Climate Change Hysteria

Post Reply New Topic

Climate Change: Why is nuclear power plants and hydroelectric dams off the table?

Let's pretend that you are faced with a life-threatening cancer, and your doctors tell you that chemotherapy is the only realistic solution available. Would you take it? Most rational people would say yes.

However, when it comes to energy and climate policy, there is little rationality to be found. People who believe that climate change is an existential threat often reject nuclear power -- the only realistic solution -- in favor of wind and solar despite that they are insufficient to power the planet. An excellent article by Michael Shellenberger explains why.

Consider the amount of land that renewable energy requires. Mr. Shellenberger writes, "Solar farms take 450 times more land than nuclear plants, and wind farms take 700 times more land than natural gas wells, to produce the same amount of energy." No wonder such projects face increasing opposition. People don't want these behemoths in their backyard.

Even worse, Germany already experimented with a policy called Energiewende meant to reduce carbon emissions while simultaneously phasing out nuclear power. It didn't work. Not only was it an outrageously expensive way for Germany to fail to meet its emission targets, the country still relies heavily on coal and has become increasingly reliant on Russia for natural gas. As Foreign Policy noted in one of its characteristically subtle headlines, "Germany Is a Coal-Burning, Gas-Guzzling Climate Change Hypocrite."

Mr. Shellenberger sums up the dilemma perfectly:

All of which raises a question: if renewables can't cheaply power Germany, one of the richest and most technologically advanced countries in the world, how could a developing nation like Kenya ever expect them to allow it to “leapfrog” fossil fuels?

The only way to leapfrog fossil fuels is to use nuclear power. While wind and solar certainly can and should play an important role in regions where it makes sense, neither is suitable for a national energy strategy, let alone a global one. It's time to embrace the truth: Nuclear is the best, carbon-free source of energy we have.

Source: Nuclear Power Is The Only Realistic Option, So We Need A Good Waste Plan

Graham Strouse noted: Indeed, France went nuclear in about 15 years. Sweden, which relies on a mix of nuclear & hydro, de-carbonized most of its grid in about the same time frame. Much smaller country, but impressive nonetheless.

Brian Noury noted: I find it impossibly hard to consider any green proposal as a serious take on the issues when the green movement has been tragically unserious in matters of nuclear energy. The solution has been sitting in our lap for nearly a century, and they twaddle and hope that one day soon, some new combination of renewables will save us.

We are not on the verge of extinction, and I don't believe people should be so alarmist----but I still feel we must be vigilant and look out for ourselves.

We must take preventative, as well as reaction-based, measures.

Even if "climate change" happens not to be man-made---but to be part of a natural geological process--we still must keep an eye on what's occurring within this "change." And we must react accordingly to what potentially could happen, as well as to what actually is happening.

And we should take politics the eff out of it!

The name of this thread should be Climate Crisis Hysteria. I think climate change and climate crisis are two different things. One can believe in climate change without believing in climate crisis, as kraftiekortie demonstrates.

The truth probably lies between climate change denial and climate crisis . How best to avoid a climate crisis becoming real , and yet avoid a bad economic effect on 3rd world countries?

I don't think there is all that much climate change denial, as opposed to not believing there is a major climate crisis.

Nuclear powerplants are very interesting things.

When there's any form of changes here from where I live, people here just smiles and laughs complete with karaoke parties and drinks...

No need for denials and affirmations about the climate and the economy. They'd still launch huge fiestas on the streets.

Gained Number Post Count (1).
Lose Time (n).

Lose more time here - Updates at least once a week.

I don't understand why we're building nuclear weapons instead of nuclear power plants. Whey do we need weapons more than energy. Oh yeah coal & gas industry has WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY too much influence.

MG ... don't get me started ...

No solution is perfect. Hydroelectic dams cause methylmercury poisoning in the water supply.