Home | About | Donate

'This Is What Hope Feels Like': Green New Deal Resolution Hailed as 'Watershed Moment' for New Era of Climate Action


#41

the things I’ve written are deliberately simplyfied (its not meant to be technical either) and my slanders against James Hanson aren’t as mean as they should be… however the comment you responded to was deliberately insulting and disrespectful to AVOID any idea of nuclear advocacy but I didn’t want to be disrespectful of the academy, but now it gets REALLY insulting the other comment mostly exists as a tryout to create repeatabable tropes to kill the trolling fission hordes that are savaging the hehe environment of the internet, I’m not doing this alone either.

again, the academically established green agenda is so very dead sic because a few famous PHDS eg James Hanson, James Lovelock and Steward Brand et al handed the keys to everything green to the nuclear lobby (haha thanks a batch dudes) and to make matters worse the troll hordes over at youtube, slashdot etc started trolling the shit out of poor’lil Greta Thunberg… well the trolling hordes are enjoying themselves with „facts“ that are nothing but historical falsification also irrelevant on so many levels, however its unbelievabley tricky for beginners to debunk an armed troll ie an experienced fission hardliner (and this happens to be why I started developing nuclear-troll-killer-tropes like this very paragraph).

the Greta Thunbergs of the worlds somewhen will have to face the ravaging fission hordes in the hehe real world out there wich happens to be hehe inside the internet and such a troll beating can never be academic, it needs to be fundamental, savage and simple!!!

however factual falsification done by myself wouldn’t help Greta either so this is just to counter your argument but NOT to debate anything, its for the sake of the argument so to speak…

…one of the many problem with what the trolls claim about fission is that nobody seriously considered fission as a scalable solution and then James Hanson et al started running around exactly as if that’d be the case haha (pls consider this: if they didn’t think it is scalable as you sir said, then why bother advocating fission in the first place? and if they’d known the topic only a LITTLE they’d better advocated for LFTR but they didn’t even knew about that oh the sorrow oh the shame! James Hanson‘s EXTREME fission zealotism blamaged himself, the academy, science and helped not one)

I’m sorta thankful for your involuntary „feedback" but I don’t want to dabate nuclear fission.

PS i‘m sorry for abusing the comment section of commondreams for my experiment, but I’ll pay extra!!


#42

Ill agree there is a lot of people who support nuclear online that in reality have no idea what they are talking about, but the idea that nuclear energy is taking over the green movement by spouting nonsense is complete bs.

First of all the fact that the Green New Deal wants to eliminate the energy source speaks volumes to how most progressive environmentalists view nuclear energy. However many environmental groups are beginning to change their opinion on existing nuclear due to a simple calculated argument made by the nuclear industry. They didn’t use propaganda or misrepresentation- they used basic math.

The argument is replacing nuclear with renewables is extraordinarily difficult, because conventional reactors do not use production ramping and failure to replace nuclear generation has historically always lead to an increase in natural gas production.

  • The average reactors in the USA generate 7,600 GWh of electrical energy per year. That’s equivalent to over 14 million 250watt per 6 hr generation per year solar panels, not including storage or transmission.

  • The average natural gas plant emits 456g CO2/KWh more than the average nuclear plant. If youre replacing the average generation of a typical nuclear reactor with natural gas you would be increasing CO2 emissions by 3.46 million metric tons (not propaganda, simply math: 456 x 7600 x 1,000,000/1,000,000).

  • So now we have to determine if renewables can feasibly replace nuclear reactors within a definitive timeframe - just so happens there is actually a real impending scenario in the USA where we can test this. By 2022 10 nuclear plants are facing decommission for economic reasons impacting Ohio, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Michigan and Iowa. The combined generation of these reactors is 81,654 GWh (that’s more energy generation than the entire solar industry combined). Below are my calculations for renewable energy development plans vs. natural gas replacement in 3 years for each state:

Ohio MW Hours of Direct Operation Days/Yr MWh GWh Nuclear GWh % of Nuclear Likely Ntrl Gas Replacement Likely Ntrl Gas GWh CO2 Emissions (MT/Yr) CO2 Emissions @ 10yr
Unconfirmed Solar 550.00 6.00 365.00 1,204,500.00 2,518.50 17,688.00 14% 86% 15,169.50 7,129,665.00 71,296,650.00
Unconfirmed Wind 400.00 9.00 365.00 1,314,000.00
2,518,500.00
New York MW Hours of Direct Operation Days/Yr MWh GWh Nuclear GWh % of Nuclear Likely Ntrl Gas Replacement Likely Ntrl Gas GWh CO2 Emissions (MT/Yr) CO2 Emissions @ 10yr
By 2030 Wind 600.00 7.00 365.00 1,533,000.00 10,228.00 28,295.00 36% 64% 18,067.00 8,491,490.00 84,914,900.00
By 2030 Solar 500.00 6.00 365.00 1,095,000.00
By 2021 HVDC-Hydro CHPE 7,000,000.00
2020-2025 EE 600,000.00
10,228,000.00
New Jersey MW Hours of Direct Operation Days/Yr MWh GWh Nuclear GWh % of Nuclear Likely Ntrl Gas Replacement Likely Ntrl Gas GWh CO2 Emissions (MT/Yr) CO2 Emissions @ 10yr
By 2028 Solar 600.00 6.00 365.00 1,314,000.00 3,869.00 19,312.00 20% 80% 15443 7,258,210.00 72582100
By 2028 Wind 1,000.00 7.00 365.00 2,555,000.00
3,869,000.00
Michigan MW Hours of Direct Operation Days/Yr MWh GWh Nuclear GWh % of Nuclear Likely Ntrl Gas Replacement Likely Ntrl Gas GWh CO2 Emissions (MT/Yr) CO2 Emissions @ 10yr
Uncomfirmed Solar 500.00 6.00 365.00 1,095,000.00 2,920.00 6,098.00 48% 52% 3,178.00 1,493,660.00 14,936,600.00
Uncomfirmed Wind 500.00 10.00 365.00 1,825,000.00
2,920,000.00
Iowa MW Hours of Direct Operation Days/Yr MWh GWh Nuclear GWh % of Nuclear Likely Ntrl Gas Replacement Likely Ntrl Gas GWh CO2 Emissions (MT/Yr) CO2 Emissions @ 10yr
Solar 365.00 919.80 5,214.00 18% 82% 4,294.20 2,018,274.00 20,182,740.00
By 2022 Wind 360.00 7.00 365.00 919,800.00
919,800.00
Massachusetts MW Hours of Direct Operation Days/Yr MWh GWh Nuclear GWh % of Nuclear Likely Ntrl Gas Replacement Likely Ntrl Gas GWh CO2 Emissions (MT/Yr) CO2 Emissions @ 10yr
By 2030 Solar 500.00 6.00 365.00 1,095,000.00 2,117.00 5,047.00 42% 58% 2,930.00 1,377,100.00 13,771,000.00
By 2030 Wind 400.00 7.00 365.00 1,022,000.00
2,117,000.00

As you can tell from charts even ambitious renewable plans through 2030 are not enough to replace the net generation of nuclear. It doesn’t even replace 50% of the loss. In three year we are on track to increase CO2 emission by over 25 million metric tons/yr, just by eliminating 10 nuclear plants. That’s more catastrophic than all of Trumps decisions in his entire presidency. After 4 years of NG replacement the emissions would completely negate the 30 year CO2 impact of the Clean Air Act. That’s a major problem.

This is the argument nuclear is making, and environmentalists are finally recognizing its huge problem.

If you keep nuclear or replace nuclear with technologies that can takeover the load without increasing emissions drastically, then we reduce the risk of GHG increase. Its extremely unlikely that solar and wind can do it alone given the massive amount of units that are required in such a short period of time.


#43

Im fairly certain that James Hansen’s position on nuclear today has been to keep existing conventional reactors, but support the development and construction of scalable Generation IV Nuclear. LFTR is a part of GIF/GIV or Generation IV advanced nuclear development.


#44

What I didn’t hear is whether this committee flips along with a republican takeover of the House. And so, would republicans then be able to kill the program in the way they did the Consumer Protection Bureau?


#46

Plagiarism? Plagiarism is serious & no credit is given to the green party. https://www.reddirtreport.com/election-central/green-partys-jill-stein-pushes-earth-friendly-green-new-deal


#47

I think you are misrepresenting Hanson’s intent. It wasn’t political nor did he seek to redefine “green politics” whatever that is. Hanson, and most others, looked at the problem of decarbonization from a science and engineering standpoint. Replacing fossil fuel use will require massive amounts of dependable electricity, with fossil out, that leaves nuclear. We can’t do it with current renewables. Wind and solar are intermittent, geothermal is too geographicaly dependent and biomass is probably not even close to being carbon neutral.

