You don’t take half steps to avoid an onrushing train
From the article;
" Nuclear energy is controversial in the climate movement. Presented by energy interests as an acceptable alternative to fossil fuels in a zero emissions future, green groups regularly point out that the cost of nuclear power outweighs any benefits."
" Silent on the issue were Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris , neither of whom responded to questions about their positions
" Sanders is the candidate most opposed to nuclear energy—his plan would refuse to renew leases on plants and calls for investments in renewable energy.
That principled stance from Sanders is far different from Andy Cuomo’s $7.6 Billion bail-out for aged nukes now owned by Excelon Corp of Cjhicago. Cuomo screwed the public and squandered green energy money to enrich Excelon.
" We know that the toxic waste byproducts of nuclear plants are not worth the risks of the technology’s benefit, especially in light of lessons learned from the Fukushima meltdown and the Chernobyl disaster," said Sanders.
No evasions, no BS, no waffling! Bernie Sanders, just dedication to the Common Good and sustainable future! Bernie is the Real Deal!
I guess Greenpeace still hasn’t heard of the Green Party, the party with an actual Green New Deal.
CNN Town Hall - first impressions.
Julian Castro - missed most of his time, but i liked the part that I heard.
Andrew Yang - too tech solution oriented; he puts big emphasis on geo-engineering which is nutty. Don’t agree with his stance encouraging fossil fuel energy export when at the same time he says we have to encourage developing nations to go straight to renewables.
Kamala Harris - clearly climate change is not her issue. Rambling, vague answers overall, though she felt more comfortable on environmental justice. But clearly seemed uncomfortable on the stage…I could feel her relief when her segment ended. Said she opposed nuclear, which is different that the no position report of this article.
Amy Klobuchar - her plans don’t go nearly far enough, but at least she seemed to feel comfortable talking about it.
Joe Biden - 40 minutes of generalities. Never clarified what his plan does in any detail - made me wonder if he even fully understands it. Anderson Cooper annoying with his interjections took time away from Biden, though that probably benefited him.
Bernie Sanders - pretty straight forward responses - he answered the questions presented to him. Solid remarks, but nothing outstanding - kind of like his debate performances. Look at his plans which go into detail on how the work. Seemed like Bernie’s segment was about 5 minutes shorter then the others.
Elizabeth Warren - from what I am seeing, her responses grab emotional attention as well as provide meaty content. Knows her stuff, though the questions she is getting provide good set ups for these kinds of responses.
Bernie is also a moron. Id love for any of these progressives to attempt to explain how renewables would replace 81,654 GWh in Ohio, Massachusetts, Michigan, Iowa, New Jersey, and New York by 2022, and another 48,000 GWh in California and Arizona by 2025 when:
- state data shows it can’t be done
- utility and grid interconnection data shows it can’t be done
- renewable industry data shows it can’t be done
Not to mention the fact that there are a multuide of scientific studies that not only show we should keep existing reactors, but likely increase nuclear generation, including a study Bernie promotes: IPCC 2018 Special Report of impacts of global warming above 1.5 C.
Literally from the IPCC special report (that Bernie constantly refers to, but apparently never read): "In electricity generation, shares of nuclear and fossil fuels with carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS) are modelled to increase in most 1.5°C pathways with no or limited overshoot."
