Sign up | Login with →

Comments by N Nadir Subscribe

On Why we Need CCS - Part 5: Bridge to a Sustainable Energy Future

Let's see if we can put the following quote from this piece in context of the known history of this planet rather than in terms of a theoretical statement of what we think we "need:"

"Advocates should therefore be very careful when marketing renewables and nuclear energy as primary climate change mitigation mechanisms. Pushing for preferential treatment of these sources is at least just as detrimental to the longer-term sustainability of our planet as it is beneficial. Yes, there are good arguments for wind/solar and nuclear power, clean air and energy security probably being the two most important ones, but when it comes to climate change mitigation, these approaches fall far short of the less ideologically attractive alternatives of CCS and bio."

Humanity right now dumps about 31 billion tons of carbon dioxide into its favorite waste dump, the atmosphere, each year.

Can anyone who claims that we "need" CSS show any place on this earth where a dump for 1 billion of these 31 billion tons is on the drawing board?   Where it is to be sited?   Where the plants to make the carbon capture reagents, be they amines or some other technology, are being built?  

It would appear that we barely understand the toxicology of the oxidation products of CSS amines, and the thermodynamics of the case is at best dubious, since if we don't ban dangerous fossil fuels outright, we will need to burn more of them to capture their waste.

A recent paper in Environ. Sci. Tech. - the current issue in fact - sketches out some part of the former problem Environ. Sci. Technol., 2014, 48 (14), pp 8203–8211 “Comparative in Vitro Toxicity of Nitrosamines and Nitramines Associated with Amine-based Carbon Capture and Storage.”)

If we "need" CSS, we are in a world of hurt.   We may as well declare that we "need" to move the orbit of the planet earth.

I have no faith at all in so called "renewable energy" but I believe that it is far more serious than CSS schemes, all of which are even more Rube Goldberg than the tortured logic of building wind and solar plants and elaborate energy storage devices to prevent them from being more useless than they all ready are.

As for nuclear, it is merely and only the best option we have, although it is very unlikely that it will be do very much to save the world from itself despite its vast superiority to everything else.  It would appear that it is more difficult to overcome fear and ignorance than it is to contain 31 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide each year, every year, for centuries to come.

Even with half a century of viliifcation, with vast supporting resources being drained off to pursue pie-in-the-sky stuff, nuclear is responsible for having prevented about two years worth of carbon dioxide burning, about 64 billion metric tons  (Source: Environ. Sci. Technol., 2013, 47 (9), pp 4889–4895  “Prevented Mortality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Historical and Projected Nuclear Power,”) None of the other vast money sucking schemes for slowing climate change have done as well, despite decades of quixotic support, be they wind, solar, CSS, etc, etc ad nauseum.

Anyone who is minimizing the potential of the world's largest, by far, scalable source of climate change gas free primary energy, nuclear energy, needs to show how their schemes can match the success of nuclear energy within a very short time, since, by glacing at the Maua Loan figures for the concentration of carbon dioxide in the planetary atmosphere, one can clearly see that "time's up."

CSS, by comparison to nuclear, remains a pipe dream, one, in fact, devoid of the necessary pipes.

 

July 22, 2014    View Comment    

On Siva Power's Thin Film Cost Target of 28 Cents per Watt Is Very Ambitious. But Not Impossible

What history shows is that no amount of data and no amount of historical experience will cause the devotees of the dangerous, expensive, failed faith in the solar miracle will cause them to embrace reality.

In 1976, the delusional poorly educated anti-nuke Amory Lovins wrote this in his very stupid article in the social "science" journal "Foreign Affairs."

"...Recent research suggests that a largely or wholly solar economy can be constructed in the United States with straightforward soft technologies that are now demonstrated and now economic or nearly economic." Such a conceptual exercise does not require "exotic" methods such as sea-thermal, hot-dry-rock geothermal, cheap (perhaps organic) photovoltaic, or soIar-thcrmal electric systems. If developed, as some probably will be, these technologies could be convenient, but they are in no way essential for an industrial society operating solely on energy income..."

 Source:  Lovins, Amory, "Energy Strategy:  The Road Not Taken?" Foreign Affairs October 1976, pp 65-96, excerpt taken from page 83.

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/26604/amory-b-lovins/energy-strat...

