The Guardian gets something right

Monlion

Well-Known Member
Jul 9, 2001
1,263
1,387
1
A powerful form of clean energy already exists – and it is far more reliable than wind and solar

On 30 April, the Indian Point nuclear power plant 30 miles north of New York City was shut down. For decades the facility provided the overwhelming majority of the city’s carbon-free electricity as well as good union jobs for almost a thousand people. Federal regulators had deemed the plant perfectly safe.

New York’s governor, Andrew Cuomo, a key figure behind the move, said that the shuttering of Indian Point brought us “a big step closer to achieving our aggressive clean energy goals”. It’s hard to reconcile that optimism with the data that’s recently come out. The first full month without the plant has seen a 46% increase in the average carbon intensity of statewide electric generation compared to when Indian Point was fully operational. New York replaced clean energy from Indian Point with fossil fuel sources like natural gas.

It’s a nightmare we should have seen coming. In Germany, nuclear power formed around a third of the country’s power generation in 2000, when a Green party-spearheaded campaign managed to secure the gradual closure of plants, citing health and safety concerns. Last year, that share fell to 11%, with all remaining stations scheduled to close by next year. A recent paper found that the last two decades of phased nuclear closures led to an increase in CO2 emissions of 36.3 megatons a year – with the increased air pollution potentially killing 1,100 people annually.

So why, given the stakes of global warming, is there still so much hostility to nuclear power?

Some of the paranoia is no doubt rooted in cold war-era associations of peaceful nuclear power with dangerous nuclear weaponry. We can and should separate these two, just like we are able to separate nuclear bombs from nuclear medicine. And we should also push back against popular narratives around Chernobyl and other disasters that simply aren’t replicable with modern technology.

Other objections to nuclear power, like its reliance on mining, are also not unique to nuclear. Renewables require destructive extraction to unearth lithium and other critical minerals. The answer to those concerns is simple: we should demand environmental and labor regulations from the state and defend good working conditions as our primary consideration.

 

83wuzme

Well-Known Member
Apr 27, 2005
13,276
12,456
1
I keep saying it, but renewables have their problems and the biggest one is energy storage. You can build all of the wind farms you want and put solar panels on every roof, but without integrated, large capacity storage, you will always have unreliable energy.
 

bourbon n blues

Well-Known Member
Nov 20, 2019
21,783
25,360
1
A powerful form of clean energy already exists – and it is far more reliable than wind and solar

On 30 April, the Indian Point nuclear power plant 30 miles north of New York City was shut down. For decades the facility provided the overwhelming majority of the city’s carbon-free electricity as well as good union jobs for almost a thousand people. Federal regulators had deemed the plant perfectly safe.

New York’s governor, Andrew Cuomo, a key figure behind the move, said that the shuttering of Indian Point brought us “a big step closer to achieving our aggressive clean energy goals”. It’s hard to reconcile that optimism with the data that’s recently come out. The first full month without the plant has seen a 46% increase in the average carbon intensity of statewide electric generation compared to when Indian Point was fully operational. New York replaced clean energy from Indian Point with fossil fuel sources like natural gas.

It’s a nightmare we should have seen coming. In Germany, nuclear power formed around a third of the country’s power generation in 2000, when a Green party-spearheaded campaign managed to secure the gradual closure of plants, citing health and safety concerns. Last year, that share fell to 11%, with all remaining stations scheduled to close by next year. A recent paper found that the last two decades of phased nuclear closures led to an increase in CO2 emissions of 36.3 megatons a year – with the increased air pollution potentially killing 1,100 people annually.

So why, given the stakes of global warming, is there still so much hostility to nuclear power?

Some of the paranoia is no doubt rooted in cold war-era associations of peaceful nuclear power with dangerous nuclear weaponry. We can and should separate these two, just like we are able to separate nuclear bombs from nuclear medicine. And we should also push back against popular narratives around Chernobyl and other disasters that simply aren’t replicable with modern technology.

Other objections to nuclear power, like its reliance on mining, are also not unique to nuclear. Renewables require destructive extraction to unearth lithium and other critical minerals. The answer to those concerns is simple: we should demand environmental and labor regulations from the state and defend good working conditions as our primary consideration.

Kid is in the nuclear energy and yeah.
 

The Spin Meister

Well-Known Member
Nov 27, 2012
24,291
28,003
1
An altered state
A powerful form of clean energy already exists – and it is far more reliable than wind and solar

On 30 April, the Indian Point nuclear power plant 30 miles north of New York City was shut down. For decades the facility provided the overwhelming majority of the city’s carbon-free electricity as well as good union jobs for almost a thousand people. Federal regulators had deemed the plant perfectly safe.

