Nuclear to Replace Wind and Solar
American Thinker,
by
Norman Rogers
Original Article
Posted By: JunkYardDog,
8/13/2020 2:41:26 PM
In the words of James Hansen, the scientist most responsible for promoting global warming, wind and solar are “grotesque” solutions for reducing CO2 emissions. Michael Shellenberger, a prominent activist, has the same opinion. Hansen and Shellenberger, as well as many other global warming activists, have come to the conclusion that nuclear energy is the only viable method of reducing CO2 emissions from the generation of electricity.
Reply 1 - Posted by:
zoidberg 8/13/2020 2:43:05 PM (No. 508731)
Nuclear is the only serious option to carbon-based fuels.
31 people like this.
Reply 2 - Posted by:
seamusm 8/13/2020 2:47:01 PM (No. 508739)
OMG! What about Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Fukushima? We're all gonna die with three-eyed children. And the radioactive waste will melt that western mountain, ruin a Native American holy site, and poison the ground ater for thousands of years to come. What a terrible idea!
12 people like this.
Reply 3 - Posted by:
coldoc 8/13/2020 2:57:28 PM (No. 508743)
Well, duh!
14 people like this.
Reply 4 - Posted by:
coyote 8/13/2020 3:01:16 PM (No. 508746)
And it is thorium reactors that should be investigated and probably developed. Much safer and simpler, no high pressure containment buildings necessary. It doesn't seem like the US is doing much on this front, but India and China are developing them. We can see how that works out.
16 people like this.
Reply 5 - Posted by:
Ida Lou Pino 8/13/2020 3:02:00 PM (No. 508749)
There is only one conclusion to be drawn from this - - -
The evil, corrupt Hansen has invested in nuclear technology companies - - and/or is being paid to shill for them.
Hansen has never done an honest thing in his life.
13 people like this.
Reply 6 - Posted by:
grampus 8/13/2020 3:02:33 PM (No. 508752)
And we know that nuclear power has has provided adequate propulsion for U.S. submarines for more than half-a-century. Better for subs than wind, solar, and nature's fossil (or abiotic) fuels. .
17 people like this.
Reply 7 - Posted by:
curious1 8/13/2020 3:13:20 PM (No. 508764)
#4, exactly. And the Chinese and Indians used our publicly available research from the LTR test-bed we had at ORNL back in the 60s/70s time-frame. More stupid political decisions back then, as now.
13 people like this.
Reply 8 - Posted by:
snakeoil 8/13/2020 3:18:45 PM (No. 508770)
Interesting read. Around 30 years ago the school I was associated with eliminated its nuclear engineering program and dismantled the itsy bitsy nuclear reactor on campus. Lots of people were convinced by the movie "China Syndrome" where Jane Fonda and Jack Lemmon save the world from a nuclear meltdown (probably shouldn't criticize this movie since I refused to watch it). Then there was Chernobyl and the Japanese disaster. Someone will always point out that Germany got rid of all their nuclear generating plants (Germany currently gets its electricity from France which uses nuclear). It's analogous to the situation with cell phones. Everyone wants and has to have a cell phone. But every time a company plans to erect a cell phone tower there are public protests where people are talking on their cell phone to oppose something that the service has to have to exist. The main problem with nuclear is where to put the waste. My suggestion is Nancy Pelosi's back yard.
16 people like this.
Reply 9 - Posted by:
IdahoJoe 8/13/2020 3:19:53 PM (No. 508773)
Don't forget hydroelectric dams, which in spite of their sustainability have become a blight and a swear word for greenies
12 people like this.
Reply 10 - Posted by:
davew 8/13/2020 3:21:46 PM (No. 508777)
Some old legacy companies like GE are pursuing this but the best new company in the US is NuScale Power. They are focusing on small modular reactors (SMR) that can be assembled from standardized parts and designs and reduce the complexity and customization of PWR reactors that add substantially to their cost. Here's information on their progress.
https://www.nuscalepower.com/
11 people like this.
Reply 11 - Posted by:
Rather Read 8/13/2020 3:31:05 PM (No. 508783)
Duh. I have been saying that for years and years.
4 people like this.
Reply 12 - Posted by:
snowoutlaw 8/13/2020 3:31:07 PM (No. 508784)
First prove we need to reduce CO2.
17 people like this.
Reply 13 - Posted by:
or gate 8/13/2020 3:42:25 PM (No. 508797)
Nuclear will not chop birds up like a meat grinder.
Don't let a liberal near any kind of generators.
11 people like this.
Reply 14 - Posted by:
jeffkinnh 8/13/2020 4:17:00 PM (No. 508826)
Early nuclear was like many technologies, over hyped, didn't work as well as promised, and not as safe. Newer designs address all those problems and is a far better solution than anything else. The environmental nuts, rather than demanding improvements, killed the industry. Far more people have died dealing with other sources of energy than nuclear, which is very safe. The fear mongering is scary. The reality is not.