In the nearly 40 years that have passed since this idiotic remark was published, regrettably for all humanity, this silly fraudulent remark was taken seriously, with trillions of dollars aquandered on the solar scheme - resources diverted from activities which might have done humanity many good things - for no meaningful result.

In this period, more than 100 million people have died from air pollution associated with dangerous fossil fuels and so called "renewable" biomass burning, this while anti-nuke squawked endlessly about nuclear energy with insipid parnoid remarks about waste and safety.

The opening post here, written by a journalist predictably with absolutely no scientific training, is notably oblivious to the fact that many people are concerned that there will not be enough indium and/or gallium on this planet to continue to produce touch screens for computers for the next decade, never mind enough to squander on a quixotic quest to finally produce, after half a century of fraud and obfuscation, just one of the 540 exajoules of energy that humanity consumes each year using solar energy.    Both elements, indium and gallium, are relatively rare, having no primary ores, all being obtained as side products in the mining of other minerals.    Any claim that they will finally produce the chimeric "cheap solar" energy borders, thus, on delusional.

Half a century of similar rhetoric to the stupid rhetoric that the dangerous fossil fuel funded fool Amory Lovins produced in 1976, has lead no real result.   Millions of people continue to die each year from dangerous fossil fuel and biomass waste, and the atmosphere is in the worst shape ever observed. None of the current Lovins like rhetoric is working.   And the next half a century of similar rhetoric I predict also won't work.  

What is being carried out in the name of this "solar will save us" faith is a crime, and the victims of the crime are all future generations.    The entire scheme is based on ignorance not just of science, but of history, and a defender of this faith appealing to "history" is patently absurd.

Have a nice day.

 

July 20, 2014    View Comment    

On Siva Power's Thin Film Cost Target of 28 Cents per Watt Is Very Ambitious. But Not Impossible

The assumption of course, in this claim, is that gallium and indium prices will remain constant.    They will only do so if this technology fails to become significant.    It is of course, a good bet that it will fail to become significant, as many of the tens of thousands of similar claims we've been hearing decade about approaches to making solar affordable have failed to cause the solar scheme to be able to produce even 1% of global energy demand.

It would be very unwise to bet the planetary atmosphere on this technology, which, it seems to me is yet another example of the 50 year history of wishful thinking connected with the solar industy.

Unfortunately the planetary atmosphere has largely been bet on this self same wishful thinking about the solar and wind industries becoming significant, with the result that said atmosphere blew past a concentration 400 ppm of the dangerous fossil fuel waste carbon dioxide without even slowing down.

The solar industry should at least try to produce as much energy as is spent telling the world how great it is.    That hasn't happened, and I very much doubt that it will happen.

Have a great week.

 

July 14, 2014    View Comment    

On CCS Is Not an Option, It's a Requirement (and an Opportunity)

Fossil fuels are only "cheap" when their external costs are dumped on the public - health costs and damage costs - as a huge subsidy.

Including external costs, they would be prohibitively expensive.

However external costs are only added to one extant industry:    Only the nuclear industry is required to monetize its external costs.

If the fossil fuel industry were required to meet nuclear standards, i.e. no one ever be injured at any time by its waste products, or by its operations, it simply wouldn't exist.

Any surrender to the notion that we must have dangerous fossil fuels is myopic and, I think, of questionable morality.   These costs will be paid, probably in blood and suffering mostly, but economically as well, with the majority of the payments falling on future generations to make.

I personally regard CSS approaches to addressing some, but not all, of the external costs of dangerous fossil fuels, as wishful thinking comparable to the silly notion that the "world will go solar."    CSS is a kind of perpetual motion machine - well not exactly - but certainly moving in that direction.     Any attempt to manage dangerous fossil fuel waste using dangerous fossil fuels is by nature self defeating.    It would be better to be done with all of them at once.

We might rapidly be able to phase out petroleum by the hydrogenation of some carbon dioxide, or even better by use of carbonate mediated hydrogen cycles and/or chemical looping, but that won't happen either, but even this would be delaying the inevitable.

My cynical supposition is that we will burn and dump - directly into our favorite dump, the atmosphere - the last atom of carbon we can get away with dumping, before the consequences overwhelm us, as surely they will.

As for biocapacity, 'the biocapacity of what?" is the question to ask.    Thirteen billion hectares of roads, cities and monoculture farms?

The "price" of CO2 is most likely the future.