New York’s governor, Andrew Cuomo, a key figure behind the move, said that the shuttering of Indian Point brought us “a big step closer to achieving our aggressive clean energy goals”. It’s hard to reconcile that optimism with the data that’s recently come out. The first full month without the plant has seen a 46% increase in the average carbon intensity of statewide electric generation compared to when Indian Point was fully operational. New York replaced clean energy from Indian Point with fossil fuel sources like natural gas.

It’s a nightmare we should have seen coming. In Germany, nuclear power formed around a third of the country’s power generation in 2000, when a Green party-spearheaded campaign managed to secure the gradual closure of plants, citing health and safety concerns. Last year, that share fell to 11%, with all remaining stations scheduled to close by next year. A recent paper found that the last two decades of phased nuclear closures led to an increase in CO2 emissions of 36.3 megatons a year – with the increased air pollution potentially killing 1,100 people annually.

So why, given the stakes of global warming, is there still so much hostility to nuclear power?

Some of the paranoia is no doubt rooted in cold war-era associations of peaceful nuclear power with dangerous nuclear weaponry. We can and should separate these two, just like we are able to separate nuclear bombs from nuclear medicine. And we should also push back against popular narratives around Chernobyl and other disasters that simply aren’t replicable with modern technology.

Other objections to nuclear power, like its reliance on mining, are also not unique to nuclear. Renewables require destructive extraction to unearth lithium and other critical minerals. The answer to those concerns is simple: we should demand environmental and labor regulations from the state and defend good working conditions as our primary consideration.

It continues to amaze me how progressive policies always get the exact opposite of their stated goals.
 

bourbon n blues

Well-Known Member
Nov 20, 2019
21,783
25,360
1
Kid is in the nuclear energy and yeah.
they don't want clean energy, they want control If you look deep into any of these organizations or movements, they want power and control. Stop thinking in a rational way and countering them solely with logic, you need to also hit back at their agenda. Call them anti science, Luddites, say they want people to die. Because their crazy goals will achieve that if we don't stop them.
 

olelion

Well-Known Member
Jun 10, 2001
5,398
2,771
1
Tarpon Springs Fl
"Other objections to nuclear power, like its reliance on mining, are also not unique to nuclear. Renewables require destructive extraction to unearth lithium and other critical minerals. The answer to those concerns is simple: we should demand environmental and labor regulations from the state and defend good working conditions as our primary consideration."

Give me a phucking break. Do you think those environmental and labor laws don't exist? If you believe they don't then you are an uninformed fool
 
  • Like
Reactions: bourbon n blues

Obliviax

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 21, 2001
108,095
57,770
1
A powerful form of clean energy already exists – and it is far more reliable than wind and solar

On 30 April, the Indian Point nuclear power plant 30 miles north of New York City was shut down. For decades the facility provided the overwhelming majority of the city’s carbon-free electricity as well as good union jobs for almost a thousand people. Federal regulators had deemed the plant perfectly safe.

New York’s governor, Andrew Cuomo, a key figure behind the move, said that the shuttering of Indian Point brought us “a big step closer to achieving our aggressive clean energy goals”. It’s hard to reconcile that optimism with the data that’s recently come out. The first full month without the plant has seen a 46% increase in the average carbon intensity of statewide electric generation compared to when Indian Point was fully operational. New York replaced clean energy from Indian Point with fossil fuel sources like natural gas.

It’s a nightmare we should have seen coming. In Germany, nuclear power formed around a third of the country’s power generation in 2000, when a Green party-spearheaded campaign managed to secure the gradual closure of plants, citing health and safety concerns. Last year, that share fell to 11%, with all remaining stations scheduled to close by next year. A recent paper found that the last two decades of phased nuclear closures led to an increase in CO2 emissions of 36.3 megatons a year – with the increased air pollution potentially killing 1,100 people annually.

So why, given the stakes of global warming, is there still so much hostility to nuclear power?

Some of the paranoia is no doubt rooted in cold war-era associations of peaceful nuclear power with dangerous nuclear weaponry. We can and should separate these two, just like we are able to separate nuclear bombs from nuclear medicine. And we should also push back against popular narratives around Chernobyl and other disasters that simply aren’t replicable with modern technology.

Other objections to nuclear power, like its reliance on mining, are also not unique to nuclear. Renewables require destructive extraction to unearth lithium and other critical minerals. The answer to those concerns is simple: we should demand environmental and labor regulations from the state and defend good working conditions as our primary consideration.

You've obviously never seen the 1979 movie "The China Syndrome". We need to continue to drive public policy based on 70's and 80's movies because they are the best source of information.

