A page of energy issues, an unpopular essay, and an invitation to do some nuclear homework
If, as I believe, nuclear power is good for the environment, then hopefully true environmentalists will eventually start to support it.
But how? For many, it's a fairly big backflip.
It may be happening
How would it look?
The good
Re-evaluation of past claims
People asking whether Plutonium for example is really "the most dangerous substance known to man" (it never was).
The disappearance of "The fossil fuel bridge" from discussions (remember it? Try to find it now).
Dissent
See Patrick Moore and Greenpeace and he is not the only one.
Support for alternative nukes
Some of these are listed under "The bad" below.
But as some of these become available, they will become good.
So they have a good side too. If the greenies are allowed to save face, change will come sooner. We must be pragmatic.
The bad
Support for alternative nukes part 2
(but only ones that aren't yet available)
Well, we would not expect to hear the greenies say "we were wrong". We'd expect them to say instead "we were right but things have changed".
Maybe "Uranium and Plutonium are evil but Thorium is OK" (see Thorium).
Maybe "big nukes are evil but little ones are OK".
Maybe "fission is evil but fusion is OK" (see Myths of fusion).
And most recently "The PWR is evil but Gen IV designs don't use water so they are OK" (ignoring the SCWR which is a GEN IV design).
Sound familiar? Watch this space!
Climate change denial
Well, we'd expect them to decide that maybe CO2 isn't such a problem after all.
This has always been implicit in their actions. See climate change denial and the anti nuclear movement and what happens when you do not go nuclear.
And expect more of it.
Avoidance of rational discussion
The difference between a prejudice and a conviction is, you can explain a conviction without getting mad. - Readers' Digest marginal thought, years ago.
Perhaps this is nothing new either.
But let me quote from a recent post on Quora: You could build a network of reactors to electrify a country, but that would require sophisticated engineering work and political will well beyond anything we have now… (that's the end of the quote, but including the ellipsis which was in the original)
Replies were disabled. So not only is this absolute rubbish, it would appear likely that the poster knows it is rubbish. Political will, perhaps. But sophisticated engineering work...well beyond anything we have now? Rubbish! But it's easy to see why some might want to believe this, and want to persuade others as well. Or is that not what it means? Is it perhaps deliberately ambiguous?
And again, expect more it it. Denial is a predictable and common response to cognitive_dissonance. The writer of that post (just today, 1 October 2020) claims to be a Fellow of the American_College_of_Cardiology and a "physicist" as well and I have no reason to doubt either of these claims. Food for thought?
And more recently from a different contributor:
You picked Germany - really? They just foreswore nuke power - smart people - they care about their future genetic viability: Nuclear power phase-out - Wikipedia Mr Clueless.
Replies again disabled, to this and several other posts. Mr Gutless. And expect more of it.
Actually I picked New York rather than Germany. What I said was that the closure of TMI#1 was insane, as it was explicitly replaced by natural gas, and that the position in Germany was less clear but probably equally insane.
And I stick by that comment on Germany too. If they cared about small doses of radiation affecting their genetic viability they would not be expanding their coal-fired capacity.
See also intelligent hydrogen for another recent attack.
And below is a screenshot of the most recent understandable cowardice.
I've removed the name of the writer concerned, but he is a well-published anti-nuclear campaigner. And he knows he's licked, doesn't he?
Why else would he prevent me from posting that reply?
In fact the discussion to which I refer was specifically about the same article he published, arguing that nuclear power was not being affected by the environmental opposition that it has long experienced.
Perhaps there are other reasons he chooses not to remember the previous discussion, and wants to avoid it on this occasion too?
See https://www.quora.com/Why-is-nuclear-energy-the-best/answer/Tony-Stanley-55 for another example... starts off with a tirade which I answer, then replies but disables replies. He's probably deleted it by now. His tirade started It only the best if your livelyhood depends on it, for example you work in the industry or you are being paid to say it is the best. Which one are you? And just got worse. He might like to read how to reveal yourself. Just a hunch.
Ah, and we now have an author... he's published a book but I won't be buying it... who claims that sustainable development is a contradiction of terms. He has redefined development so as to make this true, and if you accept his personal and ridiculous definition it would be true. But that is no more helpful IMO than the previous attempts by others to redefine renewable to include nuclear fission, and so reinvent history.
See also
Comments (0)
You don't have permission to comment on this page.