It is a combo of inherited traits, the big 5, and the fact that women are targeted by activists/companies peddling fear. Same trend organic companies use to terrify women about "chemicals in food". Solar is "clean" and "safe" like a sunny day. Nuclear kills babies. How dare you!
Interesting POV, but you seem to be blaming women for nuclear policy failures. However, the Morning Consult article you link to highlights women's uncertainty and indecisiveness:
"Ann Bisconti, a public opinion expert at Bisconti Research who has been conducting surveys on nuclear energy for more than three decades, said in an interview that Morning Consult’s poll results were consistent with what she had seen.
“Women do not feel as informed about these issues as men do,” she said. Conversely, “men think they have more information, but they don’t.”
Bisconti pointed out that while women tend to be more skeptical of nuclear power, they’re mostly just fence-sitting. “More than 50 percent of women either somewhat support or somewhat oppose increasing nuclear power generation,” she noted, adding that many women were undecided. That analysis is consistent with Morning Consult’s findings:
A more detailed look at the results shows that most women fall in the middle, with 28 percent somewhat supporting more nuclear, and 25 percent somewhat opposing it.
Men were also more opinionated; 40 percent of men either strongly supported or strongly opposed getting more electricity from nuclear power, compared to 26 percent of women. Likewise, 20 percent of women had no opinion on the subject, compared to 7 percent of men.“
One can also ask, what does "somewhat opposed" mean? "Somewhat opposed" might mean "mostly in favour". I guess that depends on the questions/answers and how the poll was designed.
I don't have the numbers for what percentage of women are reading Shellenberger's and Weiss's Substacks, but I'm one. I'm interested/curious about nuclear, but if I were to trust school/public library/mainstream media, I'd only see anti-petroleum and anti-nuclear messaging. The press and my government are not run solely by women. We also can't connect the percentages in the article with voter turnout and voter patterns. If governments are making policy decisions based on polls, that's poor governance, not the fault of the people answering the polls.
Using the same logic, I could look at a headline like, "Nearly half of U.S. Sports Fans Would Boycott Their Favourite Team If it Had Commercial Relationship with Russia".
I could claim that men are illogical and hypocritical to boycott Russia, while ignoring expansionist and communist China's commercial involvement in US sports, but I wouldn't blame that set of men or all men for Western governments' inaction on China.
Hi. I think there are many factors at play and I mentioned a big one which is females being targetted by fearmongering companies and activists. The reason why they are targetted are many. The biological traits, nature, may not be the primary reason here, because women are the main spenders in most societies it makes sense to go after them if you are petitioning for donations. I would also say Hollywood and academia play a role. Shellenberger goes into Hollywood's complicity. It is worth noting that many of the most influential dark green anti-nuclear activists are females. This is something I would venn diagrams well with "ecofeminism". I think the anti-capitalist, anti-industrial vitriol of "Silent Spring" is very related to the work of Helen Caldicott, Vandana Shiva, Greta Thunberg, etc. They all have this mission against technology/progress/procreation etc. This is feminist anti-natalism component of dark green activism is fully explored in "Apocalypse Never".
Another factor that might be driving the gendered gap.. is the fact that women are dominating all areas of academia except physics/math/chemistry.
Whatever the reasons all the pro-nuclear NGOs are well aware of the disparity and they hire females to represent them as much as possible.
Surprised no one is discussing that Putin funded German environmentalists to shut down fracking and nuclear, plus used his hackers on anti-fracking and anti-nuclear messaging around Europe. Plus, less secretly, bought tons of lobbying time from Gerhard Schroeder to achieve these goals.
You are allowed to say things like that. Remember-Freedom of Speech? I think it is in the Bill of Rights. Weren't you taught that in school? Oh, yeah. Not anymore. I think patriotism is banned also, unless you are from the Ukraine.
I have been following Michael Shellenberger for quite some time and found his book enlightening. Energy is such an important issue and the slogans and panic brought about by climate hysterics has deeply damaged our country. Nothing became as clear to me as their anti-nuclear power position. Nuclear is the cleanest, safest, most efficient form of energy that doesn't rely on fossil fuels. So-called "green" energy is the most dangerous to produce and is dependent on fossil fuels. And now our mis-guided energy policies have been used against us by a foreign power, which will impact us for years to come.
The US Navy has used small nuclear power plants for decades with safety. These small nuclear power plants could produce clean energy for our towns and cities.
In fact small modular nuclear power plants are being developed for civilian use. The first ones are to be built at the4 Idaho National Laboratory and installed in Utah.
that is great but it's a far cry from the Obama admin dream of mass producing Small Modulars to scale then exporting them globally. I think it's safe to say that idea is dead. We are better off going with the larger NPPs designs we know and have used safely to power grids in the US for 4 decades.
It should also be noted that regardless of size the NRC will charge the same yearly amount to license reactors. So why invest in small ones when the fee is $5 million per year to operate anyway?
I've always wondered about that. The Navy has room sized nuclear reactors that power submarines for years on end. The military isn't known for its frugality; is that technology just not financially viable in the outside world?
Personally, I still want my nucleic (man-sized nuclear reactors) force shield Isaac Asimov speculated about.
decades not years and the carriers are nuclear powered as well. NRC and their foreign counterparts don't charge based on size of reactor. NRC requires $5 million/year per reactor so why would anyone build a tiny one ? more bang/buck to invest in one that can power the entire grid until the pay structures/regulatory commissions are altered.
Those are called Small Modular Reactors. Obama was planning on mass producing them.. and he got cold feet after Fukushima.. the whole program was shuttered.
There are 4 generations and breeders can be gen 2 or gen 3. The gen 4 is LFTR being worked on in china. The gen 3 and 4 are distinct in their "passivity", basically how safely they shut down. I think Nuclear Power is overwhelmingly safe but the pandemic made me think more about scenarios in which everyone gets sick.. in such a scenario you want NPPs that can remain operable without people and NPPS that can power down without a crew. Ideally the LFTRs would be cheap, quick to build etc because those will hopefully crystallize when turned off. A reactor that forms a solid in the case of a meltdown. It's all theoretical until finished. Shellenberger argues G2s are safe and cheaper than "modern reactors", which are extremely prone to overrides and delays. There are trade offs all around but the most important thing to do is debunk the superficial myths about nuclear waste, safety, costs etc. It takes alot of leg work.
Thanks. Good to see that research exists now but my claim was that Obama closed his enthusiasm and investment after Fukushima, which is true. You won't find him touting SMRs after that time period. The funding dried up. Your links point to very recent renewed interest in SMRs. Biden came out in favor of Nuclear. It was a big deal. Trump was very pro-Nuclear. No one gave him credit for that except a few like Shellenberger.
To be fair, the Navy spends a fortune ensuring the safety and reliability of those small nuclear plants. If we brought that same technology and standards to Americans towns and cities, electricity rates would jump.
I live in Illinois, where most of our power is nuclear. We ratepayers spend a lot of boodle keeping those plants operating, especially now that they're 30-40 years old. I'm a big fan of nuclear, but running the plants safely isn't cheap.
The cost of Nuclear depends on the country. The NRC in the US has made nuclear energy prohibitively expensive. You mention safety. I suggest you read "the death footprint of energy" by James Conca, in Forbes and get back to me on which energy is safest and cheapest when you strip away subsidies.
Thanks to the lead to the article, sounds good. I agree that subsidies play a large part in the cost of various energy sources. I would like to see a complete analysis of the unsubsidized cost of each type of energy we use, adding up everything to goes into the production and distribution of each: mining, fracking, construction, maintenance, disposal of waste. But I don't know of any such comparison.
There's also been a lot of advancements in nuclear to make it safer, cheaper, etc. If it expanded, I'd imagine it would make use of these advancements.
i am no expert in life cycle costs, but having witnessed a few over the past 20 years I can say that like all "models" it is garbage in/garbage out. In particular, Conca has some assumptions about life of generating plants. One I know about is hydro. he says 80 years. There are hydros today that are well past that. yes, one needs to provide turbine upgrades, etc., but one needs to be careful about reaching conclusions. To his credit, Conca seems bullish on fossil, but if you are a climate change is CO2 driven so get rid of fossil, then one would look to hydro, with limited places for it, or nukes which really can be placed just about anywhere not at risk of earthquakes.
The best way to measure this is globally. Countries with the safest track record on Nuclear Power often have the cheapest cost as well: see France and South Korea. So it's not a direct correlation of cost to safety. Many factors are a play.
Where government trolls are involved, the more regulation the more job security. They're like HOAs and school boards. They have no idea what and what isn't necessary, so the opt for overkill.
It is best to study it globally. Look at which countries have the safest nuclear track record and then compare to costs. It's never a direct correlation. In fact, the cheaper the nuclear energy the better the safety record. Complicated.
California has gone green, and it bites. Power here is the most expensive and least reliable in the nation. Large manufacturers (Intel) won't build here, as a every single outage costs them millions.
Not the most expensive but close. California imports energy from neighboring states so yeah not so green when you account for that. The brownouts are due to bad wiring through the forests. California is like the Germany in that it was ground zero for anti-nuclear energy activism and exported to other states.
I watch CalIso supply. Imports are the largest energy source every night, surpassing fossil and green. Mostly coal-fired from Nevada. There's a coal fired plant in Nevada solely dedicated to providing power to water pumping to bring Northern California water to LA. That might be 'off the books' as it doesn't feed the grid.
Yeah, we had to plunk $1k down on a 2kW Honda generator. These have super clean power, which we wanted for our electronics. In retrospect, for the same money, I should have bought a multi-fuel 8kW less clean power generator and wired it into the house power. We don't necessarily need automatic backup, but I travel a lot, and my wife has to drag out the gen, pour gas, run extension cords, etc. into the house just to run the fridge. With a multi-fuel, we could bring in a propane tank, and run the generator off that, not have to pour gas, or drag out the generator. Plus, to have the ability to throw a switch to get to the generator, and have everything powered. We really only need the refrigerator, but the internet would be nice to have.
If you do get a generator, be sure to run it for half an hour every month. I have a calendar alarm for the first to "run the little engines."
