear power plants were to be replaced by natural gas plants, the state's annual carbon dioxide emissions would jump by 15.5 million tons, a 50 percent increase.

The Environmental Progress letter was signed by several environmental heavy-hitters, including Whole Earth Catalog creator Stewart Brand, climate change crusader James Hansen, and a former president of the Missouri Botanical Garden, Peter Raven.

So why can't these plants compete without subsidies? Existing nuclear power plants are extraordinarily efficient, producing electricity at an average cost of $35.50 per megawatt-hour. (The average U.S. household consumes about 11 megawatt-hours in a year.) Due to low natural gas prices, wholesale electricity prices in the Northeast fell below $20 per megawatt-hour during some months in 2015.

In addition, nuclear power generators must compete with electricity produced by highly subsidized renewable energy sources. According one recent analysis, electricity generated by wind turbines costs $46 per megawatt-hour without the federal subsidy. But the U.S. government offers a production tax credit of $23 for every megawatt-hour produced, cutting the price in half. No wonder unsubsidized nuclear power plants are unprofitable. But instead of leveling the energy playing field, these activists want counter-subsidies! Assuming that the electricity from the upstate nuclear power plants goes for $35.50, the $17.50 zero emissions credit should cut the price essentially in half.

Let's step back from this fight for a moment and imagine that regulatory sanity somehow breaks out with respect to electricity generation. Could unsubsidized nuclear power compete with natural gas, coal, and renewable power? A study in Energy Policy earlier this year analyzing the electricity generation cost trends in seven different countries found that the steeply escalating cost trend for building nuclear power plants in the U.S. is, in large part, the result of excessive regulation. In other countries with more reasonable regulations, the increase in the cost of building nuclear power plants has been about the same as for coal-fired generation. With regard to competition from renewable power, the latest cost calculations from the Energy Information Administration finds that only unsubsidized wind power might be a bit lower than new nuclear generation by 2020.

In any case, the next battles in this intra-green war will be fought in Illinois, where operators are threatening to close three reactors, and in California, where anti-nuke environmentalists have extracted a promise from Pacific Gas & Electric that it will shutter its El Diablo nuclear plant. If man-made global warming is a problem, it is self-defeatingly idiotic for environmentalists to oppose nuclear power, a safe and reliable source of climate-friendly electricity. I just wish the nuke boosters would aim to roll back restrictions rather than adding yet more subsidies to the marketplace.

NEXT: The Lies From Trump, Clinton, and Obama That We Choose To Believe

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. The good news is that the eco-modernist supporters of nuclear power were strong enough to win. The bad news is that the plan they were fighting for will lead to more government meddling in energy markets.

    The fact that these greenies have been willing to commit heresy in terms of nuclear power in no way portends the greater heresy of denying larger government. At their core, they are still statists, even if occasionally they stumble into a rational policy.

    1. True, but the outcome could have been worse so I choose to be somewhat encouraged by this.

      1. I hope you realize this does not portend their embrace of rational, pro-human policy. Their hand was forced by reality on this one issue; they are still not to be trusted. And look for the anti-nuke people to extract vengance by forcing even more anti-human policies on the rest of us as atonement for this.

        1. MeThinks we could serve the energy needs of the humanoids, cleanly, with UNICORN FARTS and POKER-YER-MOM GO finds!!! So I’m gonna go lookin’ fer yer Mom RIGHT NOW, so Ah ken POKE her!

        2. until I looked at the bank draft ov $9106 , I have faith that my neighbour was like they say trully bringing home money in their spare time from their computer. . there aunt had bean doing this for less than 10 months and recently cleared the debts on their appartment and bought a great new Lancia . Learn More ??????

    2. The environment is of little concern to these storm troopers. They are worse than statists. They are Marxists who simply hate all things commerce and profit driven.
      The problem is that they are too stupid to know they are Marxists and think they are doing good.

      1. They have always been statists, of course. But their defining characteristic is that they are Malthusians, ie anti-human. And do remember that some of them know exactly what they are doing; they simply lie about it to themselves and others.

    3. I’m making over $16k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life. This is what I do,… Copy This Link inYour Browser…. http://www.Trends88.Com

    4. I’ve got my FIRST check total of $4800 for a week, pretty cool. working from home saves money in several ways.I love this. I’ve recently started taking the steps to build my freelance Job career so that I can work from home. here is i started.. Go this website more info work…

  2. If you don’t support building more nuclear plants, you don’t actually care about stopping global warming. It’s as simple as that.

    1. This! I’m not saying that we should necessarily build subsidized nuclear power plants, but it’s ridiculous to only subsidize wind and solar if you are trying to mitigate CO2 production.

    2. They don’t care about stopping ‘climate change’, they want to send most people back to the middle ages while they get to keep their internet and iPads. The end goal for most people is the result of heaps upon heaps of fallacy, but those behind the fallacy are in it for control.

      If you ever doubt this, ask these useful idiots who they think should have electricity and they will include themselves in that group. Since every policy they endorse necessarily will result in death and lack of modern technology for the vast majority of humanity, these people are simply elitists and/or useful idiots.

      CO2 is merely the latest boogieman in a long and storied history of boogiemen, but that doesn’t mean they will ‘reconsider’ nuclear as a rational option, they’ll simply double down and say both CO2 and nuclear are incompatible with Mother Gaia. It’s pretty simple when you use the year 1700 are your baseline for technology. These people aren’t environmentalists, they’re f’ing Amish.

      1. The Amish are pacifists and do not resort to violence or advocate violence against other people. Leave the Amish alone.

        1. Oh yeah? The why do they have their own mafia?

      2. Consider the words of the man Comrade Obama hired as his top adviser on science and technology, John P. Holdren:

        “A massive campaign must be launched to restore a high-quality environment in North America and to DE-DEVELOP the United States. Resources and energy must be diverted from frivolous and wasteful uses in overdeveloped countries to filling the genuine needs of underdeveloped countries.De-development means bringing our economic system (especially patterns of consumption) into line with the realities of ecology and the global resource situation. This effort must be largely political.”

        “Redistribution of wealth both within and among nations,” wrote Obama’s future science adviser, along with Paul and Anne Ehrlich, “is absolutely essential, if a decent life is to be provided to every human being.”

