How can you exclude nuclear if you are concerned about climate change?

Civil engineer John Bennetts says “show me the numbers”:

(…) After all of these have failed, the next bright spark will again say, “But it’s easy, because wind blows in a low pressure region and the sun shines in the high pressure region” and the whole circular nonsense goes round and round while nothing effective is being done about climate change.

Yes, climate change.

Climate change promises to be the driver of more social upheaval and war and loss and concern than anything that humans have yet seen, but we waste our time trying to devise ways to avoid energy policies which include fair consideration of nuclear sources along with the other options. But we cannot allow nuclear, can we?

Because there is a new religion, a religion called “Renewables”, which forbids consideration of heresies such as the only power sources which can bring this apocalypse to a halt.

This religion distorts the language and avoids the truth. It wastes time and money and diverts the efforts of the many into alleys leading nowhere, so that the few, the true believers, can continue to delude and to be deluded.

No, thanks, I want none of that religion.

I want the freedom to investigate and to work and to plan and to avoid that apocalypse by any means possible.

If, after nuclear options are considered fairly and honestly, they are found to be required as part of the energy mix that emerges as society’s rational goal, then that is what I will want. Full stop.

Until you can clearly and honestly affirm that the absolute cheapest, safest, quickest, least resource-demanding, highest availability, highest reliability, schedulable, power comes from a mix of electrical energy sources excluding nuclear, then please focus on those sources which have those attributes, for they are where the answer will be found.

The answer will certainly not be found in doing things three times over, just to get one partial answer: wind + solar + and mega-transmission, all working part-time and at only 20% capacity, plus or minus a bit. That is not the answer to my question and it will not provide a safer world heading into the 22nd century.

[From Comment on Nuclear energy challenges for the 21st century by John Bennetts]

2 thoughts on “How can you exclude nuclear if you are concerned about climate change?

  1. I find it incredibly depressing when educated, intelligent people argue that we can significantly cut CO2 emissions without nuclear power.
    Or when educated people claim that nuclear power causes huge CO2 emissions. From the all the burning cities, you understand. From the nuclear wars every 30 years caused by nuclear power.

    The silver lining is that all those people are old and dying off. By the end of this decade that crazy anti-nuke religion will be a historical oddity.

  2. By the end of this decade that crazy anti-nuke religion will be a historical oddity.

    Thanks for that – sure hope you are correct.

Comments are closed.