Writing in the New York Times, Peter Thiel remarks:
What’s especially strange about the failed push for renewables is that we already had a practical plan back in the 1960s to become fully carbon-free without any need of wind or solar: nuclear power. But after years of cost overruns, technical challenges and the bizarre coincidence of an accident at Three Mile Island and the 1979 release of the Hollywood horror movie “The China Syndrome,†about a hundred proposed reactors were canceled. If we had kept building, our power grid could have been carbon-free years ago.
Instead, we went in reverse. In 1984, Ohio’s nearly finished William H. Zimmer nuclear plant was abruptly converted into a coal-burning facility: a microcosm of the country’s lurch back toward carbon.
and
The single most important action we can take is thawing a nuclear energy policy that keeps our technology frozen in time. If we are serious about replacing fossil fuels, we are going to need nuclear power, so the choice is stark: We can keep on merely talking about a carbon-free world, or we can go ahead and create one.
Now he tells us. I was saying that forty years ago.
There are two sorts of environmentalists: practical environmentalists who genuinely want to solve the problems caused by our growing need for energy and romantics among whom there is a strong Luddite streak. The latter group are not merely unhappy with technology for producing the problem, they don’t want to use technology to solve it, either. Hence the emphasis on conservation by the poor, a plan which can only succeed if the poor produce enough carbon to make a difference, something of which I’m skeptical.
As I’ve pointed out before, I am not a global warming skeptic. More of an agnostic. I am, however, a global warming remediation plans skeptic. I have yet to see a plan proposed by anybody that will actually solve the problem it is claimed is before us. Show me your plan so I can evaluate it.
I heard the plan on an NPR report just yesterday afternoon: first world countries send money to third world countries.
That ought to do it. Look at the bright side. At least they are being honest about the real objective now, thinly disguised as it is in environmental concerns.
Yes, the luddites exist, I just don’t know what percentage of those interested in climate change they actually represent. If I knew a bunch of people who held those beliefs, I would be more worried about it. Nevertheless, they certainly get a lot of press exposure, so maybe it doesn’t if they are a small group if they have disproportional influence. For my part, I am pretty happy with the incremental changes have seen. Coal being replaced by gas. The cost of solar steadily dropping. Wind power close to equity with fossil fuel power in some areas, even before you count externalities.
Steve
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-change-will-not-be-dangerous-for-a-long-time/
Hate to bear bad news but nuclear isn’t carbon-free. Construction, fueling and maintenance of both the olant and waste are carbon intensive.
Also, the Ridley article in Scientific American is best ignored, being written by a journalist who got nearly everything in it wrong.
For example, he claims overestimates of warming in the first IPCC report twenty-five years ago as a contrarian datapoint while failing to mention the same report claimed no significant melting of the Greenland ice sheet would occur this century; yet fifteen years later significant melting was being observed. Nor does he mention subsequent IPCC reports reduced warming forecasts to the currently observed range, a lie by omission.
Then he claims current IPCC estimates that methane release from our oceans are unlikely this century are evidence there’s nothing to worry about, after, of course, arguing the IPCC can’t get anything right. He even compounds the error by arguing this demonstrates positive feedbacks are of little concern when an objective reading of the IPCC’s work indicates the body has systematically underestimated feedbacks.
C’mon, Ben. Construction of any power plant causes emissions. A team of hamsters turning a wheel to,produce electricity would generate extra carbon dioxide. The point is total life cycle footprint. Dave’s point still stands by any measure or study I’ve ever seen.
As for Ridley, I hold no brief for him, or Scientific American. The point is you can find analyses all over the map if you want. The bottom line is that predictions have been made for some 50 years at least, now. They don’t come true. This is anything but “settled science” and the dishonesty, er, “questionable transparency,” surrounding data gathering, adjustments and reporting would make any real scientist either blush or spit in disgust.
Against such a miserable backdrop, ask qui bono?
No, actually they largely do come true. Since you have at least a bit of a math background, I am surprised you fall for this stuff.