“Renewables and decarbonization: Studies of California, Wisconsin and Germany” https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1040619016300136
“Getting to Zero Carbon Emissions in the Electric Power Sector” https://www.cell.com/joule/fulltext/S2542-4351(18)30562-2
“DEEP DECARBONIZATION OF THE ELECTRIC POWER SECTOR INSIGHTS FROM RECENT LITERATURE” https://www.innovationreform.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/EIRP-Deep-Decarb-Lit-Review-Jenkins-Thernstrom-March-2017.pdf
“Geophysical constraints on the reliability of solar and wind power in the United States”https://cloudfront.escholarship.org/dist/prd/content/qt96315051/qt96315051.pdf
“Reflections—What Would It Take to Reduce U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions 80 Percent by 2050?”https://academic.oup.com/reep/article/11/2/319/3964517
Then of course you even have anti-nuclear organizations who have recently changed their energy plan stances to include that existing nuclear reactors should remain - organizations include:
- Rocky Mountain Institute
- Sierra Club
- Union of Concerned Scientists
- Also interesting that none of the organizations were included in letters of support of the Green New Deal…
“Andrew Yang - too tech solution oriented; he puts big emphasis on geo-engineering which is nutty.” Yes so nutty that no rational person should think about. Except there are literally commercial businesses invested in carbon removal aspects of geo-engineering and there are published articles on the subject from a technical aspect.
“Opinion: Climate policymakers and assessments must get serious about climate engineering”
I’m glad to have watched most of the Town Hall. So much better than the debates. My picks of the day remain, Sanders, Klobuchar and Warren but Biden is out. His disjointed rhetoric and emotional sidestepping is unacceptable. The others remain in my category of “one issue” candidates who won’t attract disillusioned conservative voters. I’m hoping Tim Ryan will comprehend my position on any GND, which so far are incomplete and misguided to my way of thinking as a transportation planner and energy conservation professional. I won’t explain my viewpoint at this time, but all GND proposals so far are bogus. I am however happy that Inslee dropped out.
“Bernie is also a moron”? GFYS “paul”! - explain your contempt for honesty and truth - oh, yeah, you’re a paid or interested propagandist for the energy status quo and nuke industry.
Your obtuse deceit spewing BS irrelevant and deceptive data rubbish is only matched by your abusive nature and contempt for “progressives”…
The issue is not “how renewables can replace nuke power” but how excessive demand and waste in unneeded electrical use can be controlled so those deadly aged plants can be shuttered!
The use of electricity by those who do not give a damn must be controlled, not replaced by renewables! But that kind of obtuse propaganda as toady for the industry is par for your smarmy course.
Those deadly aged plants that have had safety parameters repeatedly lowered by the NRC, can, and should, be shut down (and restored to Greenfield condition) before they cause yet another nuclear disaster, and more leaks into ground water and rivers. The deadly radioactive waste products must also somehow be safely stored until they no-longer are a threat to life and environment!
Your BS propaganda and service to the industry is transparent.
While I disagree with the Bernie name calling, I always appreciate your prolific listing of articles - I really liked one I read in the spring (I need to organize my list of references so I can drop them as links easily).
I’m not sure it makes sense to drop links to articles behind paywalls though (e.g. www.cell.com) - you aren’t going to get many here to read something behind a paywall unless they are already a subscriber.
On the Rocky Mountain Institute, I hadn’t heard from those guys in years, but I used to live in Colorado and heard Amory Lovins speak a few times and was interested to see the article you are referring to about their change of stance on existing nuclear power plants. When I go to rmi.org and search for nuclear, I only find articles that are critical of nuclear power (e.g. https://rmi.org/closing-diablo-canyon-nuclear-plant-will-save-money-carbon/). Do you have a reference for their change of heart? I can try searching for the other 3 groups you list (all of which I have respect for), but if you have links for them too, that would be appreciated.
I try to find sources that provide a free access to scientific studies. However for more recent studies this can be difficult. Ill try to look for a better access to that particular article in question, although there are two avenues you may be able to take that allow you to have access to scientific studies that typically require a paywall:
If you are in university (I am no longer, but can still access my university library portal) you can search for the studies through their library system. Research plays a critical role for professors and students, and these institutions pay a great deal of money to most scientific journals allowing all present and past students free access to any study they search.
There are other sites such as Research Gate that requires a sign-in, in which you can then look up the author of scientific studies and either see their studies or request access directly from the author. Response time varies per person, but this site is inherently scientific minded with the intent to help primarily graduate students, professors, scientists and engineers develop scientific papers and get studies ready for publishing.