      3. I remember being told of a meeting that took place back in the 1970’s The Sierra Club wished to oppose the construction of a Nuclear Power plant in California, and summoned the Black leadership of places like Watts, to Give them The Word. And the Black leaders listened while some Wealthy White Twit pontificated on how the state of California had enough electricity, and the people projecting otherwise were tools of the Power Companies. And when all the Wealthy White Twits were finished, the Black activists got up and and said “YOU have enough electricity. Honky.”

  3. If you’re concerned about climate change

    I’m not.

    1. And no one should be. Much more Arctic ice in 2016 than 2015 despite ‘hottest year ever.’…..ment-15609

      1. These people think closed systems are the norm, and arrogantly assume they are the largest variable in them.

        It doesn’t matter if it pertains to how hot this ball of dirt is, or black markets springing up around any kind of prohibition they would like to impose.

  4. An old press release is relevant: New Analysis: Indian Point Nuclear Plant Can be Replaced with Cleaner, Safer Energy

    “The more you learn about Indian Point, the more you know it must close,” said Robert Kennedy Jr., Chief Prosecuting Attorney for Riverkeeper and Senior Attorney at NRDC. “It’s too old, near too many people, and too vulnerable to fire, earthquake, outside attack and a host of other potential disasters. What’s more, we simply don’t need Indian Point’s dirty, dangerous power: current surpluses are sufficient to consign Indian Point to the scrap heap when its licenses expire if not sooner. By the time we start to need more power ? in 2020 ? we’ll have at least another 4,500 megawatts in replacement energy and efficiency savings in place. New York is safer, more secure and simply better off without Indian Point.”


    1. it’s now 2016,and that “4500 megawatts in place” is fantasy. The US is buying more and more power from Canada,because we haven’t kept up building our own generating plants. There IS NO “surplus” any more.
      Now they want to shut down reactors with nothing practical to replace them.
      Maybe we need to build some inherently-safe reactors,that cannot melt down,can’t overheat if cooling water is lost.
      Like thorium reactors,that don’t make weapons-grade material,make a lot less hot wastes and of that,shorter lived.

      BTW,you can see the bias in that “analysis” when they claim Indian Point’s power is “dirty”. NOT true.

  5. If the earth is not getting hotter, why are we still talking about climate change?

    If all of the predictions and dooms day accounts have proven completely wrong, why do idiots still give credence to global warming/cooling, climate change, green, sustainability bla bla bla?

    There are other things to talk about right?

    1. Nothing you wrote is true.

      1. Tony, you are so fucking stupid.

        1. Cite for “the earth is not getting hotter.”

          1. UN panel on Climate Change about 3 or 4 years ago revised all of their bullshit. CO2 levels started decreasing in North America I think about 4-5 years ago.
            the last 2 out of 3 winters have been cold as sh*t. Last summer was a very mild summer all along the eastern seaboard.
            hurricane activity has been virtually nil since 2005.
            All of these things contradict entirely what the scare mongering scumbags have been brainwashing guys like you.

            1. I said cite.

              1. I did cite. I guess you have been under a rock for the last 11 years?

                1. I did cite.

                  But it didn’t have pretty pictures and the Tony stamp of “reputability”.

                2. You wrote a bunch of bullshit. Where’s the cite?

              2. Tony, please follow these instructions, then go back to the Huff Post and stay there.

                Purchase new power drill and 2″ paddle bit from home supply store.

                Fuck yourself with power drill and paddle bit at high speed for several minutes.

                Seriously, why do you come here?

            2. It’s a sticky trap, timbo. Don’t expect honesty from it, but it is good practice, like a vaguely human punching dummy.

              1. Aren’t we supposed to have a Katrina every year?

                1. That was 2005-6.

                  Now Climate Change is causing droughts.

          2. Tiny demanding someone provides evidence for their claim. That’s rich. Pot, this is kettle.

    2. The Earth IS getting warmer. That is undeniable. What is debatable is whether it is catastrophic. It most likely is not catastrophic.

      1. It is. But thanks for moving your denier goalpost to within binocular distance of reality.

        1. Oh look! Our resident science denier Tony is here to accuse people who don’t deny science of being science deniers!

          1. Exactly.
            Is it even possible to say its possible that this is a massive scam.

            It might be true, but is it possible that its the exact opposite?

            I have read a lot of things by “scientists” that say it ain’t true. I think they are scientists if they teach science at schools right? They have bunsen burners and everything.

            1. Oh, it is unquestionably a scam. Just for the sake of argument, let’s stipulate that the earth is indeed warming, and further stipulate that human activity is the primary driver of that warming. Most of the crusader’s solutions would do little to reverse, stop, or even mitigate the process, while the harm they would do is obvious. When you try to grab power and disrupt other people’s lives by predicting a crisis, then propose fixes that wouldn’t even fix the problem, that’s pretty obviously a scam.

        2. No it is not. We can do this all day unless you got some evidence.

            1. Apparently, if we lose Captain White’s Seafood Shack, the next step is apocalypse.

            2. You know what TOny?

              I’ll go with the IPCC’s assessment, as reported by the lead author for AR5

              The real story may not be in the IPCC rowback on temperature ranges, or its cack-handed “explanations” for the stalling temperatures. It may in fact all be in this table. Be sure to look for yourself. Every single catastrophic scenario bar one has a rating of “Very unlikely” or “Exceptionally unlikely” and/or has “low confidence”. The only disaster scenario that the IPCC consider at all likely in the possible lifetimes of many of us alive now is “Disappearance of Arctic summer sea ice”, which itself has a ‘likely’ rating and liable to occur by mid century with medium confidence. As the litany of climate disasters go, that’s it.

              “What the IPCC says, and what the media says it says are poles apart. Your talk is a perfect example of this. Low liklihood and low confidence for almost every nightmare scenario. Yet this isn’t reflected at all in the media. Many people here have expressed concern at the influence of climate sceptics. Wouldn’t climate scientists’ time be better spent reining in those in the media producing irresponsible, hysterical, screaming headlines?”

              Tumbleweed followed for several seconds. Then Matt said:

              “Not my responsibility”.

              1. Don’t link me to blogs I’ve never heard of. I did make an effort to find a reputable source.

                1. Don’t link me to blogs I’ve never heard of. I did make an effort to find a reputable source.

                  Translated: Don’t link me to blogs I don’t understand. I made an effort to find one with pretty pictures that agrees with all my biases. That’s how I know it’s right!

