I always hate when nuclear is dumped in with fossil fuels.
The fossil fuel industry has been hamstringing nuclear since the 50s. (the Rockefeller Foundation did some “research” on the safe doses of radiation in the 50s, and then lied and said that there was no safe dose, even though we all swim through a safe dose every day of our lives).
Oil money has then paid for anti-nuclear regulation that makes it almost impossible to build a plant on time and on budget, while also being the wrong regulation to actually make nuclear as safe as it can be.
As an advocate for nuclear power, it’s maddening to see these fossil fuel tactics work time and time again.
Hell, the fossil fuel industry also helped twist the environmentalist movement against nuclear. The Rockefeller foundation helped found Greenpeace, and kept the money flowing for decades with the requirement that Greenpeace fight against nuclear power. Friends of the Earth was directly founded by a West Coast Oil Baron for the express purpose of being an anti-nuclear alternative to the (at the time) pro-nuclear Sierra Club.
All because these ghouls wanted to make just a little more money from Peaker Plants (which are legally allowed to charge exorbitant fees for “emergency” power production)
The current US grid has more Peaker Plants than ever, all because of the fact that wind and solar are intermittent, and yet have priority on the grid. Base load plants don’t handle unplanned changes in power demand well. Peaker Plants become the only option. So either methane or some sort of oil based fuel.
No single thing can stop climate change. Every solution will be required. Nuclear is too expensive and takes too long to build to be a sole solution. There is no “only thing that can stop climate change”.
Nuclear only takes time and is expensive because it has been so hamstrung, building up that industry and expertise takes time. China is popping then it cookie cutter far cheaper. Start building then constantly not only will the price come down significantly, safety will increase.
No. Cost projections for nuclear already factor in expected reductions in cost from efficiency of experience. They still are too expensive and time-consuming to build to be a sole solution even with that.
To be clear, we’re not stopping climate change. The climate has changed.
We want to stop climate change from destroying all of humanity. Unfortunately, many people are OK with climate change destroying some of humanity, because it doesn’t affect them.
I’m also going to quibble with “the scale we need.” What we need and what we want are two different scales, and we can’t even agree to cut back to what we need. I’m not talking about personal accountability, I’m talking about on a global scale, there’s no consensus on the need to produce or consume less. Small things we all do are great, but corporations are at the helm of the ship and they will find a way to sell iceberg chunks to chill cocktails.
Conservatives push for nuclear, not because they actually want it, but because they are hoping to create a big political shitfight that will take years to resolve. It’s a delay tactic, allowing fossil fuels to continue to be profitable for as long as possible.
“Drill, frack, burn coal and pursue nuclear.”
Oy.
I’m donating to the Biden campaign in honor of the Republicans climate positions
I always hate when nuclear is dumped in with fossil fuels.
The fossil fuel industry has been hamstringing nuclear since the 50s. (the Rockefeller Foundation did some “research” on the safe doses of radiation in the 50s, and then lied and said that there was no safe dose, even though we all swim through a safe dose every day of our lives).
Oil money has then paid for anti-nuclear regulation that makes it almost impossible to build a plant on time and on budget, while also being the wrong regulation to actually make nuclear as safe as it can be.
As an advocate for nuclear power, it’s maddening to see these fossil fuel tactics work time and time again.
Hell, the fossil fuel industry also helped twist the environmentalist movement against nuclear. The Rockefeller foundation helped found Greenpeace, and kept the money flowing for decades with the requirement that Greenpeace fight against nuclear power. Friends of the Earth was directly founded by a West Coast Oil Baron for the express purpose of being an anti-nuclear alternative to the (at the time) pro-nuclear Sierra Club.
All because these ghouls wanted to make just a little more money from Peaker Plants (which are legally allowed to charge exorbitant fees for “emergency” power production)
The current US grid has more Peaker Plants than ever, all because of the fact that wind and solar are intermittent, and yet have priority on the grid. Base load plants don’t handle unplanned changes in power demand well. Peaker Plants become the only option. So either methane or some sort of oil based fuel.
Nuclear is the only thing that has a prayer of stopping climate change. It’s the only way we can produce clean energy at the scale we need.
No single thing can stop climate change. Every solution will be required. Nuclear is too expensive and takes too long to build to be a sole solution. There is no “only thing that can stop climate change”.
Nuclear only takes time and is expensive because it has been so hamstrung, building up that industry and expertise takes time. China is popping then it cookie cutter far cheaper. Start building then constantly not only will the price come down significantly, safety will increase.
No. Cost projections for nuclear already factor in expected reductions in cost from efficiency of experience. They still are too expensive and time-consuming to build to be a sole solution even with that.
https://energy.mit.edu/news/building-nuclear-power-plants/
There is simply no silver bullet to be had here.
To be clear, we’re not stopping climate change. The climate has changed.
We want to stop climate change from destroying all of humanity. Unfortunately, many people are OK with climate change destroying some of humanity, because it doesn’t affect them.
I’m also going to quibble with “the scale we need.” What we need and what we want are two different scales, and we can’t even agree to cut back to what we need. I’m not talking about personal accountability, I’m talking about on a global scale, there’s no consensus on the need to produce or consume less. Small things we all do are great, but corporations are at the helm of the ship and they will find a way to sell iceberg chunks to chill cocktails.
Rockefeller has a lot to answet for.
Well the nuclear part is right so at least there’s that.
Conservatives push for nuclear, not because they actually want it, but because they are hoping to create a big political shitfight that will take years to resolve. It’s a delay tactic, allowing fossil fuels to continue to be profitable for as long as possible.
Yada yada broken clock yada yada