Rank Hypocrisy: Climate Warriors Not Promoting Nuclear Power Simply Can’t Be Serious

In a post Covid world, anyone railing about carbon dioxide gas and not promoting nuclear power sounds positively unhinged.

If CO2 really was about to destroy the planet, Extinction Rebellion, Greta and her worshippers would be talking about switching to nuclear power like their lives depended on it.

Instead, for reasons that escape the logical and rational, we’re told that the only way forward is backwards: ie a life dependent upon the time of day and the weather.

Climate alarmists railing about carbon dioxide gas and not talking about nuclear power generation, can’t be taken seriously. Nuclear power is the only stand-alone power generation source that does not emit carbon dioxide gas during the process.

Whatever your views on climate change, the idea that trying to run modern, civil societies on sunshine and breezes might somehow prevent it is, of course, a complete nonsense.

Norman Rogers details the grotesque hypocrisy of those attempting to force us all to run on sunshine and breezes.

Nuclear to Replace Wind and Solar
American Thinker
Norman Rogers
13 August 2020

In the words of James Hansen, the scientist most responsible for promoting global warming, wind and solar are “grotesque” solutions for reducing CO2 emissions. Michael Shellenberger, a prominent activist, has the same opinion. Hansen and Shellenberger, as well as many other global warming activists, have come to the conclusion that nuclear energy is the only viable method of reducing CO2 emissions from the generation of electricity.

Nuclear reactors don’t emit CO2. Coal and natural gas do.  Hydroelectric electricity does not emit CO2 either, but opportunities for expansion are limited. In the United States most of the good sites have already been developed.

Wind and solar are grotesque because there are many problems. Promoters of wind and solar simply lie about the problems. Reducing emissions of CO2 by one metric tonne, 1000 kilograms or 2204 pounds, is called a carbon offset. Carbon offsets are bought and sold, usually for less than $10 each.

If you build wind or solar plants to displace electricity from natural gas or coal plants, you will generate carbon offsets. Each carbon offset generated will cost about $60 if electricity from a coal plant is displaced. If electricity from a natural gas plant is displaced the cost per carbon offset will be about $160.  Wind and solar are expensive methods of generating carbon offsets.

Wind and solar are not remotely competitive with coal or natural gas for generating electricity. The promoters of wind and solar lie about this constantly, claiming that they are close to competitive. The lies have two major components. They ignore or misrepresent the massive subsidies that wind and solar get, amounting to 75% of the cost. Then they compare the subsidized cost of wind or solar with the total cost of gas or coal. But wind or solar can’t replace existing fossil fuel infrastructure because they are erratic sources of electricity.

The existing infrastructure has to be retained when you add wind or solar, because sometimes the wind doesn’t blow or the sun doesn’t shine. The only fair comparison to the compare to total cost of wind or solar per kilowatt hour (kWh) with the marginal cost of gas or coal electricity. That marginal cost is essentially the cost of the fuel.

The only economic benefit of wind or solar is reducing fuel consumption in existing fossil fuel plants. It is hard to build wind or solar installations that generate electricity for less than 8-cents per kWh, but the cost of the fuel, for either gas or coal, is about 2-cents per kWh. Wind and solar cost four times too much to be competitive.

Wind and solar run into difficulty if they are the source of more than about 25% of the electricity in a grid. Getting to 50% generally involves adding expensive batteries, further destroying the economics and the usefulness for CO2 reduction.

The only justification for wind and solar is the reduction of CO2 emissions, but wind and soar are limited and costly for this purpose. CO2-free nuclear energy can be both economical and practical. That, clearly is the reason why prominent global warming activists are advocating nuclear, rather than wind and solar to alleviate the supposed global warming crisis.

Neither nuclear nor coal is currently cost competitive with natural gas. It’s not that nuclear or coal are so expensive as it is that natural gas, thanks to fracking, is incredibly cheap. Gas that cost more than $10 per MMBtu (million British thermal units) a decade ago, now costs less than $2. Gas-generating plants are very cheap to build and incredibly efficient. A gas plant using a combination of a gas turbine and a steam turbine can turn 65% of the energy in the gas into electricity. By contrast a coal plant struggles to reach 40%.