                  1. Don’t link me to blogs I don’t understand.

                    He can’t judge the accuracy of information unless he knows how goodthinkful the source is. My guess is that he doesn’t know that his masters classify Andrew Montford a douple plus ungood thoughtcriminal.

                2. Don’t link me to blogs I’ve never heard of.

                  There you have it, folks.

            3. Um what is that supposed to prove? And where do they prove it?

        3. What I’ve learned this week: you can think vaccines are good and still be an anti-vaxxer (because you’re against a total mandate with no exceptions), and you can acknowledge global warming and still be a ‘denier.’

          1. Because CAGW is a religion, not science. Just as you can believe in the God of Abraham or even be a devout Muslim but still be considered an infidel by Islamic extremists. If you don’t accept their whole kit and caboodle of horseshit, you are a heretic.

        4. 1) you’re arguing with 2 different people, so it’s not moving the coal post. I know it’s hard for a prog to grasp that not all people consider themselves part of a hive mind.

          2) what exactly is he ‘denting’? That the Mayans were right about 2012 and that we’re living in a Roland Emmerich film? By that standard I think most scientists are ‘deniers.’

      2. It is deniable. Even the UN robots had to admit that the warmest year was 1998 or 1997.
        The are no provable arguments on either side. It is a theory.

        A theory, I might add, that had to be given a new name once the statists pols and dependent professors realized the global warming shtick would not fly anymore.
        We better change it to climate change . Oops, better change it to something else soon.

        1. You’ll never make it in the world of climate change denial if you can’t keep up with the talking points. 2016 has been the warmest year ever recorded. Before that, 2015 was the warmest year ever recorded. Repeat for a couple decades.

          And the only conspiracy to rebrand global warming to climate change was undertaken by Republican bullshit artist Frank Luntz, who promoted using the latter term because it sounded less scary.

          I’m offended by your lack of interested in understanding a subject you seem to feel you are entitled to talk about.

          1. Clearly we get our biased news from different sources.

            But hey, since you have garnered so much agreement and swayed so many people over the years with your superior intellect, perhaps I am wrong along with all of the other people that dare question government rhetoric and made up crises.

          2. 2016 has been the warmest year ever recorded.

            I.e., since 1979. Depending on whose numbers you use.

            Did you ever get around to reading this?

            I know it’s not climate science, and thus is beneath you, but there’re some interestingly different perspectives in there.

            1. I see the level of stupidity has valiantly kept itself up since I’ve been gone.

              1. Now that you’re back we are getting a windfall of it.

              2. Well, it increased a lot when YOU showed up.

          3. Frank Luntz?
            Did you make that name up Tony?

            1. Tony is a fucking liar. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was set up in 1988.

              1. Speaking of feeding him… 😉

                1. I know, I know.

                  That cunt has been telling that lie for years.

          4. I’m offended by your lack of interested in understanding a subject you seem to feel you are entitled to talk about.

            Why? You’re sure doing plenty of talking and obviously have nary a clue.

        2. timbo, it isnt a theory. A theory must be falsifiable and ‘climate change’ is not falsifiable. The importance of this cannot be overstated.

          1. Sure it is. Prove that more greenhouse gases don’t trap more heat.

            1. Tony buddy, that is pretty stupid, even for you.

              Which greenhouse gases? The minor greenhouse gas CO2? Or the major greenhouse gas H2O? Or maybe one of the others?

              The entire claim on CO2 is that it would trigger a positive feedback loop on all greenhouse gases. There is zero hard evidence for that although there are some detailed computer models. Unfortunately, they have been unable to procure sufficient experimentally derived data to feed the models so they have estimated constants in the models.

              This is why folks like me are very much in favor of ongoing research (you know, actual science) and not so in favor of computer models based on wild ass guesses.

      3. Actually, it is very difficult to determine what is going on right now. The data manipulation by all parties, even to the extent of going back and revising old data.

        The data manipulation is alleged to be an attempt to correct for differences in how data has been collected over time. The problem is that they have no hard basis to support how the data should be corrected. In many cases, especially with the ground based sites, the data correction should reduce the measured temperature, but the correction that has been done increased it instead.

        To complicate things further, there are even some scientists starting to suggest that we might be headed for global cooling due to external factors like the sun’s cycle. These external drivers are truly the fly in the ointment because they can dwarf even the most alarming of the CO2 predictions (that have all be wildly off to date). Global cooling would be bad, very bad.

        1. The net effect of increased greenhouse gases on temperature is positive, that is beyond dispute. The extent of the effect can be estimated just from what we know about the chemical properties of co2. But ther are inevitably other factors and one can only say, Ceteris pair us, an increase in atmospheric co2 of x will cause a temperature increase of y. We cannot however say that the overall temperature will increase, because the co2 effect may coincide with another factor forcing in the opposite direction. This disclaimer is not made often enough.

          Correcting for changes in measuring techniques should, I would think, simply be a matter of using the ‘old’ techniques over a long period of time in varied conditions along side the new techniques and modeling the latter as a function of the former.

    3. There are other things to talk about, for instance – Carbon taxes.

  6. Nuclear is great. Libertarians shilling for nuclear is beyond ridiculous.

    1. Have you ever noticed that instead of integrating facts into your world view you always attempt to cram everything into a singular narrative?

      1. Is it not a fact that nuclear power simply could not exist without government subsidy?

        1. It’s illegal to try, so who the fuck knows?

          1. Tesla Motors could not exist without government subsidy, either.

        2. Nuclear power can exist without government subsidy.

          Jesus Christ, Tony! There’s a natural nuclear reactor in Africa that formed entirely due to geologic processes.

          If it can be created by nature without the hand of man, there have to be economical ways to create it artifically.

          True, the currently popular 1950’s era design of a 1,000 MW+ pressurized light water reactor would probably not exist in a free market.

          Bu the notion that nuclear reactors cannot be economical is utterly ridiculous bullshit.

        3. Is it not a fact that nuclear power simply could not exist without government subsidy?

          It is not a fact, no. Nuclear is too expensive 100% because of over-regulation.

          1. And why on earth should we regulate nuclear power?

            Of course I’m talking about the fact that nobody could get market-based insurance in this industry.