The problem is, science is no longer trustworthy because it is no longer pure. It is mostly ego and hype, not truth. This happened because "science" teamed up with politics. Pols ordered up a study to justify policies they wanted and the scientists delivered. They HAD TO if they wanted to get paid and for their careers to thrive. Once they deceived, they could never admit they had lied so they lied some more. Scientists realized they were all in the same boat so they made good of it, patting each other on the back for their "discoveries" and ignoring other's discrepancies so that other's would ignore theirs. They are all one big happy pack of liars and fools.
8 people like this.
Reply 15 - Posted by:
czechlist 8/13/2020 4:26:42 PM (No. 508836)
#13 I often hear the argument that house cats kill more birds than windmills or solar farms, so I reckon it must be okay to kill more. I have never heard of a house cat killing a bald eagle or other raptor but if one did the owner would likely be heavily fined.
5 people like this.
Reply 16 - Posted by:
brother ram 8/13/2020 4:38:04 PM (No. 508843)
Small nuke reactors would take us off the grid and provide us protection from EMP. We need to wake up before somebody (Xi) pops a airburst over the west coast and shuts us down for good.
8 people like this.
As to the problem of all the waste, commercial rocket companies are now popping up everywhere. SpaceX took an early lead but there are others. I'm sure Elon and the rest could figure out a relatively inexpensive way to send a monthly launch with a payload of radioactive waste on a course toward the sun.
5 people like this.
Reply 18 - Posted by:
StrikingViking 8/13/2020 4:54:52 PM (No. 508851)
France recycles its waste radioactive fuel, reusing it several times. Their ultimate waste fuel can be stored in a very compact space. President Jimmuh Carter banned recycling our waste. As far as I know, his EO has never been countermanded.
9 people like this.
Reply 19 - Posted by:
red1066 8/13/2020 5:25:44 PM (No. 508874)
Try telling that to the environmentalists. They've been blocking nuke energy for decades in the courts. It's why it takes twenty years to build a nuke power plant once a permit is issued, but they do love those electric cars. How those cars are supposed to be charged is another issue.
5 people like this.
Reply 20 - Posted by:
bad-hair 8/13/2020 6:21:42 PM (No. 508927)
Idiots. They do realize that we have submarines that stay submerged for 6 months at a time (maybe more) with a couple thousand crew on board and their biggest limiting facto is FOOD not the nuclear fuel that powers the boat. Year after year these small reactors keep the power on at -800 feet. Any one of these could power a smallish city but good old Nat Gas is cheaper and wind/solar is a scam.
5 people like this.
Reply 21 - Posted by:
DVC 8/13/2020 6:39:40 PM (No. 508948)
Wind ans solar are SCAMS. I have a solar powered vacation cabin in the mountains of Colorado, have used it (my own design, installation, etc) for 25 years. BUT, any place where mains power is available, THAT is the sensible choice.
Wind is an abomination on the landscape, I HATE seeing those damned things, and paying the very high electrical rates for their power. Same for solar, but it is less visibly intrusive.
Nuclear power is the right answer. We need to get back to reprocessing fuel, too. Current 'once thru' system of not reprocessing "spent" fuel throws away 99% of the energy in the uranium fuel. STUPID.
7 people like this.
Reply 22 - Posted by:
Jennie C. 8/13/2020 6:58:35 PM (No. 508976)
OP, never let your opinion be humble :)
Anyone who rails against fossil fuels and is also against nuclear power, is a fraud.
2 people like this.
Reply 23 - Posted by:
Strike3 8/13/2020 7:37:54 PM (No. 509031)
Excellent. All you have to do is convince millions of tree-huggers that nuclear is safe and people who glow in the dark probably just ate some luminous fish sushi.
1 person likes this.
Reply 24 - Posted by:
MickTurn 8/13/2020 7:53:42 PM (No. 509051)
Hmmm, so we get rid of ALL the CO2...and we all die due to lack of Oxygen...great Plan Einstein!
We'll experiment on Liberals and see how that works in a closed bubble biosphere! If it works we'll put domes over ALL Lib run cities. That will solve more problems than you know!
3 people like this.
Reply 25 - Posted by:
Archtheduke 8/13/2020 8:07:27 PM (No. 509069)
Geez Louise, where have these two ostriches been for the last 30 years?
2 people like this.
Reply 26 - Posted by:
Lawsy0 8/13/2020 8:41:35 PM (No. 509102)
I graduated from high school in 1960. They were yakking about all this blah de blah way back then, too. One teacher told us because of the coming computer age, we would all have deformed hands from all the push-buttons we'd have to use. Thanks, China--we had to give up our 60th reunion this year. Thanks to Viet Nam, we lost 5 of our class by fall of 1960. Feel the love??
1 person likes this.
Reply 27 - Posted by:
OCJim 2/21/2021 7:08:28 AM (No. 703493)
Michael Shellenberger, cited at the top of this article, a one time major global warming and renewables advocate who has seen the light. He now rejects solar and wind solutions and endorses nuclear. His latest bestselling book, "Apocalypse Never, Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All". Highly recommended.
1 person likes this.
Below, you will find ...
Most Recent Articles posted by "JunkYardDog"
and
Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)
Comments:
Nuclear power is a practical alternative to fossil fuels-there should be more support for it in the country, IMHO.