Oh, god, no. I like my nukes just fine. I'm only pointing out that they're not the "cheap power" that some believe.
In fact, having nuclear plants let us ban fracking in Southern Illinois in order to keep the water tables from being poisoned. Our power grid is nuclear, fossil, and wind. It's a pretty good combination, although the nukes are old enough to need replacement. That will be an interesting, um, "full and frank exchange of views."
One time a water agency ordered frackers to transfer the used fracking water to that agency ... and that agency contaminated it's own water supply.
The same principle that we can safely sequester CO2 proves we can safely frack. Fracking doesn't happen at the surface, but two miles down. Some places on earth are shallow gas fields, shallow coal fields, shallow shale, or shallow oil fields ... yes, these leak methane naturally, and have been leaking methane naturally for thousands of years.
Fracking is no more likely to pollute water supplies than plain, old-fashioned oil drilling that has been going on for a hundred years without any big problems. You just have to take some care for how you store the sludge you bring up.
This is one of the reasons I don't take climate alarmists seriously. If they really cared about reducing carbon emissions as quickly as they say is necessary, they would not be anti-nuclear. Nuclear is literally the only energy source that could replace coal and oil fueled electric plants on the scale that is needed within the time-frame they are screaming about.
I was against nuclear because my understanding was that we don't really know what to do with the nuclear waste. Lately I read that there really isn't much but it's hard to know who to trust. I also think that Michael is ignoring some of the really negative effects of some of his proposals. Fracking is dangerous and poisonous for those who live near it. This is not as simple as he suggests.
compared to the waste of so-called "green" or "clean" energy, nuclear waste is far easier to deal with because it's so compact. I really recommend Shellenberger's book Apocalypse Now where he goes into detail about why this is. What is being ignored by the media and the solar/wind advocates is 1) solar and wind can NOT exist without fossil fuels; 2) solar/wind can not run our country or economy for many reasons; and 3) solar/wind production and waste removal is both extremely dangerous and takes up huge amount of space. But because people in the US don't "see" the massive human and environmental damage that solar produces in other countries, they think it's somehow "clean" or "good." Is energy simple? No -- there will always be trade-offs. But nuclear is by far the cleanest, safest form of energy and it is to our grave detriment that it has been vilified.
Thanks -- I had a brain fart and called it Apocalypse Now. Argh. It is a great book. I even got 2 of my teen-age kids to read it. My youngest was so interested he did a research paper last year on nuclear energy.
Yes it is, because you have to compare it to the alternatives. All of France's nuclear waste would fit into a large living room. Americans grew up watching inane anti-nuke Hollywood movies and have the science backgrounds of a cephalopod. Nuclear deaths from 3 Mile Island? Zero. Nuclear deaths from Fukushima? Zero. Chernobyl? Definitely, but that's communism. You should have seen their rivers.
I'm pro-nuclear but you are wrong about nuclear waste in France. Maybe living rooms stacked 300 meters high on top of each other... but anyway France utilizes breeder reactors, which reduce waste by reprocessing fuel. The US does not have so many of those NPPS. It should be noted most of the nuclear waste that exists globally and is related to weapons not energy. So basically most of the long storage facitlities aren't housing nuclear energy waste so much as nuclear weapons waste. Documented as opposed to projected deaths from Chernobyl are under 50 BTW. The equation they use for projected deaths is highly contested. It's like saying all those who smoked will die of smoking because the stats show they live an average of 5 minutes, x days less. When you account for lifestyle these projected deaths from radiation become meaningless. Pilots (or anyone in aviation industry) get more radiation than most.. and yet they live longer because they generally exercise more and eat well.
Right you are and I stand corrected. Amazing that France can recycle up to 96% of their radioactive waste, and have already reprocessed enough to run their entire nuclear fleet for 14 years, according to Orano, the French entity in charge of this.
Hear, hear. That - "Fracking is dangerous and poisonous for those who live near it. This is not as simple as he suggests" - was as Gump said, stupid is as stupid does.
If its safe to sequester CO2 two miles down, then its safe to frack two miles down.
Fracking itself has never polluted any water. Once, a water agency demanded frackers turn over the fracking water to that agency ... which polluted their own water supply. You can't blame the frackers for a bad water agency.
I have Bjorn Lomborg on my list too. After the last 2 years, I seek many viewpoints to clarify what we are being told without cost benefits being presented.
Trump never fawned over anyone. He is a smart businessman and he knows the importance of keeping the dialogue open. He can compliment with one hand and then get mighty tough with the other. He's a master at it.
More to the point, he pointed out that Putin was outsmarting idiot leaders of other countries. And he was. That wasn't praise for Putin - it was criticism of Merkel et al.
Exactly. Trump plays both 'good-cop' and 'bad-cop' at the same time. Progressives only see bad cop when he talked about immigration and only 'good cop' when he schmoozed Putin. Think of all the people he chose because they were the best people, and then trashed them when they didn't help him out. He is Machiavellian .... but on our side.
Back in 2015 and 2016 I didn't like Trump. I thought him a grandstander and a charlatan. My adult children switched from Cruz to Trump. I didn't understand why they liked him so much. My daughter said, "Mom, you can judge the quality of a person by their children. Trump's children are excellent." I voted for Trump in 2016 because he was not Hillary. I had followed the Clintons since their campaign in 1992 and the more I learned about them the more I disliked them, particularly Hillary.
I have never regretted my vote for Trump. Not once. He kept all his promises. He appointed the very best people. He is the most investigated person in history and they have found nothing. They have lied and done their best to ruin him and his family but they have found nothing illegal or dishonest. Contrast that with the Bidens. I know what it's like to regret a vote. I voted for Jimmy Carter in 1976 and have regretted that vote every day of my life. I still have clear memories of Jimmy Carter's inflation.
President Trump loves the USA. He admires and respects blue collar workers. He worked tirelessly (4 hours sleep a night) to make life better for everyone person in this country. We had four years of peace, stability and a glowing economy that lifted all boats. (With the exception of the Antifa and BLM riots in blue cities and blue states. Trump believes in Federalism so he didn't order in the National Guard but waited for the governors of those states to invite him to help).
Now all we have is worry. The bunch in the White House are incompetent at best. Scary times. Can we last 3 more years of this?
That guy Trump has been involved in negotiating many resort projects, along with beauty pageants all over the world, including some big ones in Russia. He knows how to negotiate with Russia, and has backed out of deals because he didn't like the terms of the Russians.
Notice the Russians didn't pull any shit on his watch, but took slices of Ukraine during previous and past administrations.
The Earth doesn't need "healing". Things have never been better. When I was a kid, rivers were so polluted, they caught on fire. LA and Denver had unbreathable air. The highways were lined with garbage. None of those things are true today, and they haven't been for a very long time.
Climate change is only framed as a catastrophic problem by extremist idealogues (who are being played), and by the insanely wealthy elite who profit by encouraging suicidal policy decisions.
What needs healing is the damage caused by the international Left.
Such overwhelming anecdotal evidence obviously proves mother Earth is just fine. I mean, you can’t see the CO2, so what’s the problem? And, oh yes, the left is destroying the world!
That CO2 you can't see has caused about a 15% increase in vegetation around the world. Global warming is good for us since we are still emerging from the last Ice Age and the littel ice age.
Yes, indeed, the plants eat up the CO2 with photosynthesis; in the meantime, polar caps melt, and the ocean warms and expands to flood a large part of the civilized world, but hey, no problem, right?
The oceans are rising about 3 mm/year. It will take 300 years for them to rise even 1 meter - 39 inches. We can readily adapt to that very small increase, if it occurs. So it's all fear-mongering. If you compound the amount of money wasted on various CO2-reducing schemes over 300 years you come up with a huge number.
Those funds should be spend on REAL environmental concerns - like the loss of species and habitats. Each species represents a valuable and unique pool of information that is lost FOREVER when the species goes extinct. While there is scare-mongering in this area as well, we don't even know how many species exist on earth within a factor of 10! 4 million or 40 million?
Subhead is great: "While we banned plastic straws, Russia drilled and doubled nuclear energy production."
It is just like the media fawning over a 14 year old child out of, where, Denmark, about climate change. Taking lessons from children is such a trope of the stupid. You hear it all the time, "listen to the children". Children are, generally, idiots about matters of substance. This is true whether the child is ordinary or on the spectrum. Thunberg became insulated to criticism because she was identified as being on the autism spectrum. Then she shouted at adults, castigated them, screamed, and the MSM lapped it up and anyone who criticized was ostracized. They are great when it comes to unwavering love - given and sought. But they know no science, no policy, nothing about human existence on a global scale. Shame on anyone who fell for this.
The drinking straw thing is another example of this stupidity. A child in California (of course) made some calculations about how many straws are produced and then extrapolated to how many end up in the nostrils of sea turtles. And the Media and the Green Religionists went wild for him. Starbuck changed their business for it.
Agreed. But the navel gazing of our elites goes far beyond plastic straws and solar panels. Ruling classes are always somewhat disconnected, but ours has reached a shocking level of insularity for a supposedly liberal democracy.
Yes, that seems to be you. As to the rest of us, who is "attacking" a "young girl"? You did not read, or did not understand my comment. Just so you might figure it out, we were put in a position where we could not oppose what that teenager asserted. Get it yet?
I asked myself whether it was necessary to mention a nine-year-old and a teenage girl to get his point across; in my estimation, it was not; it was a gratuitous act. Then you decided to double down; To what end?
Just catching up here. My point was not about Thunberg. It was about the elites. If you thought it was about her, you might be comfortable among .... the elites.
We listen to micro brains like AOC and John Kerry. Natural gas and nuclear power would have saved tens of millions of lives due to raging energy wars and "greened up" the world at the same time. Not only light water reactors but the LIFTR technologies that the US shelved in the 1970's and China is perfecting right now.
Am I mistaken or did she once tweet during a hurricane that if only these people had electric cars they would all be fine? And then took it down when everyone pointed out the obvious holes in her theory. Particularly that there was no electricity. Or sunlight. Did I imagine that? I'm losing track of the gafs.
