It is amazing to me how fast interest in nuclear energy is taking hold.
The European energy crisis is obviously a catalyst. Green policies have wrecked the power industry.
Leaders are so "all in" against fossil fuels, they need a way out - and a way to get re-elected.
Could this be a ray of light in a dark storm?
If they are smart enough to understand that nuclear energy is clean, cheap, safe, and abundant, they are smart enough to understand that carbon dioxide is beneficial, not harmful!
For what it's worth, the campaign against CO2 started in the US in the sixties when nuclear power held great promise. There were a lot of people who were against Nuclear on principal and those still exist. Now we have those who are against nuclear because it doesn't support the green agenda. Long ago the anti CO2 people claimed that atmospheric temps rose because of CO2. Now if we go nuclear and produce power that heats the atmosphere but does not increase CO2 in the atmosphere, that would tell us that there is no connection between Temp and CO2.
These efforts to educate the public about the value of nuclear energy are especially important as an informed public will recognize the clear value of nuclear over wind and solar.
There is no way solar farms can produce cheap power. Solar panels are rated at 18 percent efficient by the manufacturers. If you were to cover 100 acres with solar panels, just 18 acres will produce electricity. Down stream losses could account for another 50 percent. Check it out and do the math.
This optimistic report about the future skewers Shellenberger's claim that Liberals are all gloom and doom about climate change. Many are techno-optimiststs. I think personally that it is unlikely that we will see catastrophic problems but the small risk of a very bad outcome should be enough for us to make modest changes in behavior, like driving smaller cars and eating less meat.
What ( very bad outcome ) are you talking about? The scientists that are most concerned about climate change published results of an energy audit performed over 30 yrs ago. Their computations showed an imbalance between solar energy received and that emitted back into space. They claimed that the earth was retaining a portion of solar energy and thus contribute to global warming. They also claim that some of the retained heat is stored in the earth and oceans. Heating of the oceans is a big deal now. It appears you are off message.
The very bad outcome would be rise of 3-4 C by the end of 2100 with more temperature changes after that. If we don't do anything to change our carbon emissions that is what will happen.
Sea level rise will be 3-5M and about a billion people will be displaced. Other large sections of the planet will become too warm to be habitable.
I am not going to show you the research on this because you don't bother to read it anyway but it's all there if you care to look.
The earth has been able to cope with changes in CO2 concentrations and temperatures for millions of years. The likely driving force would have been Volcanic activity. CO2 does not have the power to drive anything. During the last ice age, at maximum the oceans were 400 ft lower than present. It takes a lot of heat to evaporate that much sea water. Now we are told that what remains of the ice cap will be destroyed by global warming.
I do not think that you have any basis to claim a rise of 3-5M.
The way to think about this is the following: What if China continues to grow its economy to equal the American standard of living today. There is no reason to think that they should not.
If every Chinese person used as much energy as every American does now and uses coal or even other fossil fuels, the amount of C0^2 produced overall would double. Add in a booming India with its 1B+ citizens and you can easily see CO^2 production doubling from today.
Will they do this? I don't know but neither do you. China's population is still growing and so is Indias. China has shown no interest in reducing it's CO^2 emissions and the US has only done a very modest effort.
Which scientists are you talking about? Can you share some research papers? I don't think research done 30 years ago has too much relevance to most discussions today, Geophysics and Planetary Science has made great progress since then. I majored in the subject at Caltech.
"To curb our climate crisis, we need to end our dependence on fossil fuels and power the world with renewables. That may have seemed far-fetched a decade ago given the cost of installing wind and solar at the time, but the price of renewables has been falling fast. In 10 years, the price of solar electricity dropped 89%, and the price of onshore wind dropped 70%.
Clean energy has already passed its economic tipping point. A 2019 report from the nonprofit Rocky Mountain Institute found that it was cheaper to build and use a combination of renewables like wind and solar than to build new natural gas plants. A 2020 report from Carbon Tracker found that in every single one of the world’s energy markets, it’s cheaper to invest in renewables than in coal."
Of course, we need a way to produce energy when the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow. For now, that should be nuclear though battery power is increasingly part of the equation.
We agree on nuclear power. I think there is a future for the new power units which are smaller and fail safe. For now nuclear plants are being shut down. Texas was supposed to have two operating nuclear plants. Were they also shut down?
This is really encouraging news.
It is amazing to me how fast interest in nuclear energy is taking hold.
The European energy crisis is obviously a catalyst. Green policies have wrecked the power industry.
Leaders are so "all in" against fossil fuels, they need a way out - and a way to get re-elected.
Could this be a ray of light in a dark storm?
If they are smart enough to understand that nuclear energy is clean, cheap, safe, and abundant, they are smart enough to understand that carbon dioxide is beneficial, not harmful!