            1. Of course you can!

              You can get market based insurance for working with fissile materials! That’s all you need!

            2. Why on earth should we regulate hair-braiding?

              Or was that an attempt at sarcasm?

            3. You have to stop Tony.

              It is entirely too humorous to get market economics advice from a sheep.

              You wouldn’t know a market signal if a hooker raised the price.

            4. So REDUCING ridiculous amounts of unnecessary regulation equals NO REGULATION? Apparently in Tony land you could eliminate all itemized deductions from the tax code and make everyone use the standard deduction and that would be the same as having no income tax.

              1. ‘What is one regulation agai at the whole world?’

            5. Tony, some day you should try offering reasons for things, instead of just stating them like axioms of existence.

        4. Is it not a fact that nuclear power simply could not exist without government subsidy?

          What’s extra-double-rich is Big Government Tony lecturing us about how nuclear, the only viable non-CO2 producing energy source that could run whole cities, is non-viable in the face of the certainly of global destruction of all life because . . .

          wait for it . . .

          he believes an unregulated free-market can’t support nuclear power, therefore it shouldn’t be considered as an option.

          1. That’s not quite fair to Tony. He’s claiming *we* are wrong for supporting it since it cannot exist in a free market making us hypocrites.

            If we were huge fans of crony capitalism and corporate welfare like Barack Obama, considering it vital for the survival of civilization, Tony’s accusation would be meaningless, since subsidizing industries needed for the survival of the human race no matter how uneconomical would be OK in our world view.

            But unlike Obama, we are opposed to corporate welfare for the politically connected plutocrats, and any support for such welfare would be a violation of our stated principles.

            Ntuarally, this makes no sense as a reaction to the article. Greens used to be opposed to nuclear power with a religious fervor. Now a new Green religion has risen to compete with the old anti-nuke religion. And Tony doesn’t want people thinking about the schism, since the green church is supposed to be unified due to its rationality. Documenting the schism certainly doesn’t make one a hypocrite. Calling on others to stop hypocritically supporting two incompatible religions doesn’t make one a hypocrite either.

            1. Fair enough – I suppose more precisely he’s riffing on the theme of “Libertarians have no solutions” more than that he’s saying nuclear shouldn’t be pursued.

              Thus, in his mind we’re all just kicking and screaming against Truth and begging for Government to save us without even realizing it. That would actually lend credence to a phrase like “beyond ridiculous.”

              I think it would be interesting – maybe not the word – amusing to hear Tony’s take on the anti-Nuke Greens given his sense that Global Warming = Impending Doom and his expression of approval for nuclear power.

              But then I often suspect that it’s when these discussions among the Team Blue factions get complicated and fail to issue clear and simple answers that he comes here to chastise us.

        5. Why not? Do enlighten us.

    2. Shilling for solar and wind is shilling for coal until you can figure out how to make the wind blow and the sun shine in perpetuity. What’s truly ridiculous is your choice to live in denial. Nuclear is by far the cleanest, safest and one of the least expensive forms of energy on Earth. That’s a FACT Jack.

      1. Not true, but even if it were, it wouldn’t exist without government subsidy.

        What’s sad is that you morons don’t care about solving the problem (which should be concern no. 1, regardless of your idiotic political beliefs). You don’t even care about being consistent in your childish moronic dogma. You’re just blowing raspberries at those darn hippies and their granola crunching hippie solar panels, something the free market actually can plausibly support, unlike nuclear power.

        1. Dogma, childish, moronic… project, much?

        2. “and their granola crunching hippie solar panels, something the free market actually can plausibly support”

          [citation needed]

          1. I have yet to see an honest accounting that puts solar in profitable territory.

            If you give enormous tax deductions…
            If you force the power company to pay way too much for returned power…
            If you live in a desert with 2 cloudy days a year and just happened to have 1 kAh Li-On batteries sitting around…

            1. I can’t stand hearing about how the “booming” renewable energy market.

              Pure applesauce.

              1. Subtract the ‘how’…

        3. those darn hippies and their granola crunching hippie solar panels, something the free market actually can plausibly support

          Hence the subsidies.

          1. And collapse of the solar panel schemes in Spain, Germany…..

          2. Elon Musk is a hippie? And here I thought he was just a plutocrat feeding at the government trough.

        4. What exactly is the problem again?

        5. A free market cant support nuclear power but it can support solar panels.

          You are funny guy Tony. You really are.

        6. You know Tony, if you’d stop and just take a moment to reflect on how you write here, you might realize that constantly screaming at us about how stupid and evil we are while decrying us for our ‘childish moronic dogma’ makes you look like a bit of a joke.

          1. Y’all all seem to be forgetting that Tony is a sock puppet. He has outed himself several times over the past few years.

          2. I think I insult you rather well.

          3. I think I insult you rather well.

            1. You really don’t science denier.

          4. I guess FACT= childish moronic dogma. Tony never has a lot of evidence to back his assertions. Shocking .

        7. Actually, many of us are very interested in efficient and economic energy production. In my case it was my thesis topic. The problem is that the market is so massively distorted that it is difficult to know what would be economic without government intervention.

          1. Here is a quick view of some options:

            Conventional Nuclear: High Capital Cost, Low fuel cost, High Decommisioning costs, potential for localized disaster upon systemic failure (despite 3 mile island, has not happened in US), good for base load, does not swing

            Hydroelectric: High Capital Cost, No Fuel cost, High Decommissioning costs, lack of viable new sites, potential for localized disaster on failure (has happened repeatedly), good for base or swing capactiy

            Wind: Moderate Capital Cost, No Fuel Cost, High maintenance cost, Environment impact in large installs, intermittent energy production requiring storage capacity (see hydroelectric) or additional carbon fueled swing capacity (industry guideline is every MW of wind requires 3/4 MW of online natural gas swing capacity)

            1. Solar: High Capital Cost, No Fuel Cost, High maintenance cost, Environment impact in large installs, intermittent energy production requiring storage capacity (see hydroelectric) or additional carbon fueled swing capacity

              Coal: Moderate Capital Cost (becomes high if carbon capture is required), Low Fuel Cost, Moderate maintenance cost, Environmental impact, good for base load, acceptable for swing capacity

              Natural Gas: Low Capital Cost, Low Fuel Cost, Low maintenance cast, moderate environmental impact, good for base load, best option for swing capacity.