Hmmmm. I guess. I'll take your word for it but I'm usually a little skeptical when it comes from Reuters. Every time I see someone reping them on a talk show you'd think they actually work FOR Biden not independently. Makes me sad :(
Kerry could have supported Nuclear many times in his long career and chose not to. The Green New Deal has been altered quite a bit since the first iterations but virtually every anti-nuclear NGO in the US poured their money into AOC and the GND was originally anti-nuclear. This was such a glaring flaw editorial boards from NYT, WAPO, Vox, WSJ etc all came out and said Nuclear was needed to abate GW. GND language and structure soon thereafter changed and gave states more flexibility. It is naive to ignore the massive monied interests dark greens have given progressives like Kerry and AOC. If your argument is that nat-gas displaced Nuclear we agree but you have to ask where were greens in this play. If you read "Apocalypse Never" you'll find nat-gas and more broadly fossil fuel interests played and integral role colluding with "renewable energy" lobbying groups/NGOS AGAINST Nuclear. From Sierra Club to NRDC they all invest in nat gas or let nat gas invest in them. This is why Michael Shellenberger and I protested FOR nuclear in front of NRDC building in SF. They were behind the closure of Diablo Canyon and in bed with Nat-gas on the move.
Are you aware that you proved my point about John Kerry and AOC? You mention Diablo Canyon nuclear power; I’ll mention Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant in Japan. We can go down the rabbit hole of nuclear against the rest of the renewables. It sounds like you believe in focusing on nuclear, whereas I think we need to focus on the other renewables for multiple reasons.
I can't speak to the viability of nuclear, but I work in the renewables industry. Without incentives in the form of LCFS, RINS, and tax breaks NONE of these schemes would be more than long term, blue-sky projects in the depths of Gov labs or oil companies. The fact that we have to subsidize renewable fuels speaks for itself as to their ability to be self-financing. What is really galling is that these subsidies come from taxpayers - middle class people - and go to the elite developers. Remember Solyndra? KiOR? and dozens of others? Very many wealthy people got a lot wealthier by their involvement in gov-funded development projects. And most renewable projects have almost NO net impact on GHG (if you believe AGW) since they merely replace fossil CO2 with 'green' CO2; the resulting CO2 increase in the atmosphere is exactly the same. But lots of people buy the propaganda and cry at photos of polar bears on shrinking ice floes (polar bears populations are actually increasing).
“No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.” H.L. Mencken
How about we talk about subsidized before we talk about the rest. Are you aware of this!
"These subsidies are problematic for four key reasons. First, they create market distortions by artificially lowering the price of fossil fuels, which leads to overconsumption, particularly in energy and capital-intensive industries like power and transport. A 2014 study estimated that global fuel subsidies generated $44 billion in deadweight loss each year; over 70% of this came from the four countries with the largest fuel subsidy expenditures (Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Iran, and Indonesia).
Second, production and consumption subsidies create negative externalities. These subsidies increase the use of fossil fuels, which causes a range of adverse environmental and health impacts. Externalities due to air pollution from fossil fuels range between $2.6 trillion to $8.1 trillion globally and are felt most acutely in developing and emerging countries such as Ethiopia, Kenya, Nigeria, and India.
Third, consumption subsidies have also been ineffective in alleviating inequity. Since these subsidies typically do not vary by income, most of the benefits are accrued by wealthier households that already have high consumption levels. In Indonesia, for example, the World Bank found that the richest decile of households consumed 40% of subsidized gasoline, while the poorest decile consumed less than one percent. Instead of subsidies, other policies such as direct benefit transfers have been found to be more effective in achieving developmental objectives.
Finally, subsidies are not the best use of public finances, which can be better directed towards sectors like social protection, healthcare, education, and the environment. The IEA found that 17 out of a sample of 40 countries spent more than two percent of their GDP on consumer energy subsidies in 2017. In Malaysia and Indonesia, government spending on subsidies exceeded that of social programs and services.
So, if subsidies are problematic and alternatives exist, why has reform been so slow? The reality is that fossil fuels, as the incumbent in the energy sector, have had decades of systemic support and have amassed political power. There is also pushback from consumers and producers impacted by the reform.
For consumers, removing consumption subsidies immediately raises the price of energy. And when energy prices increase, the cost of many other goods and services also goes up. Opposition to such inflation is evident by the waves of protest and public unrest in response to an increase in electricity prices in Morocco in 2015 and gasoline price hikes in Mexico in 2017. Knowing this, politicians are unlikely to push for reform since people’s dissatisfaction will negatively impact their chances of reelection."
I generally support your ideas but the LFTR, even if it is eventually finished, will be far from "perfect" and even farther from practical or cheap. We don't need more NPPs that take 30 years to build. G2s can be built in 5 years and we have the expertise on those. We've "perfected" those already. Chinese nuclear power is privatized btw. Their nuclear energy industry IPO was one of the largest in history.
There was some fearmongering a while back about Uranium shortages.. but it's been debunked. A lot of the Thorium was sold with sizzle that didn't match the steak. It could prove to be useful but Thorium can be used in any breeder reactors, it is question of cost of streaming neutrons into Th vs U.
India is working on utilizing their abundant thorium reserves and they are working on a thorium specific breeder plant (not an LFTR).
Breeder reactors are not banned and as far as I know they never were. The non-LFTR thorium reactor in India continues to be constructed. The reason an anti-proliferation angle was played up for thorium has to do with financial hurdles. World Bank will not finance Nuclear Power Plants because of this proliferation risk. It's complicated. There are many ways to used banks to effectively ban energy sources in various countries. Shellenberger discussed that on Megyn Kelly yesterday.
This is so brilliant - and obvious. I'm sure this will be picked up by all major media outlets. I'm sure Lester Holt, CNN and MSNBC will lead with this story. I'm sure Joe Biden will make major energy policy a focus of his SOTU. Yea, right. No, what I'm sure of is the hysterics will continue and Michael Shellenberger will be further branded a climate denier. Sad. Thanks for sharing.
Yeah, but now that we have a *real* crisis note how shrill the Climate Cabal is getting. People are starting to figure it out: why should they hyperventilate about made up climate hobgoblins when they have one for real now and he's not f-ing around?
Shellenberger nails it and underscores the name of this blog with his contribution to Common Sense. As he says, why should we defend Europe from Russia when Europe funds Russia's aggression? It's been 75 years since WW II, Europe's economy is effectively the size of ours, and we're continuing to subsidize their defense? And as for those who feel global warming is an emergency, but who won't embrace zero pollution and reliable baseload nuclear energy, or who won't protest in front of Chinese embassies worldwide given their leadership role in global warming, they display either their cynicism or the failure of their educational training.
Biden is funding Putin's aggression by shutting down so much of US domestic fuel exploration, and production. Barrel of oil was in the mid 30's under Trump and is now over $100/barrel under Biden. Russia gets its money from its oil and gas production. This huge price increase is a windfall for Russia brought on by Biden's disastrous policies.
In order to get to net-zero CO2 by 2050 for the USA, we would have to install one nuclear reactor every week until 2050, that's 1,500 nuclear reactors. For the world, it's about one per day. And yet people talk as if net-zero was possible.
We can never get to net zero CO2 because all animals exhale CO2. Even if all our vehicles were electric powered by nuclear power plants there would be manufacturing which would put CO2 into the atmosphere.
The Greens deny the fact that at various times in the Earth's history CO2 levels have been a great deal higher than how. When CO2 levels are high plants thrive because CO2 is their food. Their exhalation (waste) is O2 (oxygen).
Net zero on fossil CO2 emissions would be impossible too, because that would have to include burning wood, or even cow patties, to produce heat and flames. Not possible to stop that entirely.
“John Kerry, the United States’ climate envoy, perfectly captured the myopia of this view when he said, in the days before the war, that the Russian invasion of Ukraine “could have a profound negative impact on the climate”
—————————————————
Elite Democrats said Trump is a poor person’s idea of what a rich person is. All of those people also think John Kerry is sophisticated.
Read Matt Taibbi's book on Hate Inc... the story of Kerry playing rolling orange games on flilghts. They guy is a goonish child with the intellect to match.
My husband is in the commercial solar industry, and this is exactly what he has been saying. It is simply not possible to fulfill the world's energy needs with green energy for the reasons stated in the article: it is an inconsistent source, and we lack adequate storage capability. Not to mention that not even "green" energy is entirely green, as certainly, there are demands on the environment to produce solar and wind energy and the batteries required to store it. The best solution is to continue to develop solar and wind, but also nuclear and storage. We are at least 10 years away from making a major shift. Natural gas is a cleaner option in the meantime. All that said, it is still a good idea to ditch plastic straws and bags and other highly disposable plastic, much of which ends up in the ocean.
Proving the unfeasibility of current generation solar requires only basic math.
Modern solar panels can generate about 150Wh / day / square foot. The United States uses approximately 4,000 TWh (trillion watt-hours) per year.
Total land area needed to power the entire US power grid on solar panels:
4,000,000,000,000,000 Wh / 150 Wh = about 27 T square feet of panels.
That's about 1M square miles of solar panels -- 1/3rd of all US land. Pave the Mohave from San Diego to Dallas to Salt Lake City and you are still 40% short. And those panels have a max life span of 30-years. This would be like painting the Golden Gate Bridge; by the time you finish, it's time to start again.
And that's before you add all those electric cars we're going to be made to buy to save the Earth.
“Solar’s abundance and potential throughout the United States is staggering: PV panels on just 22,000 square miles of the nation’s total land area – about the size of Lake Michigan – could supply enough electricity to power the entire United States. Solar panels can also be installed on rooftops with essentially no land use impacts, and it is projected that more than one in seven U.S. homes will have a rooftop solar PV system by 2030.”
On top of this, solar energy is not economically competitive with conventional energy sources.
There are many blogs that debunk your math. Ramez Naam has a good one and I assure his math is on point. The issue with solar is grid stability not land mass. Until we have a method to cheaply store energy solar and wind need to rely on nuclear, nat gas, coal, hydro to provide a constant source of energy. In time all renewables and storage will come down in cost so they will more effectively supplement other baseload energy sources.
Plastic waste in the oceans isn't sourced from the US, but from Asia. Fire up Google Earth, and look at some Asian beaches ... not the groomed ones.