MV5BZTc1NTk3ZDktNjE5Ni00Mzc3LWFmZmYtNjI3MmQ4ZmQ0NTYyL2ltYWdlL2ltYWdlXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyNTA1NDY3NzY@._V1_.jpg
 

Monlion

Well-Known Member
Jul 9, 2001
1,263
1,387
1
"Other objections to nuclear power, like its reliance on mining, are also not unique to nuclear. Renewables require destructive extraction to unearth lithium and other critical minerals. The answer to those concerns is simple: we should demand environmental and labor regulations from the state and defend good working conditions as our primary consideration."

Give me a phucking break. Do you think those environmental and labor laws don't exist? If you believe they don't then you are an uninformed fool
The author and the Guardian probably felt they had to throw the environmentalist a bone.
 

LionDeNittany

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
45,887
20,667
1
DFW, TX
You've obviously never seen the 1979 movie "The China Syndrome". We need to continue to drive public policy based on 70's and 80's movies because they are the best source of information.

MV5BZTc1NTk3ZDktNjE5Ni00Mzc3LWFmZmYtNjI3MmQ4ZmQ0NTYyL2ltYWdlL2ltYWdlXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyNTA1NDY3NzY@._V1_.jpg

Pretty good film actually.

It does vastly exaggerate what happens in the case of a meltdown.

On the larger topic the left doesn't really understand that their party is lead by elitists who are billionaires.

PPP, public private partnerships is what it is all about. Get a PE company to Build the facility. Guarantee them future revenue. Taxpayers pay for it over time in considerably higher electricity costs. Rich people get richer. Poor get poorer.

There is a reason most of the billionaires are leftists. It isn't because they care.

LdN
 

bourbon n blues

Well-Known Member
Nov 20, 2019
21,783
25,360
1
Pretty good film actually.

It does vastly exaggerate what happens in the case of a meltdown.

On the larger topic the left doesn't really understand that their party is lead by elitists who are billionaires.

PPP, public private partnerships is what it is all about. Get a PE company to Build the facility. Guarantee them future revenue. Taxpayers pay for it over time in considerably higher electricity costs. Rich people get richer. Poor get poorer.

There is a reason most of the billionaires are leftists. It isn't because they care.

LdN
It's because the system is theirs and they can always safely profit by rigging it in their favor.
 

bourbon n blues

Well-Known Member
Nov 20, 2019
21,783
25,360
1
Pretty good film actually.

It does vastly exaggerate what happens in the case of a meltdown.

On the larger topic the left doesn't really understand that their party is lead by elitists who are billionaires.

PPP, public private partnerships is what it is all about. Get a PE company to Build the facility. Guarantee them future revenue. Taxpayers pay for it over time in considerably higher electricity costs. Rich people get richer. Poor get poorer.

There is a reason most of the billionaires are leftists. It isn't because they care.

LdN
I'll add the big money was right wing app. 40 and more years ago.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LionDeNittany

The Spin Meister

Well-Known Member
Nov 27, 2012
24,291
28,003
1
An altered state
"Other objections to nuclear power, like its reliance on mining, are also not unique to nuclear. Renewables require destructive extraction to unearth lithium and other critical minerals. The answer to those concerns is simple: we should demand environmental and labor regulations from the state and defend good working conditions as our primary consideration."

Give me a phucking break. Do you think those environmental and labor laws don't exist? If you believe they don't then you are an uninformed fool
They don’t exist in most of the countries where these minerals are mined. China and Russia have horrible environmental practices.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Monlion and Ski

olelion

Well-Known Member
Jun 10, 2001
5,398
2,771
1
Tarpon Springs Fl
They don’t exist in most of the countries where these minerals are mined. China and Russia have horrible environmental practices.
A lot of the uranium mining in the former USSR is a process called in situ leaching whereby the uranium is captured from groundwater. I'll avoid the details but it's a very benign method of extraction
 

Monlion

Well-Known Member
Jul 9, 2001
1,263
1,387
1
They don’t exist in most of the countries where these minerals are mined. China and Russia have horrible environmental practices.

Exactly, the amount of mining we would have to do to power this country by renewables is huge making it very unlikely, because of environmental obstructionism, that we will be able to source the required metals and minerals from this country. So what we will do is import what we need from China, Russia and Africa, what could go wrong?

If we transition to renewables, in addition to intermittency and poor capacity value, we will have no control over our energy supply chain, what could go wrong?

With nuclear, we could mine all of the uranium we need in this country requiring much less mining than with renewables. We could also recycle spent fuel rods like in France.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Spin Meister

The Spin Meister

Well-Known Member
Nov 27, 2012
24,291
28,003
1
An altered state
From olelion: A lot of the uranium mining in the former USSR is a process called in situ leaching whereby the uranium is captured from groundwater. I'll avoid the details but it's a very benign method of extraction
interesting stuff. Thanks.