Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

NNadir

(35,132 posts)
7. Look, I fully recognize that nuclear power will not...
Mon Nov 18, 2024, 03:42 PM
Nov 2024

...save the world, mostly as a result of catcalls from people who address it from the prism of extreme ignorance, coupled with selective attention. It's very similar to the reason that Trump and not Harris is President elect.

As for what is and is not a "dream world" with respect to nuclear energy, the expenditure on nuclear energy this year world wide amounts to 67 billion dollars according to the EIA. The expenditure on so called "renewable energy" this year was 735 billion dollars, not including the 416 billion spent on energy storage and grids.

The combined wind and solar junk according to the EIA produced just 16 Exajoules of primary energy in 2023 combined with wind energy growing zero Exajoules from 2023 and solar by 2 Exajoules to 8. Fossil fuels are growing faster than this junk.

For more than three decades in an atmosphere of catcalls and vituperation from people who know as much about nuclear energy as Magats know about economics, nuclear energy has routinely and reliably produced between 28 and 30 Exajoules of primary energy every year, a figure that all the solar and wind crap ever built, all of which will be landfill in less than 25 years, have never, not once, matched nuclear by providing 28 or 30 Exajoules in as single year. And let's be clear, the main focus of people hyping this expensive and useless (in terms of addressing the extreme global heating that has left the plant in flames) was never and clearly still isn't about addressing fossil fuels. It was and still is about attacking nuclear energy.

It is clearly too late to recover much of what has been lost because of antinuke ignorance. The finest minds of the 20th century developed the technology and lesser minds trashed it in that century and this, so that it could not accomplish what it might have done.

I fully agree it's too late. What's done cannot be undone.

I have my own view of what is and is not delusional. Catcalls addressed at me to my mind define from whom I'm hearing, their intellectual and moral standing which I am in no way compelled to take seriously and for whom no respect can be asked of me.

I spent a lot of my time in the primary scientific literature both for professional reasons and personal concerns about the horror we leave for the future. Having done so, I'm a little jaded with respect to hyping benchtop grant fulfilling research as a "breakthrough" or even as being promising. In my career I've developed a sense about scale-up and the cheering for journalist readings of press releases about benchtop work is just bread and circuses, useful perhaps only a a narcotic salve to kill the pain of an ever more dire reality but otherwise of no value.

Thank you for your observations even if, sorry to say, I am precluded from taking them seriously.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Disel is one of the dirtiest burning fossil fuels GoreWon2000 Nov 2024 #1
Right. More immediately, diesel exhaust can cause heart attacks OKIsItJustMe Nov 2024 #2
No such thing as "clean diesel" GoreWon2000 Nov 2024 #3
Uh, this is not "clean diesel" (like "clean coal.") OKIsItJustMe Nov 2024 #4
It's all snake oil GoreWon2000 Nov 2024 #11
Please go back and read the OP - better yet, follow the links I provided OKIsItJustMe Nov 2024 #12
Curious, where are your schooling and work credentials on this issue? GoreWon2000 Nov 2024 #13
You have obviously mistaken me for an opponent OKIsItJustMe Nov 2024 #14
My engineer father's credentials are totally relevant GoreWon2000 Nov 21 #17
Powering transport with "Green Hydrogen" OKIsItJustMe Nov 2024 #15
Reading articles isn't actual expertise GoreWon2000 Nov 21 #16
I take it your father is recently deceased. You must miss him. I am sorry for your loss. OKIsItJustMe Nov 21 #18
You're NOT an engineer GoreWon2000 Nov 21 #19
Please understand, I do not disrespect your father's credentials. I know you are very proud of them. OKIsItJustMe Nov 21 #20
My engineer father was way ahead GoreWon2000 Nov 22 #21
Your engineering credentials are to make such comments? GoreWon2000 Nov 24 #30
Snake oil would work too! FullySupportDems Nov 23 #27
The fossil fuel that currently creates most electricity will run out GoreWon2000 Nov 23 #24
Permit me to correct you a little. Yes, there is a term "Clean Diesel" in the industry... CoopersDad Nov 22 #22
Bio-diesel is not a solution GoreWon2000 Nov 23 #23
I never said it was a solution. But it's better than fossil fuels until we can do better than we do now. CoopersDad Nov 23 #28
Green hydrogen is the solution GoreWon2000 Nov 24 #29
But bio diesels have much different emissions FullySupportDems Nov 23 #26
Bio-diesel involves growing corn or sugar cane GoreWon2000 Nov 24 #31
I understand, it's not a good use of resources FullySupportDems Nov 25 #32
Wow!!!! We're saved! Of the 11300 CO2 to C2 electrochemical papers... NNadir Nov 2024 #5
No we're not OKIsItJustMe Nov 2024 #6
Look, I fully recognize that nuclear power will not... NNadir Nov 2024 #7
Six words stopped nuclear power OKIsItJustMe Nov 2024 #8
Um no. What stopped nuclear power was selective attention driven by deliberate ignorance driven by propaganda. NNadir Nov 2024 #9
I guess you don't bother to try to understand things you don't want to OKIsItJustMe Nov 2024 #10
Um...um...um..."atoms for peace" prevented, as of 2013, 65 billion tons of carbon dioxide. NNadir Nov 23 #25
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»Washington University: Re...»Reply #7