              Thorium Reactor: This would be new commercial technology, although it has worked in pilot applications. Moderate Capital cost, Low Fuel Cost, Low maintenance cost, Low environmental impact, good for base load

              1. The first thing you notice is that there are no perfect answers here.
                The second thing to note, although it is not obvious from the above, is up until fracking brought natural gas prices down in the dirt, Conventional Nuclear was the lowest cost power source, with all costs in it is cheaper than hydro.
                Third, use of Wind and Solar require expansion of natural gas combined cycle units. These must be continuously online using fuel so they can swing to cover the uncontrolled production from the wind and solar sources.

                So solar and wind are not going to meet our needs until we have nearly as much battery storage as we have generating capacity, with all the costs and environmental damage THAT entails. If you think lithium storage cells are the answer, you should search for lithium production and environmental damage and read up. There also may not be enough lithium for that much battery storage anyway.

                Thorium may well be wonderful and the answer to every issue. But we don’t know that at this point. There are also a number of 4th generation (almost all of the reactors in the US are 1st and 2nd generation) reactors that are much safer, more efficient, use cheaper fuel, and have a fuel cycle that produces short half-life waste that is safe in 100 years instead of 10,000. Currently, the US regulatory environment makes the new reactors impossible to build.

                1. There are WAY more factors you can get into than this. But in general, current technology Wind and Solar are currently a waste of money and a diversion of resources from solutions that might really benefit the environment and meet US and world needs for energy.

        8. Well gee, I never thought of it that way, you’ve totally convinced me.

          I guess if it were the 1100s you’d be the one telling us it’s impossible for a private enterprise to engage in moneylending because it’s impossible to assess risk and appropriate interest rates, or in the 1980s that’s impossible for a anyone but the government to manage a web server. If they outlawed private production of chocolate you’d say only the government could effectively make chocolate.

      2. Shilling for solar and wind is shilling for coal until you can figure out how to make the wind blow and the sun shine in perpetuity.

        It’s not a question of wind blowing and sun shining in perpetuity, it’s the question of how much energy can be reaped at a mythical 100% efficiency when it IS blowing or shining. In the case of solar, the answer is: not much. In the case of wind the question is: at what cost? And in terms of cost, it’s land area, damage to bird populations, noise, and loss through inputs back into the system to maintain it. But of course that’s what reduces the efficiency to something less than 100%.

        I believe that you ONLY get about 100 watts of solar energy per sq. foot. That’s at 100% efficiency– which under current technology you’re nowhere near.

        And with both wind and solar, the only answer is storage.

        1. And the few times I’ve done projects where we installed solar panels, there is a huge difference between the nominal power rate listed in the spec and what you actually get.

          Like, you get about 50-60% of what your spec says you’ll get. If everything is functioning properly, the panels are regularly cleaned, etc.

          And I honestly wonder whether it’s ever been considered what the heat-retaining effect would be of paving over the mostly-white-to-light-yellow sand of the Mojave with black panels to power LA.

          Don’t get me wrong – solar panels on residential rooftops is a wonderful idea. But most Team Blue types think that residential usage of water and power is the lion’s-share. It’s actually a drop in the bucket in both cases. Something more substantial is needed to power industry.

          Windmills are just kind of dumb all-around.

          1. And I honestly wonder whether it’s ever been considered what the heat-retaining effect would be of paving over the mostly-white-to-light-yellow sand of the Mojave with black panels to power LA.

            Hmm, that’s an interesting question. How much heat do solar panels retain versus reflective surfaces? You would think a lot of that energy would get turned into electricity rather than heat.

            1. I’m no expert on how they work, but I don’t think the photo-voltaic activity that generates the electricity is related to the heat.

              I do know that among geologists, many consider the different materials exposed on the Earth’s surface to be a major factor in GMT – the Tibetan Plateau having risen enough above sea-level to become snow-covered, for example, leading to a major long-term dip in GMT.

              When you consider how much real estate would need to be dedicated to panels to make them viable (you can already see big fields of them flying over Mojave), it seems like something worth thinking about.

              1. Especially considering the buzz about “urban heat islands.”

                Of course, as an environmentalist I’m aging – do we still care about urban heat islands, or does that distract from the fossil-fuel narrative?

              2. I did thr math months ago on here. The effective albedo change is within the errors of the input estimates. And depending on how you want to define heat the panels (at least the silicon ones – not sure on the CIGS and not motivated enough to lookup their bandgap) do rely on it for electricity generation.

              3. I’m no expert on how they work, but I don’t think the photo-voltaic activity that generates the electricity is related to the heat.

                The primary method of converting light to electricity is the photoelectric effect, which is what Einstein got his Nobel Prize in physics for describing. No really! It wasn’t for relativity.

                Here’s how it works.

                A photon interacts with a surface. If the photon interacts with an electron in the surface, and the photon contains more energy than is needed to remove the electron from the orbital it currently resides and completely dissaciate it from the atom(s) it is bound to, the electron will be kicked out. The energy of the electron will be the difference between the energy the photon carried and the electron’s disassociation energy (aka the threshold energy).

                In a photovoltaic cell, these electrons are captured in a conductor. It’s a very inefficient process, but a light shining on a surface will steadily emit these electrons into the conductor setting up a voltage potential proportional to the difference between the frequency of the light and the frequency = the threshold energy / by planck’s constant.

                Heat really doesn’t come into it,

                If you were to shine sunlight on a perfect blackbody (that absorbed all light), then 100% of the energy in the light would end up as heat (much of which would be reradiated out at a lower frequency of light)

                1. The energy imparted to the electron is no longer available as heat, so the heat release is reduced. So heat comes into it as part of the output.

          2. In the Mohave they built an alternative technology solar plant using computer controlled mirrors and a central flash boiler. It is currently frying, literally FRYING, hundreds or thousands of birds a day, can’t produce the power it was designed to produce, and breaks down often resulting in outages. I believe it is going bankrupt even with the subsidized rates it got from the USG and State of CA.

          3. If I recall correctly the vast majority of water usage is either agricultural or for cooking by power plants. Taking shorter showers will do nothing meaningful to reduce water usage. Power is not too different I expect.