July 11, 2014    View Comment    

On Critics Say Massachusetts' New Solar Bill Would Create an Unfair Exchange

This is yet another example of the failed, expensive, and toxic solar industry demanding the right to destroy the lives of the poor and indigent for the benefit of the rich.

The solar industry has already ripped nearly a trillion bucks out of the world economy and done nothing, absolutely nothing for the environment, never mind for humanity.

The words "non-discriminatory" are a very cruel joke, since the people who will pay most dearly for this disaster, and the related Cape Wind disaster, are precisely the people who can least endure the resultant electricity rates.

We could save lives and livlihoods by investigating whether or not the Seabrook 2 station in New Hampshire, which was prevented from being completed by fear and ignorance, might feasibly be finished and brought on line.   The reactor would easily produce more energy than all the expensive solar installations in the entire Northeastern United States, more reliably, more cheaply, and since it would not require fracked gas to back it up, nor the processing vast quantities of semi-conductor materials at low energy densities, at an enormously lower cost to the environment.

After 50 years of failure, the only meaningful thing that the solar industry produces in appreciable quantities is hubris.

 

 

July 11, 2014    View Comment    

On Renewables Projected To Add Triple The Capacity Of New Fossil Fuel Plants By 2030

Give.  Me.  A.  Break.

If...if...if...the trillion dollar renewables energy industry can ever produce as much energy as Generation I nuclear reactors, if it ever causes the elimination of the burning of an equal quantity of dangerous fossil fuels as the nuclear industry has, you will have a right to give advice to the nuclear industry about alleged "performance issues."

As it is, you seek to deflect the moral responsibility of sucking up a trillion dollars of precious resources, by claiming - and the so called "renewable energy" industry repeats this bull decade after decade - that the newest and latest data contravenes the last 50 years.  Bull.  Prove it.  Typically, you provide no references for your handwaving claim, other than your own assurance that you are credible and I am not.   I note that a transitory existence of one quarter of reasonable performance does not negate the reality of 100 quarters preceding it.   It's the same old horse manure that the renewables advocates are always handing out, some trash like "Germany produces 75% of its electricity by renewable energy," on some particular friday in some particular summer week, while never paying a whit of heed to the days that it produces 1% of the energy, or 0% of the energy.

Really?   The latest data shows a grand success?   How about you list all of the new coal plants that Germany is cancelling as a result of this data?    How about you and your German friends announce that the coal plant at Weisweiller is being shut because solar and wind are so great?

http://www.carma.org/plant/detail/49187

I don't expect to be accorded with "credibility" by anyone defending the renewables disgrace, since they seem to have a very, very, very, very difficult time understanding what credibility is.  Credibility would involve producing tens of exajoules of clean energy for the expenditure of the vast sums of money the bourgeois consumers in the "renewables will save us" scam have consumed.   It would involve showing progress in reduction of the rate of increase of carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere.

How often do you check the Mauna Loa CO2 observatory for the latest data?   I check it every week.    I assure you humanity is losing, not winning.

From reading this bull you offer about cooling water, I would suggest that you open a very basic engineering text book and learn how power plants work.    No one on the planet thinks that Germany is cancelling coal plants, and the renewable energy industry would die in a New York minute without access to dangerous natural gas.   

Now it happens that the value of a dangerous natural gas combined cycle plant is essentially destroyed - in the combined cycle sense - by the need to shut it down and turn it back on repeatedly every time a clould passes away from or over a toxic array of solar cells, just as it is true that a coal plant is spectacularly less efficient when it is forced to feather up and down simply because the wind is blowing for two hours.   If you want to know about how this is, a very simple experiment would involve trying to boil water while turning the gas off over regular intervals to approach boiling and determining whether this involves burning more or less gas than simply leaving the gas on.

As far I am concerned, the "credibility" of the so called "renewable energy" industry is all wrapped up in the fact that every damn anti-nuke in that bourgeois squad of wishful thinkers hawking solar and wind garbage is working to entrench the gas and coal industries.

There are no countries on the face of this planet that have phased out any dangerous fossil fuel using wind and solar, and no countries that plan to do so.   

As for nuclear power plant design, there are zero anti-nukes who know anything at all about the topic.   They simply circulate sound bites among one another in a grand circle of misinformation and ignorance.