Both coal and nuclear are handicapped by well-organized and unprincipled political opposition from the Sierra Club and similar organizations. The Sierra Club hates natural gas too, but most of their efforts go into scaring people with the imaginary danger of coal. The Sierra Club doesn’t need to expend much effort scaring people with nuclear because the nuclear industry has already been destroyed in the U.S. thanks to previous efforts of the environmental movement.

Coal and nuclear have one very important advantage over gas. They have fuel on site to continue operating if fuel deliveries are interrupted. For coal this is around 30 days, for nuclear more than a year. Some gas plants can temporarily use oil from local tanks, but in most cases that won’t last long. Gas deliveries can be interrupted by pipeline failure or sabotage. The pumping stations on natural gas pipelines are increasingly powered by electricity, rather than gas, creating a circular firing squad effect.

Nuclear electricity is a young industry with a big future. That future is materializing in Asia given the successful propaganda campaign to make people afraid of nuclear in the U.S. and in much of Europe. Nuclear fuel is extremely cheap, around four times cheaper than gas or coal.

Nuclear reactors don’t have smokestacks and they don’t emit CO2. New designs will dramatically lower costs, increase safety and effectively remove most of the objections to nuclear. It is an incredible contradiction that most environmental organizations advocate wind and solar and demonize nuclear. In the future nuclear may be cost competitive with natural gas.

It is an intellectual and economic failure that the 30 U.S. states with policies designed to reduce CO2 emissions, called renewable portfolio standards, mostly explicitly exclude nuclear power as part of the plan. Instead they effectively mandate wind and solar. There are signs of reform as some states have provided support to prevent nuclear power stations from being closed.

The global warming hysteria movement is surely one of the most successful junk science campaigns ever launched. Predicting a catastrophe is a great way for a science establishment to gain fame and money. The many responsible scientists that object are attacked, if not fired.  Money trumps ethics every time. The environmental movement needs looming catastrophes too, so they act as PR men for the science establishment.

The tragedy is that our legislators swallow these lies and waste billions on boondoggles like wind and solar. It is ironic that increasing the CO2 in the atmosphere has a bountiful effect on plant growth, greening the Earth and increasing agricultural production. Rather than a threat, CO2 is a boon.

If you still believe in the global warming hysteria movement, you should face reality and dump wind and solar for nuclear.  Wind and solar are not appropriate for the problem they are assigned to solve. Nuclear is.
American Thinker

About stopthesethings

We are a group of citizens concerned about the rapid spread of industrial wind power generation installations across Australia.

Comments

  1. Jacqueline Rovensky says:

    We are in the midst of a mass indoctrination probably at a level never seen before. People who should know better and be able to understand what is happening have been affected.
    It’s worse than any ‘Religious’ cult indoctrination, because it is affecting masses of people across the globe with those who try to counter it being destroyed socially and financially.
    While it has this hold every country which has a Government infected cannot prosper, only those Governments which control their population with an iron fist seem to be able to weather it and prosper.
    As industry in many country’s is failing in others it seems to be prospering appearing to be due to being big producers of ‘Renewable’ machinery to export to the indoctrinated world, all while installing and utilising massive new coal fired power generators to enable the cheap continued production of those items the world seeks, to enable them to fulfil their desire to do as their ‘lords and masters’ the leaders of the ‘Renewable” cult movement require of them.
    These are not sold cheaply to the world but sold and installed at vast profit to those who seek to isolate themselves from the indoctrination, becoming very wealthy at the same time, while the poor stupid fools who have fallen for the false stories of imminent disaster and the end of the world as we know it – well they are right about the end of the world as we know it, if we do not manage to get into Government people who have been able to put up a wall between themselves and the ‘Renewable’ cult.
    Until then all we can do is keep pushing the truth and seeking media outlets to be aware of their responsibility to help counter this ‘cults’ false warbling’s.
    Hard, I known when they have trouble even printing Letters to the Editor coming from people who wish to have their right to be heard met. just because it is not in line with the ‘cults’ desires.

  2. Bruce Gooderham says:

    This sunshine & breeze electricity has nothing to do with climate change, it’s all to do with taking wealth off ordinary people that live on this planet and landing the accumulated wealth ( money ) into the hands of of the boys and girls at the top end of the planet so that they can RULE us all with the IRON ROD, that’s the only change. The climate change weasel scumbags will be cast aside and ruled with the same ROD as everyone else and may be worse for them.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: