Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

NNadir

(33,518 posts)
15. Nuclear power was stopped cold from growing around 1990.
Tue Feb 16, 2021, 11:49 AM
Feb 2021

It did so by appeals to fear and ignorance.

Despite these appeals it has consistently produced about 28 examples of primary energy for more than 30 years using basically 1960s and 1970s technology.

We have just experienced half a century of wild cheering for solar and wind energy. This result was obtained without ever considering why humanity abandoned so called renewable energy beginning in the 19th century.

Jim Hansen calculated in 2013 that at that time, 8 years ago, that nuclear power had prevented 31 billion tons of CO2 emissions, which was equivalent to about a year's worth then. It's much worse now.

After half a century of cheering for wind and solar energy, hoopla about batteries produced on the back of the third world, vast lanthanide mines, steel and aluminum and diesel trucks to haul all this shit into wilderness areas, when has ever the magic solar and wind industry combined produced even 20 exajoules of the 600 exajoules of energy we now consume in a single year?

Of course in 1800 so called renewable energy provided all of humanity's energy needs. Of course, back then, most of humanity, even more so than today, lived short miserable lives of dire poverty despite having less than 1/7th modern population.

I'm very sorry however that I'm not a reactionary. I consider myself progressive in my own way.

The "failure" of nuclear energy to have prevented climate change and hundreds of millions of air pollution deaths since 1990 is not technical. It is social and political.

Engineering does not drive politics. In most cases political decisions drive engineering, for good and for bad.

Humanity made a stupid decision in the period between 1990 and 2000. We are living with the consequences.

Bill Gates on 60 Minutes just now. [View all] c-rational Feb 2021 OP
OK, then how do we deal with nuclear waste? SharonAnn Feb 2021 #1
A hell of a lot more easily than carbon waste Salviati Feb 2021 #2
Recycle as much as you currently can like France Freethinker65 Feb 2021 #3
If we keep going as we are now carbon will cause cataclysmic human carnage. This from c-rational Feb 2021 #5
Latest number on air pollution: 8.7 Million deaths in 2018 progree Feb 2021 #9
Bill Gates also believes in school privatization Merlot Feb 2021 #4
I agree on both counts - school privatization is a bad idea, not just poor, and wealth does not c-rational Feb 2021 #6
His false assertions regarding schools also don't make his assertions about energy false nt Shermann Feb 2021 #7
Global warming might kill billions, nukes might help. Do it. Cicada Feb 2021 #8
And here's the video from 60 Minutes: Rhiannon12866 Feb 2021 #10
And the transcript plus. Warning: the "so-called renewable" energy haters won't like this. progree Feb 2021 #11
If I thought Bill Gates was oracular, it might disturb me. However I don't do... NNadir Feb 2021 #13
I forgot, what were the CO2 atmospheric concentrations at Mauna Loa when the first progree Feb 2021 #14
Nuclear power was stopped cold from growing around 1990. NNadir Feb 2021 #15
Solar and wind didn't become economically competiitve until a few years ago (with subsidies) progree Feb 2021 #16
Yes, electricity prices are wonderful in Texas this morning. NNadir Feb 2021 #18
Oh, and about "expensive..." NNadir Feb 2021 #17
On expense, yup, that was then, this is now progree Feb 2021 #19
So if we replace all fossil fuel and so-called renewable with nuclear at $12 Million/MW, progree Feb 2021 #20
Every nuclear plant built in the US now needs to meet FOAKE costs. NNadir Feb 2021 #21
Nuclear costs have gone way up in France since France built its system progree Feb 2021 #22
China just bought its 50th nuclear plant on line last week. NNadir Feb 2021 #23
Well good for China, maybe you can do your "in this century" thing progree Feb 2021 #24
A gigawatt for a system with 20-30% capacity utilization is not equivalent to a gigawatt... NNadir Feb 2021 #25
"A gigawatt for a system with 20-30% capacity utilization is not equivalent to a gigawatt... progree Feb 2021 #26
Maybe you should write to Bill Gates the reasons why so-called renewables have not worked, progree Feb 2021 #27
No, I couldn't care less what Bill Gates thinks. NNadir Feb 2021 #30
Too bad, he has a lot bigger megaphone and influence than you do, so not giving a shit about progree Feb 2021 #31
I am not talking about the ability to advertise. Trump had a great deal of influence as well. NNadir Feb 2021 #34
By your Mauna Loa criteria, the trillions spent on solar, wind, and nuclear have not even remotely progree Feb 2021 #39
Re: China's impressive statistics, neither of these are: 406 TWh wind, 330 TWh nuclear progree Feb 2021 #28
I remarked on them as energy. We obviously disagree mightily on how impressive less than 2 EJ... NNadir Feb 2021 #32
On reliability differences between nuclear and solar/wind, that's what I was advocating progree Feb 2021 #33
"We obviously disagree mightily" (sigh, here we go again, assuming I thinking something progree Feb 2021 #35
I apologize. I'm not a very bright guy. I interpreted the statement... NNadir Feb 2021 #37
OK. progree Feb 2021 #38
Thank you for all your commentary NNadir. I agree with your position. Difficult to argue with facts c-rational Feb 2021 #29
K & R Duppers Feb 2021 #12
found this on twitter: PETRUS Feb 2021 #36
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»Bill Gates on 60 Minutes ...»Reply #15