In his seminal book written shortly before he died, Alvin Weinberg, former head of ORNL, wrote of the "First Nuclear Era," describing an era of creativity that no one who is ignorant of the basic tenets of nuclear engineering can possibly comprehend.    Only a tiny subset of possible reactors have been built, and a smaller subset have been commercialized.   With a little more sense we might have been at the dawn of a new age of strength and achievement; but instead find ourselves hashing out insipid 50 year old ideas as if they mattered.

The willful destruction of the intellectual nuclear infrastructure, our nuclear engineering schools, our base of nuclear professionals, our nuclear manufacturing capability is one of the great crimes our generation has perpetuated against future generations.   These infrastructures have been decimated in this country by fear and ignorance that was allowed to thrive as the general disrespect of engineering and science was allowed to entrench itself.    The mere fact that huge tracts of land have been trashed in subservience to the "renewables" fantasy is a reflection of that intellectual decline.

Now the only hope for humanity lies in Asia in Asian nuclear infrastructure.   Congratulations.   You now live in a nation of bean counters even though you were born into a nation of first class scientists and engineers, a nation that built rather than whined.

The fact that we are blowing apart the bedrock under a huge section of this continent to obscure the failure of the renewables industry is something with which all future generations will need to live.

Excuse me if I regard your smug handwaving assurances and "advice" to the nuclear industry - an industry which you give no evidence of knowing anything about - as an emetic.

I hope you have had a happy Fourth.

 

July 6, 2014    View Comment    

On 3 Ways to Make Our Electric System Stronger Using Energy Efficiency

Actually this post is pretty clueless.

One of the participants in this "best and brightest" claim put forth was the California Energy Commission, which posts data on electrical generation on line where any fool (or for that matter, any bright person) can read it.

It's here:  California Electrical Energy Generation by Resource Type

California has been averaging, roughly a consumption of 300,000 GWh per year since around 2008, roughly 50,000 GWh more than it was averaging over a similar period a decade earlier.   

This, represented as average continuous power - something the much ballyhooed (in California and elsewhere) so called "renewable energy industry" is incapable of producing - of 5700 MW, or five very large power plants.

The largest single contributor to electrical energy generation in the state is dangerous natural gas, the waste of which is dumped directly into the planetary atmosphere, which is not to mention the awful short term thinking approach by which this disasterous fuel is mined.

This reliance on dangerous fossil fuels is the signature result of the wishful thinking surrounding the so called "renewable energy" industry.    The wind and solar industry, after consuming huge amounts of land area, blighting it with unsightly unreliable short lived massive structures, can't produce combined, as much energy as Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant produces in one building, reliably, nearly continously, cheaply and cleanly.

Meanwhile California's dangerous fossil fuel waste emissions are rising, not falling.

California doesn't represent a success to be emulated.   It represents a failure to be avoided, this at all costs.

The pernicious, very dangerous, myopic, and ignorant anti-nuke mentality is flourishing precisely at the time when it needs to be stopped dead in its tracks, lest the human race, or a significant portion of it, is stopped dead in its tracks.

This is an economic issue; it is an issue of justice; it is a scientific issue; and above all, an environmental and moral issue.

But the so called "Natural Resources Defense Council" is on the wrong side of this battle to save the planet.   It repeats cant; this in praise of the indefensible.  It never found a desert that should be defended against cadmium laced glass or greasy wind turbines.   It never stops cheering for a clear result that involves the powdering of the continental crust for all time - fracking dangerous natural gas - in order to make the wind and solar industries look like they're working when clearly they are massive, expensive failures that only serve to redistribute wealth from the poor to the rich.   And the NRDC does nothing but kiss up to the anti-nuke mentality, which is dragging humanity to the fossil fuel waste abyss. 

Enjoy the holiday weekend.

July 4, 2014    View Comment    

On Solar Energy at Grid Parity in Utah, a Coal State With No RPS

...And they will continue to ignore their own lies for ever and ever.

In 1976's very stupid paper in "Foreign Affairs" by the anti-nuke Amory Lovins, "The Road Less Travelled" he claimed that as of 1976, solar was at or "almost at" grid parity.

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/26604/amory-b-lovins/energy-strat...

Just shy of four decades later, with hundreds of billions of tons of dangerous fossil fuel having been burned, with the waste dumped into the planetary atmosphere and still, after sucking trillion dollar quantities out of the world economy for no practical  or meaningful result, solar aficinados are still saying the same damn thing.   "Solar has grid parity!!!!"