Also, the Great Pacific Garbage Patch is a lie. Consider this; if you've ever been to the ocean, look at the piers, there is a 6" layer of barnacles, tube worms and other sessile organisms growing on the piers. The same happens to boats, which have to be cleaned regularly. The same happens to bits of plastic, when then are weighted and sink down to the abyssal depths, ever to return. Remember when then President Obama sent the US Navy to find the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, but couldn't find it? Remember when tsunami debris from Japan washed up on the Pacific Northwest Coast? If there is a Great Pacific Garbage Patch, why doesn't it wash up on the Pacific Coast when debris from Japan does?
Most of the oceanic waste is fishing related and although most is is indeed coming from Asia the west sends Asia our trash so.. keep track of the moving parts here. No evidence any of that waste is the main threat to aquatic life, which is overwhelmingly threatened by overfishing not habitat loss.
I hear Western media ask "how long can Russia sustain its attack ?" in the face of crippling sanctions.
>> Better question - How long can Western Europe stay united in the face of $10 per gallon gasoline and severe shortages of natural gas and coal ?
Like it or not, Europe is addicted to Russian energy products. The Russians have a legendary tolerance for pain. Western Europeans are legendary for their cushy lifestyles and an inability to deal with disruption - they go nuts when the coffee is not made right. As usual, the west is quick to deny reality. Consequently, if I were Ukrainian, I would not count on the sustained support of Western Europe. The west is famous for virtue signaling - not for making real sacrifices.
I wish it were not so, but it seems Putin has the upper-hand.
As soon as a few grannies froze to death with pictures of their decomposing corpses on the front page of every newspaper, the EU would say: "Yes, Mr Putin. Is there anything else we can do for you sir?"
My take: Europe (especially Germany) has given Putin the very rope he'll use to strangle the EU with...
Meanwhile while civilians are targeted and being killed in Ukraine John Kerry wants you to remember how great it is that you drive a Prius...
The US does something similar - let China be a sole source for computer chips and rare earth required for producing them and you end up victimized yourself.
Apparently foresight has been outsourced to China as well...
US shuttered rare earth mineral mines and outsourced that to China. We could reopen those mines. I think Rare Earths Mines now opening in many other countries outside of china now but your point is well taken. Important to know German not only bullied the closure of NPPs in Germany but they exported the anti-nuclear energy ideology and politics throughout the EU.
It's one thing to mine the ore, another thing to process/refine it into usable materials. If we had any decent leadership they would be throwing all resources behind rebuilding US industrial capacity for things like that. Unfortunately, for those libertarians among us, it will take government subsidies because that's what the Chinese used to capture those industries from us in the first place. Fight fire with fire. Look at what Pat Gelsinger is doing at Intel: you have to be bold and make the necessary investments, while expecting and weathering the short term market losses, to have a chance to compete.
well.. Intel invested heavily in PR. Nuclear was very bad at that but they were up against lots of powerful forces. The rare earth mines were shuttered in the US because they drove enviros nuts. It's not the cleanest.. in fact REM is kind of the worst.. so we outsourced many such dirty industries to China and as China achieves a higher standard of living they will in turn outsource dirty industries to Africa and Latin America. I don't think the outsourcing is very simple. Automation was the largest cause of job loss for the past 30 years not outsourcing. Some jobs are coming back from abroad but to be frank Pennsylvania doensn' want Steel anymore. This is kind of a common pattern. Most states have moved on to cleaner industry.
We shuttered mines because China uses very cheap labor and we could not compete. They also don't mind the pollution that comes with the mining and refining.
Wow...I am enjoying seeing so many liberals, like Michael Shellenberger, express and adopt conservative positions on key issues. Refreshing. Common sense, indeed.
Like I tell my kids, if you just go with what conservatives are saying, you'll be right 90% of the time. We have a good track record. Leftists' and liberals' track record is much worse.
Conservatives don't force anyone to go in lockstep. They don't cancel people although way back in the olden times if you did something egregious you were shunned from decent society. Conservatives ask you to think for yourself and make up your own mind. Base your decisions on the most reliable facts you can gather and be prepared to update as you gain new information. Conservatives respect the wisdom of our forebears, and when it is proven they have been wrong we make changes for that one thing they did wrong, not the entire culture and civilization.
The West addiction isn't just to energy that someone else provides, it's addiction to cheap goods from China and the rest of the Third World. As US sets records in balance of payments imports, Russia and China set records the other way. US every day becomes more and more an importer using borrowed dollars. In the end, this is poverty.
Also, it's not just energy, Russia is largest exporter of wheat and uranium and second largest exporter of sawn lumber.
Finally the world has three new suspect and unpopular leaders at US, Britain and Germany (just 2 months), And it's easy for them to sing with a media echo chamber the Disney "kill the beast, kill the beast, kill the beast" rather than diplomacy or stopping the zero interest rate rape of their own citizens.
fossil is over 1/2 of their GDP but you are correct in that Russia used propaganda to demonize non-organic goods and effectively placed themselves as the cornucopia of Europe. It was easier however for Europe to stick to sanction on ag exports after the 2014 incident. Europe sought ag elsewhere and China buys most Russia ag exports.
Germany shutting down its nuclear power stations was an insane move.
What about the children tho
It remains mostly hysterical females driving anti-nuclear sentiment. https://morningconsult.com/2015/05/24/men-and-women-divided-on-nuclear-power/
Girls!
It is a combo of inherited traits, the big 5, and the fact that women are targeted by activists/companies peddling fear. Same trend organic companies use to terrify women about "chemicals in food". Solar is "clean" and "safe" like a sunny day. Nuclear kills babies. How dare you!
But the mere mention that there is a difference between men and women makes you an apostate, a villain, a monster. Good work!
Lobsters
Interesting POV, but you seem to be blaming women for nuclear policy failures. However, the Morning Consult article you link to highlights women's uncertainty and indecisiveness:
"Ann Bisconti, a public opinion expert at Bisconti Research who has been conducting surveys on nuclear energy for more than three decades, said in an interview that Morning Consult’s poll results were consistent with what she had seen.
“Women do not feel as informed about these issues as men do,” she said. Conversely, “men think they have more information, but they don’t.”
Bisconti pointed out that while women tend to be more skeptical of nuclear power, they’re mostly just fence-sitting. “More than 50 percent of women either somewhat support or somewhat oppose increasing nuclear power generation,” she noted, adding that many women were undecided. That analysis is consistent with Morning Consult’s findings:
A more detailed look at the results shows that most women fall in the middle, with 28 percent somewhat supporting more nuclear, and 25 percent somewhat opposing it.
Men were also more opinionated; 40 percent of men either strongly supported or strongly opposed getting more electricity from nuclear power, compared to 26 percent of women. Likewise, 20 percent of women had no opinion on the subject, compared to 7 percent of men.“
One can also ask, what does "somewhat opposed" mean? "Somewhat opposed" might mean "mostly in favour". I guess that depends on the questions/answers and how the poll was designed.
I don't have the numbers for what percentage of women are reading Shellenberger's and Weiss's Substacks, but I'm one. I'm interested/curious about nuclear, but if I were to trust school/public library/mainstream media, I'd only see anti-petroleum and anti-nuclear messaging. The press and my government are not run solely by women. We also can't connect the percentages in the article with voter turnout and voter patterns. If governments are making policy decisions based on polls, that's poor governance, not the fault of the people answering the polls.
Using the same logic, I could look at a headline like, "Nearly half of U.S. Sports Fans Would Boycott Their Favourite Team If it Had Commercial Relationship with Russia".
From the same source: "https://morningconsult.com/2022/03/01/sports-russia-ukraine-invasion/" and add that more men than women are US sports fans:
https://news.gallup.com/poll/183689/industry-grows-percentage-sports-fans-steady.aspx
I could claim that men are illogical and hypocritical to boycott Russia, while ignoring expansionist and communist China's commercial involvement in US sports, but I wouldn't blame that set of men or all men for Western governments' inaction on China.
Hi. I think there are many factors at play and I mentioned a big one which is females being targetted by fearmongering companies and activists. The reason why they are targetted are many. The biological traits, nature, may not be the primary reason here, because women are the main spenders in most societies it makes sense to go after them if you are petitioning for donations. I would also say Hollywood and academia play a role. Shellenberger goes into Hollywood's complicity. It is worth noting that many of the most influential dark green anti-nuclear activists are females. This is something I would venn diagrams well with "ecofeminism". I think the anti-capitalist, anti-industrial vitriol of "Silent Spring" is very related to the work of Helen Caldicott, Vandana Shiva, Greta Thunberg, etc. They all have this mission against technology/progress/procreation etc. This is feminist anti-natalism component of dark green activism is fully explored in "Apocalypse Never".
Another factor that might be driving the gendered gap.. is the fact that women are dominating all areas of academia except physics/math/chemistry.
Whatever the reasons all the pro-nuclear NGOs are well aware of the disparity and they hire females to represent them as much as possible.
Here is an example of dark green ecofeminism https://www.dailywire.com/news/the-organization-for-economic-cooperation-and-development-wants-a-gender-sensitive-green-recovery?utm_source=spotim&utm_medium=spotim_recirculation
Surprised no one is discussing that Putin funded German environmentalists to shut down fracking and nuclear, plus used his hackers on anti-fracking and anti-nuclear messaging around Europe. Plus, less secretly, bought tons of lobbying time from Gerhard Schroeder to achieve these goals.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jun/19/russia-secretly-working-with-environmentalists-to-oppose-fracking
Won’t somebody please think about the children!
Catholic priests sure are.
“How dare you!” 🙄
Sorry, Greta. I bow to your wisdom!
Germany and Germans are and have been a stain on the world and on modernity. Best that country freeze w/o fuel. The sooner the better.
Oh my! Deutschland Uber Alles!
Y ep. It is why they need to suffer.
I like that because I’m basically a jerk but I don’t think you’re allowed to say stuff like that 😉
You are allowed to say things like that. Remember-Freedom of Speech? I think it is in the Bill of Rights. Weren't you taught that in school? Oh, yeah. Not anymore. I think patriotism is banned also, unless you are from the Ukraine.
Perfect
Even jerks have freedom of speech so RJF is OK.
It is insane. I understand France is going to do something similar.
Macron announced a major expansion of nuclear sites in early February.
Macron was talking like that, but he reversed course about 3 months ago.
You would be wrong. And stupidly wrong. Don't post shit like that.
It was only recently Macron bucked the longer anti-nuclear trends that gripped France for decades. Chill out.
Fair point.
I have been following Michael Shellenberger for quite some time and found his book enlightening. Energy is such an important issue and the slogans and panic brought about by climate hysterics has deeply damaged our country. Nothing became as clear to me as their anti-nuclear power position. Nuclear is the cleanest, safest, most efficient form of energy that doesn't rely on fossil fuels. So-called "green" energy is the most dangerous to produce and is dependent on fossil fuels. And now our mis-guided energy policies have been used against us by a foreign power, which will impact us for years to come.
The US Navy has used small nuclear power plants for decades with safety. These small nuclear power plants could produce clean energy for our towns and cities.
In fact small modular nuclear power plants are being developed for civilian use. The first ones are to be built at the4 Idaho National Laboratory and installed in Utah.
https://www.ksl.com/article/46715753/utah-based-uamps-pioneers-next-generation-nuclear-technology
that is great but it's a far cry from the Obama admin dream of mass producing Small Modulars to scale then exporting them globally. I think it's safe to say that idea is dead. We are better off going with the larger NPPs designs we know and have used safely to power grids in the US for 4 decades.
It should also be noted that regardless of size the NRC will charge the same yearly amount to license reactors. So why invest in small ones when the fee is $5 million per year to operate anyway?
Thanks for the information.
I've always wondered about that. The Navy has room sized nuclear reactors that power submarines for years on end. The military isn't known for its frugality; is that technology just not financially viable in the outside world?
Personally, I still want my nucleic (man-sized nuclear reactors) force shield Isaac Asimov speculated about.
decades not years and the carriers are nuclear powered as well. NRC and their foreign counterparts don't charge based on size of reactor. NRC requires $5 million/year per reactor so why would anyone build a tiny one ? more bang/buck to invest in one that can power the entire grid until the pay structures/regulatory commissions are altered.
Those are called Small Modular Reactors. Obama was planning on mass producing them.. and he got cold feet after Fukushima.. the whole program was shuttered.
Modern reactors are much less likely to pose a hazard to the public than the old ones built in the '60 and '70s, aren't they?
There are 4 generations and breeders can be gen 2 or gen 3. The gen 4 is LFTR being worked on in china. The gen 3 and 4 are distinct in their "passivity", basically how safely they shut down. I think Nuclear Power is overwhelmingly safe but the pandemic made me think more about scenarios in which everyone gets sick.. in such a scenario you want NPPs that can remain operable without people and NPPS that can power down without a crew. Ideally the LFTRs would be cheap, quick to build etc because those will hopefully crystallize when turned off. A reactor that forms a solid in the case of a meltdown. It's all theoretical until finished. Shellenberger argues G2s are safe and cheaper than "modern reactors", which are extremely prone to overrides and delays. There are trade offs all around but the most important thing to do is debunk the superficial myths about nuclear waste, safety, costs etc. It takes alot of leg work.
No, no government support for development has continued:
https://www.energy.gov/ne/industry-foa-awardees-8
The first ones are to be installed in Utah in 2029 (if all the hurdles can be met).
https://www.ksl.com/article/46715753/utah-based-uamps-pioneers-next-generation-nuclear-technology
Thanks. Good to see that research exists now but my claim was that Obama closed his enthusiasm and investment after Fukushima, which is true. You won't find him touting SMRs after that time period. The funding dried up. Your links point to very recent renewed interest in SMRs. Biden came out in favor of Nuclear. It was a big deal. Trump was very pro-Nuclear. No one gave him credit for that except a few like Shellenberger.
To be fair, the Navy spends a fortune ensuring the safety and reliability of those small nuclear plants. If we brought that same technology and standards to Americans towns and cities, electricity rates would jump.
I live in Illinois, where most of our power is nuclear. We ratepayers spend a lot of boodle keeping those plants operating, especially now that they're 30-40 years old. I'm a big fan of nuclear, but running the plants safely isn't cheap.
The cost of Nuclear depends on the country. The NRC in the US has made nuclear energy prohibitively expensive. You mention safety. I suggest you read "the death footprint of energy" by James Conca, in Forbes and get back to me on which energy is safest and cheapest when you strip away subsidies.
Thanks to the lead to the article, sounds good. I agree that subsidies play a large part in the cost of various energy sources. I would like to see a complete analysis of the unsubsidized cost of each type of energy we use, adding up everything to goes into the production and distribution of each: mining, fracking, construction, maintenance, disposal of waste. But I don't know of any such comparison.
There's also been a lot of advancements in nuclear to make it safer, cheaper, etc. If it expanded, I'd imagine it would make use of these advancements.
those are called lifecycle assessments of energy. James Conca is your man.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/15/the-naked-cost-of-energy-stripping-away-financing-and-subsidies/?sh=689eed805b88
Again, thanks kindly.
i am no expert in life cycle costs, but having witnessed a few over the past 20 years I can say that like all "models" it is garbage in/garbage out. In particular, Conca has some assumptions about life of generating plants. One I know about is hydro. he says 80 years. There are hydros today that are well past that. yes, one needs to provide turbine upgrades, etc., but one needs to be careful about reaching conclusions. To his credit, Conca seems bullish on fossil, but if you are a climate change is CO2 driven so get rid of fossil, then one would look to hydro, with limited places for it, or nukes which really can be placed just about anywhere not at risk of earthquakes.
How much is that from over regulation?
The best way to measure this is globally. Countries with the safest track record on Nuclear Power often have the cheapest cost as well: see France and South Korea. So it's not a direct correlation of cost to safety. Many factors are a play.
No clue, madjack, I'm not well versed in regulatory costs. One problem is defining good regulation vs. over regulation.
Where government trolls are involved, the more regulation the more job security. They're like HOAs and school boards. They have no idea what and what isn't necessary, so the opt for overkill.
It is best to study it globally. Look at which countries have the safest nuclear track record and then compare to costs. It's never a direct correlation. In fact, the cheaper the nuclear energy the better the safety record. Complicated.
Illinois should go green so we can see how it goes. We know how it’s going in Europe.
“No we need a whole of government national approach. A wartime effort to fight this together. For our children’s future and people of color.”
*racks shotgun
California has gone green, and it bites. Power here is the most expensive and least reliable in the nation. Large manufacturers (Intel) won't build here, as a every single outage costs them millions.
Not the most expensive but close. California imports energy from neighboring states so yeah not so green when you account for that. The brownouts are due to bad wiring through the forests. California is like the Germany in that it was ground zero for anti-nuclear energy activism and exported to other states.
I'm in the foothills, so its 34 cents per kWh.
I watch CalIso supply. Imports are the largest energy source every night, surpassing fossil and green. Mostly coal-fired from Nevada. There's a coal fired plant in Nevada solely dedicated to providing power to water pumping to bring Northern California water to LA. That might be 'off the books' as it doesn't feed the grid.
People are not cool with brownouts.
I have some tenants who are great folks but I could tell they were fairly ticked when the fridge broke and they had to throw out their groceries.
($2,000 fridge with Chinese part that malfunctioned)
I’m heavily invested in the pitchfork and torch industry. It’s coming.
Yeah, we had to plunk $1k down on a 2kW Honda generator. These have super clean power, which we wanted for our electronics. In retrospect, for the same money, I should have bought a multi-fuel 8kW less clean power generator and wired it into the house power. We don't necessarily need automatic backup, but I travel a lot, and my wife has to drag out the gen, pour gas, run extension cords, etc. into the house just to run the fridge. With a multi-fuel, we could bring in a propane tank, and run the generator off that, not have to pour gas, or drag out the generator. Plus, to have the ability to throw a switch to get to the generator, and have everything powered. We really only need the refrigerator, but the internet would be nice to have.
If you do get a generator, be sure to run it for half an hour every month. I have a calendar alarm for the first to "run the little engines."
Oh, god, no. I like my nukes just fine. I'm only pointing out that they're not the "cheap power" that some believe.
In fact, having nuclear plants let us ban fracking in Southern Illinois in order to keep the water tables from being poisoned. Our power grid is nuclear, fossil, and wind. It's a pretty good combination, although the nukes are old enough to need replacement. That will be an interesting, um, "full and frank exchange of views."
No water has ever been contaminated by fracking.
One time a water agency ordered frackers to transfer the used fracking water to that agency ... and that agency contaminated it's own water supply.
The same principle that we can safely sequester CO2 proves we can safely frack. Fracking doesn't happen at the surface, but two miles down. Some places on earth are shallow gas fields, shallow coal fields, shallow shale, or shallow oil fields ... yes, these leak methane naturally, and have been leaking methane naturally for thousands of years.
If fracking was getting oil from water table strata that water would already be poisoned.
But it doesn’t.
The same principle that we can safely sequester CO2 gas in oil wells proves that fracking is safe.
Fracking is no more likely to pollute water supplies than plain, old-fashioned oil drilling that has been going on for a hundred years without any big problems. You just have to take some care for how you store the sludge you bring up.
Study this well.
"The naked cost of energy" https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/15/the-naked-cost-of-energy-stripping-away-financing-and-subsidies/?sh=689eed805b88
This is the one you mentioned before? Cool. Thanks for the link.
This is one of the reasons I don't take climate alarmists seriously. If they really cared about reducing carbon emissions as quickly as they say is necessary, they would not be anti-nuclear. Nuclear is literally the only energy source that could replace coal and oil fueled electric plants on the scale that is needed within the time-frame they are screaming about.
I was against nuclear because my understanding was that we don't really know what to do with the nuclear waste. Lately I read that there really isn't much but it's hard to know who to trust. I also think that Michael is ignoring some of the really negative effects of some of his proposals. Fracking is dangerous and poisonous for those who live near it. This is not as simple as he suggests.
compared to the waste of so-called "green" or "clean" energy, nuclear waste is far easier to deal with because it's so compact. I really recommend Shellenberger's book Apocalypse Now where he goes into detail about why this is. What is being ignored by the media and the solar/wind advocates is 1) solar and wind can NOT exist without fossil fuels; 2) solar/wind can not run our country or economy for many reasons; and 3) solar/wind production and waste removal is both extremely dangerous and takes up huge amount of space. But because people in the US don't "see" the massive human and environmental damage that solar produces in other countries, they think it's somehow "clean" or "good." Is energy simple? No -- there will always be trade-offs. But nuclear is by far the cleanest, safest form of energy and it is to our grave detriment that it has been vilified.
All fear of nuclear waste is red herring. Nuclear waste in dry casks has never hurt or killed anyone. https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/06/19/stop-letting-your-ridiculous-fears-of-nuclear-waste-kill-the-planet/?sh=4c0ef56562e2
The micro-abrasives used to polish solar mirrors create a waste product that sterilizes everything it touches.
Nuclear waste can be recycled… but isn’t; by law. Recycling reduces volume and radioactivity. Thank you “No Nukes” and “Greens.” 😒
Bravo! Excellent post.
Well said.
Thanks -- I had a brain fart and called it Apocalypse Now. Argh. It is a great book. I even got 2 of my teen-age kids to read it. My youngest was so interested he did a research paper last year on nuclear energy.
Yes it is, because you have to compare it to the alternatives. All of France's nuclear waste would fit into a large living room. Americans grew up watching inane anti-nuke Hollywood movies and have the science backgrounds of a cephalopod. Nuclear deaths from 3 Mile Island? Zero. Nuclear deaths from Fukushima? Zero. Chernobyl? Definitely, but that's communism. You should have seen their rivers.
I'm pro-nuclear but you are wrong about nuclear waste in France. Maybe living rooms stacked 300 meters high on top of each other... but anyway France utilizes breeder reactors, which reduce waste by reprocessing fuel. The US does not have so many of those NPPS. It should be noted most of the nuclear waste that exists globally and is related to weapons not energy. So basically most of the long storage facitlities aren't housing nuclear energy waste so much as nuclear weapons waste. Documented as opposed to projected deaths from Chernobyl are under 50 BTW. The equation they use for projected deaths is highly contested. It's like saying all those who smoked will die of smoking because the stats show they live an average of 5 minutes, x days less. When you account for lifestyle these projected deaths from radiation become meaningless. Pilots (or anyone in aviation industry) get more radiation than most.. and yet they live longer because they generally exercise more and eat well.
Right you are and I stand corrected. Amazing that France can recycle up to 96% of their radioactive waste, and have already reprocessed enough to run their entire nuclear fleet for 14 years, according to Orano, the French entity in charge of this.
That reactor would never and could never be built in the West.
Now that Biden has put a transgender in charge of nuclear waste the problem has been resolved
😄
Hehehe....
According to 2 EPA studies fracking has not contaminated freshwater in the US. You can read them yourself.
Nuclear waste is a red herring https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/06/19/stop-letting-your-ridiculous-fears-of-nuclear-waste-kill-the-planet/
and finally fearful and irrational women are the primary obstacle to nuclear energy. https://morningconsult.com/2015/05/24/men-and-women-divided-on-nuclear-power/
Fracking is less dangerous than alternatives.
But I’m sure you’ll do your part and stop using petroleum based products; right?
Hear, hear. That - "Fracking is dangerous and poisonous for those who live near it. This is not as simple as he suggests" - was as Gump said, stupid is as stupid does.
👏🏻👏🏻
“Fracking is dangerous and poisonous for those who live near it”
——————————————
*Maury Povich voice
“And THAT was a lie.”
If its safe to sequester CO2 two miles down, then its safe to frack two miles down.
Fracking itself has never polluted any water. Once, a water agency demanded frackers turn over the fracking water to that agency ... which polluted their own water supply. You can't blame the frackers for a bad water agency.
It's a lot of propaganda. Anyone that is against nuclear is misinformed or they have money in "green" energy.
I have Bjorn Lomborg on my list too. After the last 2 years, I seek many viewpoints to clarify what we are being told without cost benefits being presented.
'For all his fawning over Putin...' If you want to control Russia, fawn over Putin the way Trump did:
1. Flooded the world with price-crashing oil,
2. Killed Russian mercenaries in Syria,
3. Sold offensive weapons to Ukraine that Obama/Biden would not,
4. Upped the US defense budget,
5. Bullied NATO to spend $100B for its own defense,
6. Nixed a Russia friendly missile treaty,
7. Killed Soleimani and Baghdadi, and bombed ISIS out of existence,
8. Threatened to bomb Moscow if Putin invaded Ukraine.
If that's fawning, I'll take a micro-chipped soccer ball every day.
Yes but in Helsinki Trump said he didn’t trust our intelligence agencies. He was siding with Putin!!!
(please ignore the fact that our intelligence agencies were actively trying to overthrow the government we elected when he said that)
Really? Does anyone still trust our intelligence agencies now after five years of seeing how polarized and political they are? Trump was correct.
Anyone who trusts our “intelligence agencies” is an idiot. Those are our real threats
And he met in private with Putin! They wouldn't let the press in to hear everything they said to each other! Horrors!
Trump talked softly and carried a very big stick. Biden yells loudly and brandishes an ice cream cone.
Trump never fawned over anyone. He is a smart businessman and he knows the importance of keeping the dialogue open. He can compliment with one hand and then get mighty tough with the other. He's a master at it.
More to the point, he pointed out that Putin was outsmarting idiot leaders of other countries. And he was. That wasn't praise for Putin - it was criticism of Merkel et al.
Please turn on your sarcasm detector.
Exactly. Trump plays both 'good-cop' and 'bad-cop' at the same time. Progressives only see bad cop when he talked about immigration and only 'good cop' when he schmoozed Putin. Think of all the people he chose because they were the best people, and then trashed them when they didn't help him out. He is Machiavellian .... but on our side.
Back in 2015 and 2016 I didn't like Trump. I thought him a grandstander and a charlatan. My adult children switched from Cruz to Trump. I didn't understand why they liked him so much. My daughter said, "Mom, you can judge the quality of a person by their children. Trump's children are excellent." I voted for Trump in 2016 because he was not Hillary. I had followed the Clintons since their campaign in 1992 and the more I learned about them the more I disliked them, particularly Hillary.
I have never regretted my vote for Trump. Not once. He kept all his promises. He appointed the very best people. He is the most investigated person in history and they have found nothing. They have lied and done their best to ruin him and his family but they have found nothing illegal or dishonest. Contrast that with the Bidens. I know what it's like to regret a vote. I voted for Jimmy Carter in 1976 and have regretted that vote every day of my life. I still have clear memories of Jimmy Carter's inflation.
President Trump loves the USA. He admires and respects blue collar workers. He worked tirelessly (4 hours sleep a night) to make life better for everyone person in this country. We had four years of peace, stability and a glowing economy that lifted all boats. (With the exception of the Antifa and BLM riots in blue cities and blue states. Trump believes in Federalism so he didn't order in the National Guard but waited for the governors of those states to invite him to help).
Now all we have is worry. The bunch in the White House are incompetent at best. Scary times. Can we last 3 more years of this?
Exactly! I swear, there should be a whole mental facility created just to help cure some people from Trump Derangement Syndrome.
How about the US sends Trump to negotiate a peace deal with Putin? It would work. And he could promise him lavish Trump Tower hotels in Moscow.
That guy Trump has been involved in negotiating many resort projects, along with beauty pageants all over the world, including some big ones in Russia. He knows how to negotiate with Russia, and has backed out of deals because he didn't like the terms of the Russians.
Notice the Russians didn't pull any shit on his watch, but took slices of Ukraine during previous and past administrations.
Suggesting this is a Logan Act violation on your part. Shame!!
He could be appointed. Hey if John Kerry and Dennis Rodman can do it…
Great post!! Thanks
The Earth doesn't need "healing". Things have never been better. When I was a kid, rivers were so polluted, they caught on fire. LA and Denver had unbreathable air. The highways were lined with garbage. None of those things are true today, and they haven't been for a very long time.
Climate change is only framed as a catastrophic problem by extremist idealogues (who are being played), and by the insanely wealthy elite who profit by encouraging suicidal policy decisions.
What needs healing is the damage caused by the international Left.
Such overwhelming anecdotal evidence obviously proves mother Earth is just fine. I mean, you can’t see the CO2, so what’s the problem? And, oh yes, the left is destroying the world!
That CO2 you can't see has caused about a 15% increase in vegetation around the world. Global warming is good for us since we are still emerging from the last Ice Age and the littel ice age.
Yes, indeed, the plants eat up the CO2 with photosynthesis; in the meantime, polar caps melt, and the ocean warms and expands to flood a large part of the civilized world, but hey, no problem, right?
The oceans are rising about 3 mm/year. It will take 300 years for them to rise even 1 meter - 39 inches. We can readily adapt to that very small increase, if it occurs. So it's all fear-mongering. If you compound the amount of money wasted on various CO2-reducing schemes over 300 years you come up with a huge number.
Those funds should be spend on REAL environmental concerns - like the loss of species and habitats. Each species represents a valuable and unique pool of information that is lost FOREVER when the species goes extinct. While there is scare-mongering in this area as well, we don't even know how many species exist on earth within a factor of 10! 4 million or 40 million?
Built into your math is the assumption that the trend will stay steady; I think that’s a problem!
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-sea-level
Not just LA and Denver. The sky over Louisville, where my family lived, was brown.
Exactly. This is the case with all of the environmental alarmists. Kerry, Gore, DiCaprio, etc, etc.
Don't leave out the Duke of Wales, now there's a guy that knows a thing or two about what's what. Him and Greta.
Duh, yeah, *Prince* of Wales, chuckie-baby
Starting with his combat medals
I wish more people would bring up the way he behaved about that. Never forget.
The press has been very good at sweeping it under 10 carpets
I just researched John Kerry swift boat for a refresher. I suggest everyone take that walk down memory lane.
Subhead is great: "While we banned plastic straws, Russia drilled and doubled nuclear energy production."