For what it's worth, the campaign against CO2 started in the US in the sixties when nuclear power held great promise. There were a lot of people who were against Nuclear on principal and those still exist. Now we have those who are against nuclear because it doesn't support the green agenda. Long ago the anti CO2 people claimed that atmospheric temps rose because of CO2. Now if we go nuclear and produce power that heats the atmosphere but does not increase CO2 in the atmosphere, that would tell us that there is no connection between Temp and CO2.
These efforts to educate the public about the value of nuclear energy are especially important as an informed public will recognize the clear value of nuclear over wind and solar.
Nuclear, wind and solar are all important parts of a decarbonized future. Solar is getting so cheap so fast that it is now cheaper than fossil fuels.
There is no way solar farms can produce cheap power. Solar panels are rated at 18 percent efficient by the manufacturers. If you were to cover 100 acres with solar panels, just 18 acres will produce electricity. Down stream losses could account for another 50 percent. Check it out and do the math.
https://www.2035report.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/2035-Report.pdf
This optimistic report about the future skewers Shellenberger's claim that Liberals are all gloom and doom about climate change. Many are techno-optimiststs. I think personally that it is unlikely that we will see catastrophic problems but the small risk of a very bad outcome should be enough for us to make modest changes in behavior, like driving smaller cars and eating less meat.
What ( very bad outcome ) are you talking about? The scientists that are most concerned about climate change published results of an energy audit performed over 30 yrs ago. Their computations showed an imbalance between solar energy received and that emitted back into space. They claimed that the earth was retaining a portion of solar energy and thus contribute to global warming. They also claim that some of the retained heat is stored in the earth and oceans. Heating of the oceans is a big deal now. It appears you are off message.
The very bad outcome would be rise of 3-4 C by the end of 2100 with more temperature changes after that. If we don't do anything to change our carbon emissions that is what will happen.
Sea level rise will be 3-5M and about a billion people will be displaced. Other large sections of the planet will become too warm to be habitable.
I am not going to show you the research on this because you don't bother to read it anyway but it's all there if you care to look.
The earth has been able to cope with changes in CO2 concentrations and temperatures for millions of years. The likely driving force would have been Volcanic activity. CO2 does not have the power to drive anything. During the last ice age, at maximum the oceans were 400 ft lower than present. It takes a lot of heat to evaporate that much sea water. Now we are told that what remains of the ice cap will be destroyed by global warming.
I do not think that you have any basis to claim a rise of 3-5M.
The way to think about this is the following: What if China continues to grow its economy to equal the American standard of living today. There is no reason to think that they should not.
If every Chinese person used as much energy as every American does now and uses coal or even other fossil fuels, the amount of C0^2 produced overall would double. Add in a booming India with its 1B+ citizens and you can easily see CO^2 production doubling from today.
Will they do this? I don't know but neither do you. China's population is still growing and so is Indias. China has shown no interest in reducing it's CO^2 emissions and the US has only done a very modest effort.
Which scientists are you talking about? Can you share some research papers? I don't think research done 30 years ago has too much relevance to most discussions today, Geophysics and Planetary Science has made great progress since then. I majored in the subject at Caltech.
"To curb our climate crisis, we need to end our dependence on fossil fuels and power the world with renewables. That may have seemed far-fetched a decade ago given the cost of installing wind and solar at the time, but the price of renewables has been falling fast. In 10 years, the price of solar electricity dropped 89%, and the price of onshore wind dropped 70%.
Clean energy has already passed its economic tipping point. A 2019 report from the nonprofit Rocky Mountain Institute found that it was cheaper to build and use a combination of renewables like wind and solar than to build new natural gas plants. A 2020 report from Carbon Tracker found that in every single one of the world’s energy markets, it’s cheaper to invest in renewables than in coal."
Of course, we need a way to produce energy when the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow. For now, that should be nuclear though battery power is increasingly part of the equation.
https://ourworldindata.org/cheap-renewables-growth
I claimed a simple technical problem with solar panels. You did not address the issue. Four posts against one; I give up you win.
It doesn't really matter how efficient solar panels are, we have an unlimited amount of space to put them in deserts and another unused lands.
What matters is their price. And they cost less than coal.
Remember during the Texas freeze, the coal-powered plants were unusable, so they aren't as good a backup plan as you seem to think that they are.
Nuclear power is great. We need more of it.
We agree on nuclear power. I think there is a future for the new power units which are smaller and fail safe. For now nuclear plants are being shut down. Texas was supposed to have two operating nuclear plants. Were they also shut down?
More techno optimism from The Left:
https://noahpinion.substack.com/p/who-is-the-real-problem-when-it-comes