It is very clear that the people hawking this stuff are not scientists, since when scientists do an experiment, if the experimental results are different than the hypothesis, they reject the hypothesis.    I mean, my kid is in the 9th grade, and of course his teachers have repeated this stuff they learned in the 4th grade.    A scientist, a real scientist, does not simply, after an experiment, particularly one that is a trillion dollar experiment, simply chant the hypothesis over and over and over no matter what the experiment says.

Unfortunately for humanity, Lovins' road was the one that was traveled, and all of humanity is suffering as a result.

The solar scam is faith based; it's become an element of dogma that is nothing if not purely religious.

 

July 4, 2014    View Comment    

On Renewables Projected To Add Triple The Capacity Of New Fossil Fuel Plants By 2030

Unfortunately for humanity, the so called "renewable energy" industry and its adherents are far better at producing soothsaying than they are at producing energy.

How many years, exactly, have we been hearing about how so called "renewable energy" will save us?  How many years in the last century has the amount of carbon dioxide beening indiscrimately dumped into the atomsphere decreased rather than increased?    Two dangerous fossil fuel burning hellholes buying heavily into the renewable fantasy, California and Germany, have increased the amount of dangerous fossil fuel waste they've dumped in each of the last several years.    In the former case, all of the wind and solar plants in the entire state can't produce as much energy as the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant produces - cleanly, safely, without a single loss of life, despite paranoid nearly insane predictions to the contrary - in a single building.

After half a century of similar predictions of "by 2030" or "by 2000" (Amory Lovins, 1976) or "by 2100" and "by 2050" (Greenpeace), the portion of the renewable energy industry represented by the solar and wind industries doesn't even produce 5 of the 540 exajoules humanity consumes each year.    At no time in history has the entire wind and solar industry been able to produce as much energy as is represented by the annual increase in the use of dangerous natural gas, the waste of which is dumped indiscriminately into the planetary atmosphere.

And, of course, the liars in that same industry keep engaging, ever more transparently thankfully, in the fraudulent claim that peak capapcity is a meaningful metric for notoriously unreliable systems that solar and wind represent.    And I note, that the evidence that the lifetime of this toxic stuff is short, so that it's very possible that most or all of the wind and solar plants built in 2000 will be landfill - toxic landfill - in 2030.

What is tragic is the vast amounts of money that have been transferred to the rich from the poor using this shell game of wishful thinking.

Meanwhile, at Mauna Loa, the carbon dioxide readings remained firmly above 400 pm all through May and June.

Heckuva job, anti-nukes.    You must be very, very, very, very, very proud.

July 3, 2014    View Comment    

On HTR-PM: Nuclear-Heated Gas Producing Superheated Steam

One of the interesting things that the Chinese have been exploring for these high temperature reactors is the use of thermochemical hydrogen cycles for water splitting in order to produce industry.    My last look into their program - it goes back a few years  - suggests that they were still looking at the "SI"  (Sulfur Iodine) cycle, although my personal view is that there are many probably easier cycles to use.

I'm not a TRISO kind of guy, myself, but I certainly think that this type of reactor has much to recommend it and I wish China success on it's plan to engage a serious fight against climate change by building a fleet of variable reactors.

People may be interested to know that Dr. Per Peterson at UC Berkeley is working on a molten salt fueled TRISO type reactor.    However he has had little support in the US because of the gas anesthesia by which we conduct what we call "energy policy" and, if I have this right, has been working closely with the Chinese.

http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/People/Per_Peterson

June 30, 2014    View Comment    

On Much Talked About Myths about Renewable Energy

I direct you to one of the world's largest epidemiological studies, which in my view supercedes any blog post, or for that matter, any radio show, since it involves the work of thousands of scientists from a wide array of countries around the world.

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(12)61766-8/abstract

I suggest you look at the list of authors and their institutions before informing me about some guy somewhere who says something that you'd rather believe.    The study reports air pollution deaths as being 7 million per year, a little less than half from dangerous fossil fuels, a little more than half from "renewable" biomass burning.

Epidemiology always involves trade offs and statistical analysis, but cherry picking, for example, Vermont and Maine, which suffer - it's all over the scientific literature - from over reliance (for heating, generally as "distributed energy" renewable biomass burning (wood fireplaces and stoves, and in Maine, wood fired power plants) and announcing that coal pollution doesn't kill people is, frankly, nonsnes.   Uncertainty is a normal aspect of all scientific measurement, but the interpretation of uncertainty is often subject to rather bizarre interpretations by the general public, which in my view is an aspect of a cultural contempt for science because having knowledge is more difficult than believing what one wishes to believe despite all evidence to the contrary.