            Incidentally privatizing roads and charging for we rather than funding with taxes would be a great way to reduce gratuitous gas consumption.

        2. And in terms of cost, it’s land area, damage to bird populations, noise, and loss through inputs back into the system to maintain it.

          Let’s not forget the ecological disaster that IS batteries.

          1. That mine isn’t in the backyard, they don’t care.

          2. We have to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and switch to a more stable source, like lithium for batteries… most of which is in… Bolivia.

            1. Just food for thought, but did you realize that Afghanistan is either the second or first largest deposit of Lithium in the world, and that we knew that before going to war with them?

              Could the Iraq war be the first Lithium War?

              1. we went to war with Afghanistan because the ruling Taliban wouldn’t do anything about Bin Laden et al,wouldn’t let us settle him. Because of 9-11.
                we went to war with Iraq because Saddam was breaking out of sanctions,was firing missiles at US planes on UN missions,and was working to build WMD. it was also a strategic move to affect Iran,but US “progressives” torpedoed that.
                How would IRAQ help us with Afghan lithium ores?

                you’re nuts if you think either war was about Afghan lithium deposits.

                1. It was a joke JayWye =P

                  I’m sure it was just a massive coincidence, but it’s a fun one to trot out at tin foil hat parties.

            2. And Chile

            3. Asteroid mining… yeah, that’s thr ticket!

          3. Let’s not forget the ecological disaster that IS batteries.

            That’s the other thing that drives me crazy about this stuff, especially when you get the government involved.

            It’s the same thing with the stupid light bulbs you have to buy now. The eco-authorities have decided that CO2 emissions are SO IMPORTANT to the exclusion of all other things, that we now longer care that by law we are all filling our landfills with mercury in the name of putting out slightly less CO2.

            Top. Men.

            1. Also, all the legitimate ecological concerns are crowded out by the AGW religion.

          4. ever consider just how DANGEROUS high-capacity lithium batteries are? to use them for large-scale energy storage would be MUCH less safe than any Western nuclear plant.
            Witness the hoverboard fires and explosions,the Tesla car burnups,the recent new iPhone explosion from impact damage,severely burning the guy who had it in his pocket at the time. A large,new passenger jet crashed due to a lithium battery fire.
            Trying to extinguish a lithium fire is not much different than putting out a magnesium flare. Difficult and dangerous. Now scale that up to industrial size. And when the rest of the battery pack is still dumping kilowatts or megawatts into the fire,impossible. That much current is like an arcwelder’s arc.

            1. Metal hydride batteries are expensive and potentially quite dangerous. However, next gen flow batteries may provide a much safer and less expensive means to store electricity for stationary applications. Exciting stuff.

      3. In case you haven’t heard, we have a POTUS that can lower the ocean levels. Ensuring permanent sunshine or constant winds are mere parlor tricks for such an accomplished wizard.

        1. In case you haven’t heard, we have a POTUS that can lower the ocean levels.

          Yep, him and King Canute.

    3. Nuclear is great. Libertarians shilling for nuclear is beyond ridiculous.

      Statement x made by Libertarian = false, evil
      Statement x made by Democrat = true, good

      TonyLogic, everyone!

      Has he ever been so very clear about it?

      1. As long as people feed him, he’ll keep hanging around. Like a syphilitic racoon.

        1. I find him one of our more entertaining trolls. He’s just so persistent and earnest.

          1. I think there’s a reason we lim to feed him. He’s basically straw man of progressivism himself, so watching him drivel and seize makes us all feel good about ourselves.

    4. If “nuclear is great,” WTF would you care who is advocating it?

  7. it would be perverse to fight a technology that can supply copious quantities of no-carbon energy 24 hours a day?right?

    Unless your “environmentalism” was just a mask to conceal your neo-feudalism.

    1. They’re not neo-feudalists, they’re misanthropes that want to force human beings into going back to an animalistic hunter/gatherer society simply because for that to be a sustainable model you’d need about 90% of humanity to …. not exist. They’re never real explicit about what their idea about there being way too many human beings on the planet naturally leads to in the way of fixing that particular problem – but they sure as hell ain’t plumping for space exploration as a way to move the excess population to other planets.

      You’d think these people might support a vast increase in the number of nuclear plants and a vast decrease in the amount of regulatory oversight of them if they truly believed such a scenario would lead to a substantial number of nuclear holocausts sufficient to whittle the population down to a sustainable size. But their fear is that widespread adoption of nuclear power is going to prove that nuclear power isn’t going to kill as many people as coal-mining and oil-drilling and the associated pollution from burning that stuff does. Hell, France gets 75% of their electricity from nuclear, and how bad is the radiation death rate over there? (While it may be true the French have some fucked-up genetic shit going on, that pre-dates nuclear power by hundreds of years.)

      1. I’m consistently baffled by the opinion on the left that are there are way, way too many of us. I mean, it’s an absurdly common belief, which when paired with a lot of the logical end results of their policy goals makes me seriously question how honest they’re being.

        It’s tinfoil hat territory, but something to keep in mind.

        1. I’ve said it before, but read Tom Clancy’s Rainbow Six. The Greens get their wish at the end, and it isn’t pretty.

  8. Now everybody’s a subsidized rent-seeker.

    Feature. You gonna vote those people out when they’re sending you a check?

  9. Pres. Obomber is asking ISIS to give us a nuclear winter to help reduce the effects of climate change’s; “UNSTOPPABLE WARMING”.

    1. Ask that destruction would make Krugman happy.

  10. You want to “make America great”? Kill the regulatory structure. Cheap nuclear power, tons of jobs, lower cost for everything are just a few of the benefits. Also, if nuclear even unsubsidized cheap nuclear is on your taboo list while you preach sky is falling due to carbon emissions, talk to the mf hand. Nothing you say is important.

  11. My favorite thing about Ron is he writes so dispassionately the majority of the time, but just once in a while peppers it with spectacular snark bombs like “the only untainted electrons…”


  12. The ‘Greens’ (more like watermelon- ‘green’ on the surface, but ‘red’ to their core) only care about renewable energy that they can make money on.

    Climate alarmism is so childish. Since when have we ever used science to predict the future? Global warming hysteria is just ‘peak population’ garbage wrapped in a new garb.

