Skip to main content

View Diary: Climate change is an economic crisis (122 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  On the other hand, we have here, on this website, (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    billmosby, Blubba

    people who oppose the world's largerst and fastest growing source of climate change gas free energy on the grounds they have obviously never opened a science book in their entire lives.

    That would be nuclear energy.

    Glenn Seaborg, Democrat, Nobel Laureate, Science Educator, Diplomat, Science Advisor to Every President from Harry Truman to Bill Clinton, Discover or Co-discover of 10 elements in the Periodic Table, knew exactly what to do about climate change.

    If we'd listened to him, as opposed to anti-nuke mystics, we would have this problem under control.

    It should, of course, be obvious, but somehow it's not.   I have zero respect for anyone who deigns to give a rat's ass about climate change and doesn't enthusiastically endorse nuclear energy.

    •  we all suffer grievously (4+ / 0-)

      not to be respected by you.

      The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

      by Laurence Lewis on Sun Oct 17, 2010 at 04:40:09 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Whatever. The fact is that opposing the world's (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        largest, by far, source of climate change free energy and then pretending to give a rat's ass about climate change is disingenous, and frankly, fraudulent, pernicious, and extremely dangerous.

        It's rather the equivalent of creationism.

        Rejecting the [i]science[/i] of Seaborg, Bethe, Wigner because one has never opened a science book, and then having the gall to complain about disrepect for science is frankly laughable.

        •  the fact is (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          badger, neroden, Celtic Pugilist

          your facts aren't facts

          enjoy your obsession.

          The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

          by Laurence Lewis on Sun Oct 17, 2010 at 05:49:04 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Fact is that citing the POP press is (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            pure garbage.

            I didn't, by the way, say that nuclear power could save the pathetic lives of anti-science consumer types who think their cars run on solar power.

            What I did say is that nuclear power is the world's largest, by far, source of climate change gas free energy.

            I note that 50 years of mystic bull about solar and wind has done doodly squat to fight climate change.

            Combined, they don't produce a single exajoule of energy in this country.

            Now, the EIA is not exactly the pop press, but let's see if you can compare something called "numbers":

            Is your position that 0.097 + 0.548 > 8.427?

            It is?

            Why am I not surprised?

            China doesn't give a rat's ass about what consumer Americans think.   They just announced a $120 billion dollar investment in nuclear energy.

            I suppose we will soon hear from anti-nukes about how the Chinese are, um, ill informed and poorly educated.

            Um, um, um...

            Just two of their new reactors will produce more energy than all the solar PV plants on earth.   They have 24 under construction, one started this month and another came on line last month.   They will have 80 in the next ten years.   In fact, it is easily shown that the 40 year old Oyster Creek Nuclear Reactor, easily produces more energy than all the wind turbines in Denmark, in a single, relatively small building.

            You claim to give a rat's ass about climate change, but one of the world's preeminent climate scientists - that would be Jim Hansen - has a far more serious assesment than the dumb reporter at Reuters:

            Only a Carbon Tax and Nuclear Power Can Save Us.

            Jim Hansen is generally acknowledged as one of the world's preeminent climate scientists, whereas Reuters quoting bloggers have no such gravitas.

            Now, being a climate scientist does not make one an expert on nuclear power, but somehow I suspect that Jim Hansen can judge the value of the mathematical inequality stated above, far better than the dumbass Reuters reporter.

            There are many tens of thousands of publications in the scientific literature on nuclear energy and climate change.   If one wants to claim a respect for scientific values, one could not do better than to demonstrate that one has actually read a few of them.

            •  Well, nukes got bigger subsidies. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Laurence Lewis

              I will point out that whichever form of energy gets bigger subsidies is likely to have more construction.  Saying "oh, there are more nuclear plants" without mentioning that is disingenuous.

              -5.63, -8.10. Learn about Duverger's Law.

              by neroden on Sun Oct 17, 2010 at 08:30:02 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Oh bull. Germany and Spain have nearly gone (0+ / 0-)

                broke subsidizing the solar scam, to the tune of billions upon billions of Euros, and the entire enterprise in either country can't produce as much [i]energy[/i] in a year as a single nuclear reactor.

                The feed in laws in those countries have required consumers - many of whom are not rich bourgeois brats but are, in fact, poor people - to face the some of the most costly electricity in Europe.

                Denmark has the [i]highest[/i] electricity prices in Europe, and France some of the lowest.

                Every single anti-nuke who complains about nuclear subsidies is full of shit and any claim dribbling out their mouthes about subsidies is inherently fraudulent selective attention.  

                The return on investment for nuclear technology in terajoules per dollar has been enormous.   Nuclear technology produces more than 5% of the world's primary energy.  

                The last 5 days of oil, gas, and coal subsidies - which engender no set of complaints from anti-nukes, who have very, very, very, very, very, very, very selective attention - doesn't equal the last 50 years of nuclear support.   Much of this subsidy is represented by damage to human flesh, mostly lung tissue, but many other tissues are damaged, generating huge health costs.

                The difference between oil, gas and coal and nuclear is that nuclear has an extremely low external cost, and these highly subsidized forms of fossil fuels do not.

                The external cost of solar (and wind) are largely missed, mostly because they have failed, despite huge unjustifiable subsidies, to do anything useful in the fight against climate change.

    •  I'd love to have it too. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      neroden, Blubba

      But we'd have had to start (or rather, not stop) about 30 years ago on construction of light water reactors and research and development on closed fuel cycles for it to have made a difference. A few former formidable foes of nuclear energy have changed their minds on it, but by now they and their organizations have so thoroughly scared about 3 generations off of the technology that it makes no difference.  Too late and too out of favor, nuclear energy won't be making any more contribution to CO2 emission reduction than it already has and is in the U.S.

      The story is different in a lot of other places around the world, and I'm content with that.

      Moderation in most things. Except Reactors. IFR forever!

      by billmosby on Sun Oct 17, 2010 at 05:07:25 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  nuclear has the biggest subsidies (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      With same level of subsidy wind and solar and conservation would be huge. I agree there isn't really a choice given the amount of time we have but wind and solar are ultimately less destructive.

      The end result will be a mix. Just don't anoint nuclear as cost free.

    •  Blah blah blah, magic nuke worship (0+ / 0-)

      Solar energy has been shown to be sufficient to power the entire earth several times over, is safer and cleaner than nuclear energy, is actually cheaper to construct, and is actually renewable, unlike nuclear.

      Economic crowding out applies here.  If you're willing to match every nuclear dollar one-for-one with a solar dollar, I'll back your nuclear schemes -- but in general nuclear power has been fighting to steal renewable energy money.

      -5.63, -8.10. Learn about Duverger's Law.

      by neroden on Sun Oct 17, 2010 at 08:28:43 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site