It is just like the media fawning over a 14 year old child out of, where, Denmark, about climate change. Taking lessons from children is such a trope of the stupid. You hear it all the time, "listen to the children". Children are, generally, idiots about matters of substance. This is true whether the child is ordinary or on the spectrum. Thunberg became insulated to criticism because she was identified as being on the autism spectrum. Then she shouted at adults, castigated them, screamed, and the MSM lapped it up and anyone who criticized was ostracized. They are great when it comes to unwavering love - given and sought. But they know no science, no policy, nothing about human existence on a global scale. Shame on anyone who fell for this.
The drinking straw thing is another example of this stupidity. A child in California (of course) made some calculations about how many straws are produced and then extrapolated to how many end up in the nostrils of sea turtles. And the Media and the Green Religionists went wild for him. Starbuck changed their business for it.
Stupid. Stupid. Stupid.
In some places, they banned plastic straws wrapped in paper and made far inferior paper straws...wrapped in plastic. 😄 You can't make this shit up.
Agreed. But the navel gazing of our elites goes far beyond plastic straws and solar panels. Ruling classes are always somewhat disconnected, but ours has reached a shocking level of insularity for a supposedly liberal democracy.
You; “This is true whether the child is ordinary or on the spectrum.”
Me; I can’t help but wonder where someone is on the spectrum of humanity, who attacks a young girl?
Yes, that seems to be you. As to the rest of us, who is "attacking" a "young girl"? You did not read, or did not understand my comment. Just so you might figure it out, we were put in a position where we could not oppose what that teenager asserted. Get it yet?
I asked myself whether it was necessary to mention a nine-year-old and a teenage girl to get his point across; in my estimation, it was not; it was a gratuitous act. Then you decided to double down; To what end?
Just catching up here. My point was not about Thunberg. It was about the elites. If you thought it was about her, you might be comfortable among .... the elites.
We listen to micro brains like AOC and John Kerry. Natural gas and nuclear power would have saved tens of millions of lives due to raging energy wars and "greened up" the world at the same time. Not only light water reactors but the LIFTR technologies that the US shelved in the 1970's and China is perfecting right now.
They aren't just pico brains, they are also scoundrels
pico brains, I love that. Mind if I borrow it sometime?
Absolutely, help yourself! Can get down to femto if you wish, always too generous anyhow
Femto brains.
Beat me to it (by 8 hours)
Better. Closer to real size.
How on earth does she get any votes? So if you post makeup tutorials you're now considered an expert on everything?
As Sun Tzu once said: "She who can master contouring can master the world."
Am I mistaken or did she once tweet during a hurricane that if only these people had electric cars they would all be fine? And then took it down when everyone pointed out the obvious holes in her theory. Particularly that there was no electricity. Or sunlight. Did I imagine that? I'm losing track of the gafs.
That does ring a bell. It sounds like something she'd say, but apparently isn't.
https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-aoc-faketweethurricane/fact-check-old-fabricated-ocasio-cortez-tweet-about-hurricanes-and-electric-cars-idUSL1N2Q51ZF
Hmmmm. I guess. I'll take your word for it but I'm usually a little skeptical when it comes from Reuters. Every time I see someone reping them on a talk show you'd think they actually work FOR Biden not independently. Makes me sad :(
You will note that natural gas production has increased:
In 1998 America produced 517,000,000,000 m³
in 2020 America produced 914,000,000,000 m³
Your delusional if you think John Kerry and AOC stop America from producing nuclear power plants; you need to get a grip, me boy!
Kerry could have supported Nuclear many times in his long career and chose not to. The Green New Deal has been altered quite a bit since the first iterations but virtually every anti-nuclear NGO in the US poured their money into AOC and the GND was originally anti-nuclear. This was such a glaring flaw editorial boards from NYT, WAPO, Vox, WSJ etc all came out and said Nuclear was needed to abate GW. GND language and structure soon thereafter changed and gave states more flexibility. It is naive to ignore the massive monied interests dark greens have given progressives like Kerry and AOC. If your argument is that nat-gas displaced Nuclear we agree but you have to ask where were greens in this play. If you read "Apocalypse Never" you'll find nat-gas and more broadly fossil fuel interests played and integral role colluding with "renewable energy" lobbying groups/NGOS AGAINST Nuclear. From Sierra Club to NRDC they all invest in nat gas or let nat gas invest in them. This is why Michael Shellenberger and I protested FOR nuclear in front of NRDC building in SF. They were behind the closure of Diablo Canyon and in bed with Nat-gas on the move.
Are you aware that you proved my point about John Kerry and AOC? You mention Diablo Canyon nuclear power; I’ll mention Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant in Japan. We can go down the rabbit hole of nuclear against the rest of the renewables. It sounds like you believe in focusing on nuclear, whereas I think we need to focus on the other renewables for multiple reasons.
I can't speak to the viability of nuclear, but I work in the renewables industry. Without incentives in the form of LCFS, RINS, and tax breaks NONE of these schemes would be more than long term, blue-sky projects in the depths of Gov labs or oil companies. The fact that we have to subsidize renewable fuels speaks for itself as to their ability to be self-financing. What is really galling is that these subsidies come from taxpayers - middle class people - and go to the elite developers. Remember Solyndra? KiOR? and dozens of others? Very many wealthy people got a lot wealthier by their involvement in gov-funded development projects. And most renewable projects have almost NO net impact on GHG (if you believe AGW) since they merely replace fossil CO2 with 'green' CO2; the resulting CO2 increase in the atmosphere is exactly the same. But lots of people buy the propaganda and cry at photos of polar bears on shrinking ice floes (polar bears populations are actually increasing).
“No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.” H.L. Mencken
How about we talk about subsidized before we talk about the rest. Are you aware of this!
"These subsidies are problematic for four key reasons. First, they create market distortions by artificially lowering the price of fossil fuels, which leads to overconsumption, particularly in energy and capital-intensive industries like power and transport. A 2014 study estimated that global fuel subsidies generated $44 billion in deadweight loss each year; over 70% of this came from the four countries with the largest fuel subsidy expenditures (Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Iran, and Indonesia).
Second, production and consumption subsidies create negative externalities. These subsidies increase the use of fossil fuels, which causes a range of adverse environmental and health impacts. Externalities due to air pollution from fossil fuels range between $2.6 trillion to $8.1 trillion globally and are felt most acutely in developing and emerging countries such as Ethiopia, Kenya, Nigeria, and India.
Third, consumption subsidies have also been ineffective in alleviating inequity. Since these subsidies typically do not vary by income, most of the benefits are accrued by wealthier households that already have high consumption levels. In Indonesia, for example, the World Bank found that the richest decile of households consumed 40% of subsidized gasoline, while the poorest decile consumed less than one percent. Instead of subsidies, other policies such as direct benefit transfers have been found to be more effective in achieving developmental objectives.
Finally, subsidies are not the best use of public finances, which can be better directed towards sectors like social protection, healthcare, education, and the environment. The IEA found that 17 out of a sample of 40 countries spent more than two percent of their GDP on consumer energy subsidies in 2017. In Malaysia and Indonesia, government spending on subsidies exceeded that of social programs and services.
So, if subsidies are problematic and alternatives exist, why has reform been so slow? The reality is that fossil fuels, as the incumbent in the energy sector, have had decades of systemic support and have amassed political power. There is also pushback from consumers and producers impacted by the reform.
For consumers, removing consumption subsidies immediately raises the price of energy. And when energy prices increase, the cost of many other goods and services also goes up. Opposition to such inflation is evident by the waves of protest and public unrest in response to an increase in electricity prices in Morocco in 2015 and gasoline price hikes in Mexico in 2017. Knowing this, politicians are unlikely to push for reform since people’s dissatisfaction will negatively impact their chances of reelection."
https://www.brookings.edu/research/reforming-global-fossil-fuel-subsidies-how-the-united-states-can-restart-international-cooperation/#:~:text=The%20Environmental%20and%20Energy%20Study,revenue%20by%20around%20%2411.5%20billion
I could not agree more.
I generally support your ideas but the LFTR, even if it is eventually finished, will be far from "perfect" and even farther from practical or cheap. We don't need more NPPs that take 30 years to build. G2s can be built in 5 years and we have the expertise on those. We've "perfected" those already. Chinese nuclear power is privatized btw. Their nuclear energy industry IPO was one of the largest in history.
True! However over the longer term Thorium is quite plentiful.
Uranium is plentiful too and it's renewable. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2016/07/01/uranium-seawater-extraction-makes-nuclear-power-completely-renewable/
There was some fearmongering a while back about Uranium shortages.. but it's been debunked. A lot of the Thorium was sold with sizzle that didn't match the steak. It could prove to be useful but Thorium can be used in any breeder reactors, it is question of cost of streaming neutrons into Th vs U.
India is working on utilizing their abundant thorium reserves and they are working on a thorium specific breeder plant (not an LFTR).
What’s the status of breeder reactors? Are they still banned by treaty or does that apply only to plutonium?
Breeder reactors are not banned and as far as I know they never were. The non-LFTR thorium reactor in India continues to be constructed. The reason an anti-proliferation angle was played up for thorium has to do with financial hurdles. World Bank will not finance Nuclear Power Plants because of this proliferation risk. It's complicated. There are many ways to used banks to effectively ban energy sources in various countries. Shellenberger discussed that on Megyn Kelly yesterday.
They want global equity.
The west is too rich.
Your truck is too big and the cruise ships waste food.
They’ve been saying this my whole life.
They are sacks of shit.
This is intentional.
This is so brilliant - and obvious. I'm sure this will be picked up by all major media outlets. I'm sure Lester Holt, CNN and MSNBC will lead with this story. I'm sure Joe Biden will make major energy policy a focus of his SOTU. Yea, right. No, what I'm sure of is the hysterics will continue and Michael Shellenberger will be further branded a climate denier. Sad. Thanks for sharing.
Yeah, but now that we have a *real* crisis note how shrill the Climate Cabal is getting. People are starting to figure it out: why should they hyperventilate about made up climate hobgoblins when they have one for real now and he's not f-ing around?