    1. We use ‘science’ to predict the future all the time! The scientific method is entirely devoted to identifying principles or natural laws that have predictive utility.

      Now, how often those predictions prove right, especially when made about the distant future states of poorly understood and parametized sets of chaotic systems… that’s a different matter.

      1. We use science to explain the natural world and to show scientific constants (such as physics being used for explaining the trajectory of an object in space), but I don’t think science has ever been used (at least effectively) to predict what our future will look like. There is a reason for that. There are too many variables that cannot be accounted for (not including the ultimate variable of human ingenuity) to conclude future events.

        1. So you are saying that making predictions is hard, especially about the future?

          1. +1 Yogi Berra

        2. Sun will appear to will rise in the East tomorrow.

          Science makes all kinds of predictions. Many are so ‘obvious’ that we forget they are predictions.

    2. I will definitely agree on the peak population bullshit angle, that’s what I’ve thought for a long time now. They were wrong then, and they’re likely wrong now.

    3. Predicting the future is sort of the point of science. Predicting whether the device you built will work, whether your bridge will fall down, at what temperature ice will melt. We call things laws because they are predictable.

      But the rule of science is “Predict, but verify”. If you take a theory and input data and make a prediction and it doesn’t pan out, science says either your theory, your data, or your implementation is fucked.

      Warmists make predictions all the time. Their predictions fail. They warmist harder. They aren’t doing science.

  13. When did Tony come back? I’ve had a spotty attendance record for the last couple weeks.

    1. He was waiting for everyone to forget that he outed himself as a sock puppet several times.

    2. Did Tony do away with Jackand Ace? Usually he’s the one who gets involved in the climate change/environmental threads.

      1. Jackand Ace is a different person than Tony.

        JA is a guy who used to be a regular here but bailed after it became clear that Obama was indefensible. His departure was pretty spectacular – he rhetorically shit himself and instantly earned a reputation as a permanent laughingstock.

        Since then he comes on here occasionally, to proclaim that Jesus is Lord and that we will all die in hellfire, then slinking off when people largely ignore him.

  14. There is no such thing as unsubsidized wind or solar power. In order to have power you have to be able to rely on it being there whenever you want. In the utility world the word they use is dispatchable. Even though EIA takes into account the low capacity factors if wind and solar they do not account for the intermittency and the cost of the required backup to mitigate that. That means that you need a significant fraction of your ‘renewable’ capacity backed up with real power, i.e. dispatchable power. So when you build a wind or solar farm you are also building a nat gas or coal or nuke plant to operate when gaia is bleeding out of her whatever.

    1. not just dispatchable, but online swing, vs. base capacity.

  15. Science News for Progressive Liberal Drama Queens and Lazy Copy and Paste News Editors;
    Science now says the effects of climate change could be worse than the effects of unstoppable warming from global warming.
    Science now says millions of wind turbines could send the planet out of orbit.
    Science now says climate change will only murder conservatives and their families.
    Science now says we are defeating terrorism because the ISIS are melting.
    Science now says that “could be” is the same as “will be” a CO2 Armageddon.
    Climate science now says they are also only 99% sure the planet isn’t flat.
    Science now says a self-induced nuclear winter could help ease the effects of global warming’s; “UNSTOPPABLE WARMING”.
    ZERO climate scientists are needed to change a light bulb because 97% of them are 99% sure the light bulb “could” change.
    Science now says Canada needs more ice breaking ships due to the effects of climate change.

  16. Nuclear power is subsidized, Ronald, and you know it. Just like renewables AND oil. From Time magazine:

    “Lovins [a veteran energy expert and chairman of the Rocky Mountain Institute] notes that the U.S. nuclear industry has received $100 billion in government subsidies over the past half-century, and that federal subsidies now worth up to $13 billion a plant ? roughly how much it now costs to build one ? still haven’t encouraged private industry to back the atomic revival. At the same time, the price of building a plant ? all that concrete and steel ? has risen dramatically in recent years, while the nuclear workforce has aged and shrunk. Nuclear supporters like Moore who argue that atomic plants are much cheaper than renewables tend to forget the sky-high capital costs, not to mention the huge liability risk of an accident ?.”

    Here is the difference between nuclear and renewables. Nuclear costs keep going higher and higher, with constant cost overruns and hardly any private investments. Renewables, on the other hand, have cost reductions every year. And it attracts great private investment.

    It’s the marketplace Ronald, pure and simple. It has nothing to do with environmentalists opposing it. And plenty of environmentalists support nuclear, like James Hanson.

      1. Oh, look! A link to an 8 year old magazine article! How…………..
        Oh, and I think I’ve asked you many times for a cite showing oil is subsidized, and (no surprise) you can’t seem to find one.

    1. Here is your beloved Cato, in an article written by libertarian Jerry Taylor, calling for an end to nuclear subsidies…..lear-power

      At least subsidies to renewables make cost sense. Not so nuclear.

      1. “At least subsidies to renewables make cost sense”

    2. By the way, Ronald, “if climate change is a problem?” Yeah it is. You yourself suggest it is.
      It’s time libertarians accept that fact, although nothing you post attempts to convince your compatriots of what you believe. I look forward to the day you post one article that suggests libertarians should wake up to the dangers of climate change.

      It’ll be the first.

      1. If you ever learn to read, it’ll be a first, dipshit.

      2. Which climate change? The global warming, or the global cooling?

    3. Jackand, we both know that both solar & wind are completely unrealistic power generators and rely on massive government subsidy to exist because of their inefficiency and their inherently unreliable generation methods. So using those a some kind of panacea for our power woes and the environment is laughable.

      Now, conversely, the reason why nuclear is so expensive and why it relies on massive subsidy is rather ironically because of over-regulation to the point where subsidy is needed from the government to make it affordable. Why is that ironic, you won’t ask?

      It’s ironic because the government regulated Nuclear into unaffordability on purpose, which I’m sure you’re happy about, but now they’re routing public dollars into a thing they have made intrinsically more expensive.

      So, bottom line, do you believe that no power can be generated with subsidy (not that you’ll ever ask why that might be) or will you acknowledge the governments role in over-meddling with a basic economic input? It’s one or the other.

      1. last line should read:

        So, bottom line, do you believe that power can’t be generated without subsidy (not that you’ll ever ask why that might be) or will you acknowledge the governments role in over-meddling with a basic economic input? It’s one or the other.

