22 Nations Commit to Tripling Nuclear Capacity in a Push to Cut Fossil Fuels.

[NNadir]

This is an article in the official anti-nuke paper of record in the New York Times.

22 Countries Pledge to Triple Nuclear Capacity in Push to Cut Fossil Fuels

It mentions the commitment and then lists all of the specious objections by dumb antinukes.

It mentions the cancellation of the NuScale project in Idaho, but not the cancellation of the planned wind crap that was supposed to industrialize the Benthic ecosystem off the East Coast (because of costs).

It repeats the bald faced lie that nuclear energy is slower to build than, um, what, gas plants, coal plants? What exactly?

Let me guess...

Surely they can't mean slower to build than solar and wind, since the nuclear industry has been producing around 30 Exajoules of energy for decades in an atmosphere of vituperation, using infrastructure designed and built largely in the 20th century, and the solar and wind industry in an atmosphere of whipped up enthusiasm and cheering has managed only to produce 15 exajoules of (unreliable) energy at a cost of over 3 trillion dollars, between 2004 and 2019 alone.

The numbers are here: 2023 World Energy Outlook published by the International Energy Agency (IEA), Table A.1a on Page 264.



Costs of solar and wind:

Source: UNEP/Bloomberg: Global Trends in Renewable Energy.

I manually entered the figures in the bar graph in figure 8 to see how much money we've thrown at this destructive affectation since 2004 (up to 2019): It works out to 3.2633 trillion dollars

And of course, the antinuke Times drags out every antinuke airhead on the planet to complain, not about the 7 million people who die each year from air pollution, not the future generations fucked by climate change, but about...who the fuck cares?

The headline is worth reading, the text is not. The New York "...but her emails..." Times doesn't seem to have noticed that the planet is in flames.

The announcement from the US Department of State:

The United States Joins Multinational Declaration to Triple Nuclear Energy Capacity by 2050 to Support Global Climate and Energy Security Goals

Excerpt, listing the nations:

...Endorsing countries include Bulgaria, Canada, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Ghana, Hungary, Japan, Moldova, Mongolia, Morocco, The Netherlands, Poland, Republic of Korea, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, and the United States.

Have a nice day tomorrow.

[dpibel]

1. Nothing quite like arrogance to make a sale

You're clearly a brilliant man.

You do a shit-hideous job of presenting your point of view.

Even if I wanted to agree with you, I'd find it hard to fight past the vituperation.

I'm pretty sure you'll vituperate in response, so I'm all ready for that.

[NNadir]

3. Well, of course...

...I could sing "Kumbaya" while the world burns, and try to charm people into being sensible.

I'm not inclined to agree that this would change the outcome of my efforts a whit. There are some people who have been changed by what I've said, and have written to me to say so. There are also some people who will never change no matter what is presented to them and no matter how it is presented and they are beyond my control.

Most of the people who say that my personality prevents them from doing the right thing do not want or care to do the right thing, something very clear in the framing of this response to my post.

The analogy I often use when I am criticized for not sweet selling is this:

A guy sees someone picking flowers on the railroad tracks as a high speed locomotive heads to that person. He yells, "Hey you fucking asshole, get off the tracks!!!!" to which the flower picker yells back, "Ask me nicely and I'll consider it."

I'm not about to apologize for my anger at a burning world that I know might have been prevented.

The unit, the "Exajoule" - the unit on which energy is scaled on this planet - means what it means, 10¹⁸ Joules, whether it's yelled, screamed, whispered sweetly in one's ear, sung as part of the score of a brilliant choral composition. It is not a changed by tone.

Facts remain facts no matter how they are stated.

A fact: My attitude about nuclear energy changed after Chernobyl, because I looked at the facts associated with the outcome - which were no where near as dire as I'd assumed based on mindless chanting I accepted because, well, those offering seemed so, um, "sweet," and included big time rock stars - the facts did not compare with the expectations I'd accepted by the hysterical but rote predictions of vast disaster. It's now almost 40 years later. What's killing more people in Ukraine, radiation or Putin's fossil fuel based weapons of mass destruction paid for by energy purchases by that coal dependent anti-nuke hellhole Germany?

Climate change is a vast disaster. It is, in fact, the worst environmental disaster ever observed, no matter how much people want to prattle on stupidly about Fukushima as if it mattered on any meaningful scale.

It is fact that the planet is on fire and if one cannot be shaken out of chanting the same rhetoric over and over to ignore this fact, climate change, a fact that threatens a future that does not belong to us, one is probably never going to be useful anyway.

I've convinced one person about whom I care to do something, my son. He's going to be on the front lines; if I weren't an atheist I'd say "God Bless him." He matters. Critics of my personality don't. If I leave nothing else in the world, I leave him and his brother. That's more than "enough."

Anyway, if I may say so, suggesting that I should be nice by noting that I'm "shit-hideous" - a fun locution, I must confess - is hardly leading by example.

DU has an ignore button. If one has no use either for what I say, or how I say it, I can assure one that it works quite well. One can click on my name and push the "ignore" button and never have to hear from me again.

Have a nice life even if we never again chat so pleasantly.

[dpibel]

4. Truly

You make me wonder whether you're right. As I said, you're clearly a massively intelligent, highly educated, apparently knowledgeable person.

But if you can't figure out the difference between (as you represent it) calling you "shit-hideous" and calling your presentation "shit-hideous" (and thank you for the locutional compliment) you're not being terribly convincing about your deep insight.

You can do better!

[dpibel]

7. BTW

Thanks for confirming my prediction that your response would be largely vituperation.

We like when our hypotheses are validated, don't we?

[hunter]

10. If you are not angry you haven't done the math.

Eight billion humans is a large number.

[Eko]

2. Nice, at this point we need to use whatever we can.

The repeated bash of renewables is tiresome though.
Eko.

[dpibel]

5. There is one God and one Mediator

Apparently, nothing short of total nuclear power is acceptable.

No half-measures.

No transitions.

The Nuclear way or the highway.

[Eko]

6. Yup.

Dont waste your breath arguing with them.

[hunter]

8. In a better world we'd be replacing fossil fuel power plants with nuclear power plants as fast as possible.

We'd also be rebuilding our cities, turning them into attractive affordable places where automobile ownership is unnecessary.

[NNadir]

9. Once the infrastructure destroyed by fear and ignorance is restored...

...and some new technologies, notably 3D printing of refractory materials, it should be possible to accelerated the rate of nuclear plants almost in an assembly line fashion.

(3D printed parts have already put in service in a Brown's Ferry reactor.)

The best time to have done this would have been 30 years ago. The 2nd best time is now.

Tripling the nuclear capacity would bring us to 90 EJ per year, helpful to be sure, but hardly enough.