Shellenberger nails it and underscores the name of this blog with his contribution to Common Sense. As he says, why should we defend Europe from Russia when Europe funds Russia's aggression? It's been 75 years since WW II, Europe's economy is effectively the size of ours, and we're continuing to subsidize their defense? And as for those who feel global warming is an emergency, but who won't embrace zero pollution and reliable baseload nuclear energy, or who won't protest in front of Chinese embassies worldwide given their leadership role in global warming, they display either their cynicism or the failure of their educational training.
Biden is funding Putin's aggression by shutting down so much of US domestic fuel exploration, and production. Barrel of oil was in the mid 30's under Trump and is now over $100/barrel under Biden. Russia gets its money from its oil and gas production. This huge price increase is a windfall for Russia brought on by Biden's disastrous policies.
On purpose.
In order to get to net-zero CO2 by 2050 for the USA, we would have to install one nuclear reactor every week until 2050, that's 1,500 nuclear reactors. For the world, it's about one per day. And yet people talk as if net-zero was possible.
We can never get to net zero CO2 because all animals exhale CO2. Even if all our vehicles were electric powered by nuclear power plants there would be manufacturing which would put CO2 into the atmosphere.
The Greens deny the fact that at various times in the Earth's history CO2 levels have been a great deal higher than how. When CO2 levels are high plants thrive because CO2 is their food. Their exhalation (waste) is O2 (oxygen).
Net-zero means zero net emissions of FOSSIL CO2, not exhalations of cows. But you are correct that there is no way to get to net zero in real terms.
Net zero on fossil CO2 emissions would be impossible too, because that would have to include burning wood, or even cow patties, to produce heat and flames. Not possible to stop that entirely.
“John Kerry, the United States’ climate envoy, perfectly captured the myopia of this view when he said, in the days before the war, that the Russian invasion of Ukraine “could have a profound negative impact on the climate”
—————————————————
Elite Democrats said Trump is a poor person’s idea of what a rich person is. All of those people also think John Kerry is sophisticated.
He is a fucking simpleton, and so are they.
Read Matt Taibbi's book on Hate Inc... the story of Kerry playing rolling orange games on flilghts. They guy is a goonish child with the intellect to match.
My husband is in the commercial solar industry, and this is exactly what he has been saying. It is simply not possible to fulfill the world's energy needs with green energy for the reasons stated in the article: it is an inconsistent source, and we lack adequate storage capability. Not to mention that not even "green" energy is entirely green, as certainly, there are demands on the environment to produce solar and wind energy and the batteries required to store it. The best solution is to continue to develop solar and wind, but also nuclear and storage. We are at least 10 years away from making a major shift. Natural gas is a cleaner option in the meantime. All that said, it is still a good idea to ditch plastic straws and bags and other highly disposable plastic, much of which ends up in the ocean.
Proving the unfeasibility of current generation solar requires only basic math.
Modern solar panels can generate about 150Wh / day / square foot. The United States uses approximately 4,000 TWh (trillion watt-hours) per year.
Total land area needed to power the entire US power grid on solar panels:
4,000,000,000,000,000 Wh / 150 Wh = about 27 T square feet of panels.
That's about 1M square miles of solar panels -- 1/3rd of all US land. Pave the Mohave from San Diego to Dallas to Salt Lake City and you are still 40% short. And those panels have a max life span of 30-years. This would be like painting the Golden Gate Bridge; by the time you finish, it's time to start again.
And that's before you add all those electric cars we're going to be made to buy to save the Earth.
I think there’s a problem with your math!
“Solar’s abundance and potential throughout the United States is staggering: PV panels on just 22,000 square miles of the nation’s total land area – about the size of Lake Michigan – could supply enough electricity to power the entire United States. Solar panels can also be installed on rooftops with essentially no land use impacts, and it is projected that more than one in seven U.S. homes will have a rooftop solar PV system by 2030.”
On top of this, solar energy is not economically competitive with conventional energy sources.
https://www.energy.gov/eere/solar/solar-energy-united-states#:~:text=Solar's%20abundance%20and%20potential%20throughout,power%20the%20entire%20United%20States
There are many blogs that debunk your math. Ramez Naam has a good one and I assure his math is on point. The issue with solar is grid stability not land mass. Until we have a method to cheaply store energy solar and wind need to rely on nuclear, nat gas, coal, hydro to provide a constant source of energy. In time all renewables and storage will come down in cost so they will more effectively supplement other baseload energy sources.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=osJ5_XGnW0s
Plastic waste in the oceans isn't sourced from the US, but from Asia. Fire up Google Earth, and look at some Asian beaches ... not the groomed ones.
Also, the Great Pacific Garbage Patch is a lie. Consider this; if you've ever been to the ocean, look at the piers, there is a 6" layer of barnacles, tube worms and other sessile organisms growing on the piers. The same happens to boats, which have to be cleaned regularly. The same happens to bits of plastic, when then are weighted and sink down to the abyssal depths, ever to return. Remember when then President Obama sent the US Navy to find the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, but couldn't find it? Remember when tsunami debris from Japan washed up on the Pacific Northwest Coast? If there is a Great Pacific Garbage Patch, why doesn't it wash up on the Pacific Coast when debris from Japan does?
Most of the oceanic waste is fishing related and although most is is indeed coming from Asia the west sends Asia our trash so.. keep track of the moving parts here. No evidence any of that waste is the main threat to aquatic life, which is overwhelmingly threatened by overfishing not habitat loss.
QUESTIONS -
I hear Western media ask "how long can Russia sustain its attack ?" in the face of crippling sanctions.
>> Better question - How long can Western Europe stay united in the face of $10 per gallon gasoline and severe shortages of natural gas and coal ?
Like it or not, Europe is addicted to Russian energy products. The Russians have a legendary tolerance for pain. Western Europeans are legendary for their cushy lifestyles and an inability to deal with disruption - they go nuts when the coffee is not made right. As usual, the west is quick to deny reality. Consequently, if I were Ukrainian, I would not count on the sustained support of Western Europe. The west is famous for virtue signaling - not for making real sacrifices.
I wish it were not so, but it seems Putin has the upper-hand.
I cannot "like" this but I think it is spot on.
As soon as a few grannies froze to death with pictures of their decomposing corpses on the front page of every newspaper, the EU would say: "Yes, Mr Putin. Is there anything else we can do for you sir?"
That's what I've been wonderin' as well. In the greater scheme of things, this appears to be a financial war, as much or more than a military one.
My take: Europe (especially Germany) has given Putin the very rope he'll use to strangle the EU with...
Meanwhile while civilians are targeted and being killed in Ukraine John Kerry wants you to remember how great it is that you drive a Prius...
The US does something similar - let China be a sole source for computer chips and rare earth required for producing them and you end up victimized yourself.
Apparently foresight has been outsourced to China as well...
US shuttered rare earth mineral mines and outsourced that to China. We could reopen those mines. I think Rare Earths Mines now opening in many other countries outside of china now but your point is well taken. Important to know German not only bullied the closure of NPPs in Germany but they exported the anti-nuclear energy ideology and politics throughout the EU.
It's one thing to mine the ore, another thing to process/refine it into usable materials. If we had any decent leadership they would be throwing all resources behind rebuilding US industrial capacity for things like that. Unfortunately, for those libertarians among us, it will take government subsidies because that's what the Chinese used to capture those industries from us in the first place. Fight fire with fire. Look at what Pat Gelsinger is doing at Intel: you have to be bold and make the necessary investments, while expecting and weathering the short term market losses, to have a chance to compete.
well.. Intel invested heavily in PR. Nuclear was very bad at that but they were up against lots of powerful forces. The rare earth mines were shuttered in the US because they drove enviros nuts. It's not the cleanest.. in fact REM is kind of the worst.. so we outsourced many such dirty industries to China and as China achieves a higher standard of living they will in turn outsource dirty industries to Africa and Latin America. I don't think the outsourcing is very simple. Automation was the largest cause of job loss for the past 30 years not outsourcing. Some jobs are coming back from abroad but to be frank Pennsylvania doensn' want Steel anymore. This is kind of a common pattern. Most states have moved on to cleaner industry.
We shuttered mines because China uses very cheap labor and we could not compete. They also don't mind the pollution that comes with the mining and refining.
Well, thank you Captain Obvious.
Another liberal shocked to discover what conservatives (and, gasp!, Trump too) have been warning Europe about for years.
Maybe next we’ll hear about the risks of depending on chips from China for everything under the sun?
Yeah, may be. Thinkin' on it, probably not next year or anytime soon. Haha.
Wow...I am enjoying seeing so many liberals, like Michael Shellenberger, express and adopt conservative positions on key issues. Refreshing. Common sense, indeed.
Maybe we aren't so stupid and evil after all??
Like I tell my kids, if you just go with what conservatives are saying, you'll be right 90% of the time. We have a good track record. Leftists' and liberals' track record is much worse.
Conservatives don't force anyone to go in lockstep. They don't cancel people although way back in the olden times if you did something egregious you were shunned from decent society. Conservatives ask you to think for yourself and make up your own mind. Base your decisions on the most reliable facts you can gather and be prepared to update as you gain new information. Conservatives respect the wisdom of our forebears, and when it is proven they have been wrong we make changes for that one thing they did wrong, not the entire culture and civilization.
The West addiction isn't just to energy that someone else provides, it's addiction to cheap goods from China and the rest of the Third World. As US sets records in balance of payments imports, Russia and China set records the other way. US every day becomes more and more an importer using borrowed dollars. In the end, this is poverty.
Also, it's not just energy, Russia is largest exporter of wheat and uranium and second largest exporter of sawn lumber.
Finally the world has three new suspect and unpopular leaders at US, Britain and Germany (just 2 months), And it's easy for them to sing with a media echo chamber the Disney "kill the beast, kill the beast, kill the beast" rather than diplomacy or stopping the zero interest rate rape of their own citizens.
fossil is over 1/2 of their GDP but you are correct in that Russia used propaganda to demonize non-organic goods and effectively placed themselves as the cornucopia of Europe. It was easier however for Europe to stick to sanction on ag exports after the 2014 incident. Europe sought ag elsewhere and China buys most Russia ag exports.