In the climate alarmists’ worldwide crusade against carbon dioxide gas, only the most delusional still believe that wind and solar power add anything to their arsenal.
As we have said repeatedly, nuclear power is the only stand-alone power generation source which is capable of delivering power on demand, without CO2 emissions being generated in the process.
Perversely, notwithstanding that Australia is in the top three uranium exporters, it’s the only G20 country with a legislated prohibition on nuclear power generation.
The French use nuclear power to generate around 75% of their electricity and they pay around half of what it costs retail customers in wind ‘powered’ South Australia.
Anyone claiming nuclear power is expensive, clearly haven’t been paying attention.
A bit over 12 months back, we reported on one of America’s leading eco-warriors, Michael Shellenberger and his road to Damascus moment.
Michael has turned on wind and solar with a passion and is among America’s leading advocates for an all-atomic energy future.
The reasons for his grand nuclear push are simple: nuclear power generation generates reliable power without generating CO2 gas. Whereas wind and solar are a childish nonsense.
Now, Michael has been joined by a band of climate scientist not only fretting about carbon dioxide gas but equally concerned about ensuring the delivery of reliable power that all-comers can actually afford.
Top Climate Scientists say IPCC bias against nuclear power ‘impedes decarbonization more than climate denial’
Watts Up With That?
Michael Shellenberger
1 November 2018
Some of the scientists most often cited by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have taken the unusual step of warning leaders of G-20 nations that a recent IPCC report uses a double standard when it comes to its treatment of nuclear as compared to renewables.
“The anti-nuclear bias of this latest IPCC release is rather blatant,” said Kerry Emanuel, a climate scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, “and reflects the ideology of the environmental movement. History may record that this was more of an impediment to decarbonization than climate denial.”
Other signers of the letter include Tom Wigley, a widely-cited climate scientist who has contributed to IPCC reports on 13 separate occasions, David Lea, professor of Earth Sciences at University of California, Santa Barbara, and Peter Raven, Winner of the National Medal of Science, 2001.
“Such fear-mongering about nuclear has serious consequences,” the authors write. “As IPCC itself acknowledges, public fears of nuclear are behind the technology’s slower-than-desirable development.
The letter signers include leading radiation experts who expressed outrage that the IPCC had claimed a link between nuclear power stations and leukemia when in reality “there is no valid evidentiary support for it and the supposed connection has been thoroughly dismissed in the literature.” —Watts Up With That?
Read full letter at Stop These Things
Time to re-visit thorium?
So, will we be looking at a small number of large installations, or a larger number of small plants. The US Navy has been using small nuclear power plants in ships for many years, I haven’t heard of a really serious problem yet. I believe that it was after a disaster in Indonesia, the US dispatched an aircraft carrier. “Why are you sending us a military ship?” “Because it’s nuclear power plant can provide the electrical power for your entire city.” About the only down-side to numerous small plants would be security against criminals and terrorists.
350.000.000’000 Pounds to clean up the mess of the nuclear power plants in the UK ,a bargain