Reply #6: John Hall is still anti-nuclear, he voted for the renewables in the bill [View All]

[bananas]

From the article:

Hall, who faces re-election in November, said wind and solar power, along with other sources of renewable energy, "have been grossly underfunded. ... I could not justify voting against the overwhelming number of really important, positive , environmentally friendly renewable sources of power that are funded under this bill, just to vote against the one that I don't think belongs in there."

Unfortunately, the only way to get the renewable legislation passed is to compromise with the Republicans who don't believe in global warming, they just want unsafe dirty nuclear energy.

You are mischaracterizing his position when you try to put him in the same category as Patrick Moore and the others.

Patrick Moore is a paid shill, he's said he doesn't believe in global warming and that if it's true it's a good thing, he runs a green-washing PR firm "GreenSpirit", he's paid to promote nuclear energy by the Nuclear Energy Institute.

Stewart Brand is extremely misinformed on nuclear energy, he's fallen for the happy talk:

http://www.laweekly.com/2005-11-10/news/green-to-the-core-part-2/2

If there’s a lot Brand hasn’t worked out — he didn’t, for instance, know the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor produced so much waste — no matter; Brand has enormous faith in future engineering and human invention. “It may well be true about the pebble bed and waste,” he allows. “But then, okay, back to the old drawing board!

Well, it is back to the old drawing board, the PBMR was being developed by South Africa and they finally gave up on it because it had so many problems.

The IPCC and MIT used unrealistically low cost estimates for nuclear and concluded that nuclear would maintain about the share of total energy that it has now (an increase because total energy will also increase). In 2009 MIT acknowledged that it's 2003 estimate was absurdly low, but they are still using an unrealistically low estimate.