Lets not forget the massive increases in mining that solar and wind would require. There are no “clean” solutions. Strip mining for rare earths is the ugliest form of mining humans do, and we would need a 10X increase at least to build batteries and wind turbines to even get started replacing fossil.

Nobody likes nuclear, but if the goal is a global reduction in CO2 emissions then there aren’t a lot of choices and all of those choices have downsides.


#48

i‘ve tried to pen a respond for your lengthy comment but then it ballooned into
a diatribe so i’ve deleted it… but then ibreturned here and saw you sir wrote not one but TWO answers for me and your second awser is the shit as they say, ergo its good for my positions but bad for yours.

If James Hanson isn’t even willing to take generation II off the grid then he‘s entirely NUTS and my assessment of him in desperate need of an hefty upgrade… well my slanders were supposed to be humerous but James Hanson is not a con-artist he is somthing far worse: a dangerous lumatic that takes himself very serious!!!

this needs to be said right NOW my cause isn’t climate science, i am merely worried because the OFFICIAL leader of all the wolds climate activist is a reactionary sic and said „leader“ is according to the british guardian none other than BILL GATES haha if your not worried now then your stinking rich by yourself haha… time and time again i’ve saw the fission troll hordes doing there thing and they trolled the shit out of the environmentalist and its not helping anybody and thats pretty much the soaring spirit Bill Gates has, a childish sadistic troll, absolutely incapable to lead anything.

all nuclear advocates make something wrong… ultimatly you all missed the very obvious: climate activism was supposed to be important, it was supposed to be BIG and very, very important… however if a few nuclear fission plants could „fix" the problem then how was it supposed to be siobig? well Naomi Klein claimed Bill Gates is heading for an instant „fix“ but i don’t see that happening…

…but if you sir ‘d dared to look at the commentators commondreams is awash with everything might become clear, they all believe that there is no tomorrow or that things are not working anymore, this doesn’t sound like somthing that can be „fixed“ with a „solution“ from a tedtalker like Bill Gates.

on the other side of the fence stands Bill Gates, tedtalker, billionaire and leader of the global movement to stop global warming (wich all of a sudden turned into a movement to make more fission plants haha) it seems clear that commondreams core readership and Bill Gates are too far appart to ever agree on anything…

…but there is another twist to the story: commondreams is very acceptable, very decent, very rational in other words its NOT the opposing extreme to DAVOS because commondreams is no extreme at all (Tedtalk, Bill Gates, globalism this is what DAVOS stands for) so where are the other guys, the opposing extreme to DAVOS? where is the opposing extreme to Bill Gates?

i know the dirty things they’re doing over at DAVOS (and Bill Gates remains DAVOS’ greatest creation) what are the ideas Bill Gates has about the world??? well Bill Gates picks his „ideas“ from the economist magazine in other words this guy is a real mental and now he’s leading the MOST important movement of all times, there got to be something wrong here.

a few minutes ago i hinted that Bill Gates might be a reactionary in disguise… but this doesn’t fit into commondreams at all, i’d created an offset of additional evilness (that might be made up on the spot) as if Bill Gates is an evil worse than the Koch bros, the reason why this makes sense is because the evilness of Bill Gates has some hidden depth.

i know Bill Gates is a reactionary (pls note calling somebody a reactionary is a very chilling categorization) this however 'd meant i just departed from the official political world but this is NOT true, the true evils of Bill Gates are the evils that „lead“ him seeing Bill Gates for what he is means to see his „leaders“ behind him… this in turn also means the „solutions“ of Bill Gates can never really save the world because there’re greater evils out there ie the „leaders“ who intdoctrinate him with lies eg the economist magazine.

nuclear zealotism is not going anywhere if it can’t out match the phantasy world of Bill Gates then its as good as useless because given that Bill Gates „leaders“ are full of shit then the citizen agenda ‘d need to be better than Bill Gates’ delusion not worse and nuclear zealotism is worse…

…in other words if americas citizenry is limited to the „leadership" of Bill Gates it already lost befor it even started.

but the nuclear zealots aren’t merely pathetic enuff to follow the „lead“ of Bill Gates they act as his little foot soldier savagely attacking those that try to make a difference… americas nuclear zealotism is the nautiest thing i’ve ever seen.

the military doesn’t need help to arm itself and the nuclear lobby doesn’t need help to advance its interest… what did James Hanson think when he had his coming out for the nuclear lobby?

somy years ago i even liked the LFTR thing but now I’ve lost all sympathies… the nuclear troll front doesn’t care about changing anything, all the trolls want is the continuation of the status wuo.