It is the province of cultural contempt for science, inability to interpret data, fear and ignorance, for instance that allows the very, very, very, very stupid and toxic view that "nuclear energy is dangerous" to enjoy such widespread acceptance.

Frankly though, any argument that coal is safe - or that "clean coal" exists is pretty much as pernicious as the absurd myth that "nuclear energy is dangerous."   Neither argument is supportable by data, comparitive data.

Your comment conflating smoking and air pollution reminds me of my father at the time he was diagnosed with esophogeal cancer.     In my youth, I almost never saw my father drink, and he grew up in Brooklyn and spent his adult life on Long Island, but he pretty much chain smoked, and for as long as I can remember, I warned him that he would get cancer.    When he did so, he announced to me that it wasn't caused by smoking, since it was esophogeal and not lung cancer.     Unfortunately for his argument, his son - that would be me - was equipped with access to the scientific literature and I informed him that epidemiological studies had established that there were three prominent ways to get esophogeal cancer, one was drinking excessively, the other was being a smoker, and the third was living in Pakistan.     I then asked him which applied to him.

For the record, I recall my first visit to Mexico City and when the plane door opened I nearly fell down, the air was so bad.   But even if there are no coal plants in Mexcio, this has nothing to do with whether coal is safe.   It isn't.

Irrespective of other sources of air pollution coal kills people, whenever it is used and the air pollution associated with it is the primary, but hardly the only, mechanism by which it kills.     The pathology of how it does this is well understood, as is the biochemistry of how it does so well understood, and the epidemiology of its effects are also well understood.   Any serious survey of the world sceintific literature will show as much with very little effort on the part of anyone competent to interprets such literature.

It is true, of course, that air pollution is affected by geography, but that doesn't mean anything at all about whether humanity - despite the dissemnination of so much garbage information and the marketing of such disinformation by people who are outliers and who don't understand scientific consensus, or in many cases, or in may cases anything at all about basic science - should work to phase out coal.  

There is no such thing as safe or clean coal, anymore than there are safe cigarettes.

Enjoy the rest of the weekend.

 

June 29, 2014    View Comment    

On Much Talked About Myths about Renewable Energy

Really?

Sometime ago, I analyzed the on line data from the disasterously expensive Mass MOCA solar energy website to show that the system, built with a $700,000 grant and capable of providing as much energy as half an American uses in a year.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/03/01/703151/-Live-From-the-Massachus...

If your mother had been on an electrically powered respirator on December 21, 2008, when the solar system produced zero energy, what would have done?   Relied on the hope that the sun would be bright enough on December 22 to generate enough power to start the thing up if she survived, written a diatribe about "myths" or hoped like hell that someone would turn on a fossil fuel powered generator somewhere, even though the waste would be indiscriminately dumped into the atmosphere assuring that other people in the future would be required to use respirators?

The only myth I could find in your list of  what you described as "myths" is the use of the word "myth" itself.    I regard almost every statement that you described as a "myth" as a truth.

I've been listening to this garbage about how so called "renewable energy" would save us for most of my adult life, and I'm not young.   The most prodigious thing generated by all this expenditure was not energy:  It was complacency and wishful thinking, none of which seems to give pause to reflect on its own history.

What I see is that the dogmatic chanting of this endless pablum about how great so called "renewable energy" is, is that it does nothing but do what humanity is most interested in doing these days, robbing the poor and enriching the rich.    With this in mind, I kind of understand why people would repeat this stuff endlessly, but, as I listen to yet another evocation of the "one true faith" that is not even remotely reality based, I cannot help but think that the future, should it survive us, will not forgive us, nor should it.    We, if not any children or grandchildren who may survive us, deserve what we are going to get.

As the so called "renewable energy" industry sucks trillions of dollars out of the world economy while producing no meaningful result, the atmosphere is being destroyed at an ever accelerating rate.

Wind and solar energy will never be as safe, as clean, as affordable, as sustainable as nuclear energy, something they've been demonstrating for decades, even if people refuse to see it on the basis of seeing only what they want to see, hearing what they want to hear, and believing what they want to believe.

June 27, 2014    View Comment