Links tagged “nuclear”

Bloomberg Green: "Two-thirds of America's total energy footprint is devoted to transportation fuels produced from agricultural crops, primarily corn grown for ethanol. It requires more land than all other power sources combined but provides just 5% of the nation's energy...The most land-intensive plan eliminates all fossil fuels and nuclear plants." ... 

"Is there even enough open land to build 250 million acres of new wind farms? The short answer is yes, according to estimates from the U.S. Department of Agriculture." ... "If the U.S. wants a carbon-free economy by 2050 using the least amount of land, it will need to rely less on wind and solar and instead build hundreds of nuclear plants and natural gas plants outfitted with systems to capture carbon dioxide."

"By 2050, when Biden wants the entire economy to be carbon free, the U.S. will need up to four additional South Dakotas to develop enough clean power to run all the electric vehicles, factories and more." ... "No matter how you slice it, the U.S. will need to dedicate more land to producing power in an emissions-free future."

Nuclear scored the highest grade of an A, followed by natural gas and coal with C’s. Solar was the only renewable energy source to score higher than an F with a grade of a D, while hydro and wind scored F’s.

Texas gets electricity from six sources: coal, nuclear, natural gas, solar, hydro and wind...Some natural gas pipelines froze, contributing to the blackout. However: "Remarkably, natural gas still generated electricity at 38 percent of its total capacity throughout the energy emergency – providing on average over 65 percent of all electricity generation through Monday and Tuesday – despite roughly 30 GW being inoperable due to frozen pipelines holding up fuel."

It was the “green” energy sources that failed to show up for work: "The three worst-performing generating assets, on the other hand, belonged exclusively to renewable energy sources: solar, hydro, and wind. Had Texas been even more reliant on these energy sources, as renewable energy advocates around the country desire, the energy crisis in Texas would have been even worse."

Solar was irrelevant, and wind virtually irrelevant. - "You can rightfully label wind energy as the most unreliable energy source during the Texas energy crisis." As such, you can rightfully label wind energy as the most unreliable energy source during the Texas energy crisis. While it may not have been the primary cause of the power outages, it certainly wouldn’t have done Texas any good to have more wind capacity on the system. In fact, more wind capacity would have only made things worse.

Shellenberger’s views and his status as a critic of climate change “alarmists” are being embraced by House Republicans, who invited him to testify as their witness at a hearing Tuesday afternoon held by a special climate committee. He pushes ideas that go beyond what other pro-nuclear advocates and Republican supporters propose, envisioning a smaller role, if any at all, for other zero-emission energy sources such as renewables and for technologies to eliminate pollution from fossil fuel plants such as carbon capture.

“Conventional wisdom is we need a mix of nuclear and renewables,” Shellenberger told the Washington Examiner. “There is no technical or economic reason for that.”

Michael Shellenberger on the Biden-Sanders climate plan: "Unscientifically blames climate change for flood, storm, & fire, damage

"Climate change is not making disasters worse. How could it be? *Disasters aren't getting worse.* They are getting better. Deaths from disasters has declined 90+%. Costs of disasters not rising, when one accounts for rising wealth. Just look at Miami Beach"

- Would raise energy prices & increase unemployment

- Would kill off nuclear, largest source of clean nrg

- Would increase killing of bald eagles & whooping cranes

"What you're proposing, @AOC @JohnKerry @JoeBiden @BernieSanders is extremely radical, terrible for workers, and terrible for the environment. And we tried it already. Before the Green New Deal, I helped create the New Apollo Project. It was a disaster." 

Shellenberger: "Nuclear energy and natural gas have reduced carbon emissions far more than solar and wind. Why, then, are the people so apocalyptic about climate change so opposed to them?...Before progressives were apocalyptic about climate change they were apocalyptic about nuclear energy. Then, after the Cold War ended, and the threat of nuclear war declined radically, they found a new vehicle for their secular apocalypse in the form of climate change...

Apocalyptic environmentalists like Sanders, Thunberg, and Extinction Rebellion insist that if we don’t enact their agenda, industrial civilization will come to an end. But if they are so concerned with protecting industrial civilization, why do they advocate solutions that would end it? ...

After all, if nations were to simply use natural gas to transition to nuclear, there would be little need to stop traffic in London, moralize about the virtues of foregoing meat, flying, and driving, or deploy renewables."