This includes the nuclear industry. If I were in charge of the nuclear industry or even a part of it, I would avoid such genuflections. They serve no one.
Appeal to the marketing stance of the nuclear industry's efforts to jive with popular but stupid and destructive enthusiasm for so called "renewable energy" does nothing at all to avoid the vast destruction associated with the reactionary pretense of making energy supplies dependent on the weather.
In this case it is merely an effort to change the subject from the very simple question I asked, which I'll repeat in a slightly longer form: Are the trillions of dollars spent on so called "renewable energy" and energy storage in the last decade doing a damned thing to address the extreme global heating crisis before us?
In the last 12 years, 78 new nuclear reactors have been connected to grids around the world at a cost of less than half a trillion dollars, including only two in the United States, the high costs of which can be attributed to the efforts of antinukes to destroy nuclear manufacturing expertise in this country. The US is now 20 to 30 years behind China and Russia in reactor technology, having once been number one. The 78 reactors built, overwhelmingly by Chinese and Russian engineers are producing over three Exajoules of primary energy.
The weak "appeal to authority" argument fails to address whether spending over five trillion dollars on so called "renewable energy" and energy storage infrastructure that will be landfill in two more decades could have shown the result that spending the same amount on nuclear infrastructure that will function for a considerable fraction of a century would have shown.
A very crude calculation, pure BOE, that by multiplying the cost ratio 5/0.5 = 10 we could have added 30 EJ per year to the world energy supply from nuclear, to total 60 as opposed to the miserable coal and gas dependent 16 EJ solar and wind crap produced as of 2023, while tearing the shit out of precious wilderness.
Advocates of so called "renewable energy" are full of shit when they claim to give a rat's ass about climate. The raison d'etre has always been to attack nuclear energy. The Germans destroyed nuclear infrastructure. They didn't ban coal. They embraced coal. The carbon intensity of German electricity borders on criminal.
A little honesty would be appreciated but I certainly can't expect honesty in the age of the big lie. Lying is certainly not the pure province of the orange slime mold in the White House. Antinukes including "I'm not an antinuke" antinukes have a real problem with honesty. I have never met one who seeks to complain about fossil fuels with anywhere near their enthusiasm of their complaints about nuclear. I can't imagine one complaining about "fossil fuel zealots" for example, although very clearly such zealots exist and have, in fact, left the planet in flames. On the other hand they carry on insipidly about purported "nuclear zealots" effortlessly. (I do have a funny story about one of the professors in my son's nuclear engineering department said about zealots in this case a nuclear zealot, but I won't tell it here.)
Have a nice afternoon.
= new reply since forum marked as read