  17. Cognitive dissonance presumes the subject parties possess cognition. They seem to lack self awareness.

  18. RE: The Nuclear War Over Climate Change
    If global warming is a problem, it is idiotic for environmentalists to oppose nuclear power.

    Any progressive worth his copy of “Das Kapital” will tell you we must give more of our money to the study of climate change. This way, the over-educated idiots in academia and some other politically connected cronies to the powers that be will be able to cash in on the junk science fad. There conclusions will be in accordance to wise progressive thought that permeates among those who slave us all. Soon, if the policies of the progressive are adopted (and I’m sure we all hope they will) the unwashed masses will live in caves, eat moss and berries, use fairy dusty and unicorn hair for currency and bathe in the local streams as we were intended to do thousands of years ago. Of course this will not include our benevolent ruling class elites who work so hard to further enslave us all. There are exceptions to every rule, especially when socialists rule. But that is not the point. The point is going back to nature for the little people is for them, not their obvious betters.
    This is what socialists call progress.

  19. I would say the Representatives are paid by the main 6 Power Providers, to not do what is necessary, go to the next stage of development of Nuclear generators. With this exclusion, the Power Providers have a set cost to claim, no over production problems… complete control.
    But in these model of rapid change with different tech, requires a higher authority if it is to ever happen. It requires a National Policy.
    Political expediency is not served with National Policies.
    We need leadership for a National Policy in Energy for any true advancement. It would required something akin to the Space Race, where other spending was hampered for the benefit of ‘Space’ expending.
    Those involved with spending ‘others money’, will resist a true National Energy policy unless it is brought to the people.. by an effective leader.
    Climate change is winning because the model is being built where all ‘solutions’ are paid by additional costs to consumers while avoiding spending cuts for ‘other peoples money’ programs already in existence.. that is politically expedient.
    This is a political war, about spending, other peoples money, at higher amounts.. not about solutions at all.

  20. A part of me is saying, “Let the marketplace decide.” Yet, it isn’t a free market and isn’t likely to ever be one.

  21. “…it is self-defeatingly idiotic for environmentalists to oppose nuclear power, a safe and reliable source of climate-friendly electricity.”

    Not when you remember their goal is to destroy industrial civilization and return to hunter/gatherer society.

  22. I suffered through climate change today.
    Got up at 6:30 AM – it was partly sunny 69 degrees
    Fed the cats, had some coffee and cereal
    Dressed and went for a walk in the woods.
    Then the temp got up to 73 and started raining.

  23. As a nuclear engineer (at a soon to be shut down plant) and a libertarian, this whole thing disgusts and appalls me, but is it the best of some truly horrible options. Currently, wind power bids *negative* prices on the power auctioneering markets because of the Production Tax Credit (PTC). Instead of shutting down their wind turbines at night (when power is not needed), they run them because otherwise they don’t get PTC money. Quad Cities, a dual unit in Illinois, is an extremely well run unit producing electricity for $0.28/kW-hr. The PTC is $0.23/kW-hr. Therefore, for “economic” reasons, Quad Cities is being shut down.

    It should be noted that in December, *both* Democrats and Republicans in Congress extended the PTC for another 5 years. The latter gave up this concession so we could export oil (a handout to Exxon). It’s crony capitalism from top to bottom.

    I hate nuclear power welfare, but if that is what it takes to have an “even” playing ground with the “Cult of the Renewable” crowd, so be it. Frankly, we need to clean out the Democrats from Congress and the Executive Branch, and repeal *all* power subsidies.(especially the PTC, but also nuclear, coal, solar, and everything else). Let them compete on level playing ground.

    1. It’s a lot like trying to survive disease when the prohibitionists have built up a cartel of medical whores with no competition (but who agree on their men-with-guns policies). The cartel is the problem, and until it is eliminated, getting rid of the Center for Disease Control and illegally making our own vaccination serums in basements is not really a viable option.
      A health hazard is whatever cuts the life expectancy in a given population, and antinuclear fanaticism is every bit as much a health hazard as the Ebola, Dengue and Zika viruses and socialist dictatorships all put together.

  24. Environmentalists are really anti-consumerist. Any form of energy that is practical in massive quantities, they oppose. If solar and/or wind power actually became significant, they would “discover” all their environmental disadvantages. Note how unhappy the prospect of cold fusion made them a quarter-century ago, though they got lucky that time.

  25. I am making $89/hour working from home. I never thought that it was legitimate but my best friend is earning $10 thousand a month by working online, that was really surprising for me, she recommended me to try it. just try it out on the following website.


  26. The commies were against nuclear power for the same reason you or I would not want the enemy in a nuclear war to have hardened power plants whose fuel supply cannot be cut off. The democratic party was a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Soviet Communist Party. Along with “libertarian” commie anarchists it advocated preemptive surrender, so shrieking against nuclear energy made perfect sense to them. But Petr Beckmann was a volunteer on the Reason editorial board and his “The Health Hazards of NOT Going Nuclear” exposes the lying hysteria for what it is. Like today’s econazis who replace racial with environmental purity as a pretext for totalitarianism, their New Left precursors were nothing but a Fifth Column of cowardly infiltrators unschooled in high school physics.

    1. Granted, but for a while after Fukushima the libertarian line was that nuclear power was a military-industrial complex crony capitalist boondoggle.

  27. If global warming is a problem, it is idiotic for environmentalists to oppose nuclear power.

    Which is to mistakenly assume that the Left ever gives a shit about the “problems” they use as rationalizations for power.

    They oppose nuclear power because it is the “solution” to the problem of global warming which they use as a rationalization for power. It is perfectly *rational* of them to keep their rationalization alive.

  28. Apparently Bruce Morgan Williams up there in the promoted comments doesn’t know how to Google.

    How about this Ser Morgan?…..dy-commons

    “Prof. Mulholland discusses two potential solutions to this problem: public ownership, where the property is owned and administered by the government, and private ownership.”

    So, what are your other two ‘problems libertarians can’t solve’?

  29. my best friend’s mom makes $74 an hour on the computer . She has been withou t work for five months
    but last month her payment was $19746 just working on the computer for a few hours. find more information …


Please to post comments

Comments are closed.