...itself from anyone claiming that it is necessary to have a five trillion dollar energy industry, dependent on fossil fuels which is what solar and wind are combined, that can only produce slightly more than half as much primary energy as an industry costing less than a trillion dollars that is cleaner, more reliable and far less dependent on fossil fuels, nuclear energy
The expenditures refer to a ten year period reported by the IEA, an organization from which our "I'm not an antinuke" antinukes like to post oracular graphics about "by 2050" stuff. The figures exclude the trillion dollar cost of grids to connect all this short lived junk together.
I base my opinions of people not on what they say they are - the orange pedophile in the White House is not a "very stable genius" after all - but what they say and do.
Antinuke Benny Sovacool's writings on ripping the shit out of the sea floor for "Sustainable minerals and metals for a low carbon future" was published in a prominent journal, Science Volume 367, Issue 6473, pp. 30-33 (2020.)
Therein he disingenuously whines about African miner slavery for batteries.
I always admired Harry S. Truman's famous remark on political courage, "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen!"
The politics of energy however, has left us with a hot planet from which we cannot depart, not that this stops us from theorizing on machinery to go to Mars.
I have a very clear opinion on what can be done and what should not be done. I can and do defend my position without whining about people following my ideas to their extension.
I could argue, for instance, that anyone whining about so called "nuclear waste" is producing a "straw man," since the storage of used nuclear fuel in this country and almost every other country has never killed anyone and speculation about a million, thousand, zillion, billion, trillion years from now - whatever number to which they attach to their ignorance of nuclear physics - is, um, a "straw man." I don't though. I'm a grown up.
Now. Little Benny Sovacool is an antinuke, as one can see from his comments published on the paper published by none other than Hansen and Kharecha on the environmental and health benefits of nuclear energy. Sovacool argued that nuclear energy is "too expensive," only to argue later that ripping the shit out of the sea floor isn't "too expensive." He's even mused about what part of the sea floor he wants to rip up for "sustainable energy," the Clarion-Clipperton Zone, which he says is a great place to get minerals for what he, not I, calls "green technologies." He's got his antinuke eyes on toxic tellurium deposits on seamounts for solar cells.
Now one is free to reject my self description just as one can reject that of the orange pedophile, or any "I'm not an antinuke" antinuke's, but I consider myself informed enough to follow logical consequences of statements. If someone wants to whine that doing so is a "straw man," I couldn't care less.
I don't believe that so called "renewable energy" endorsed by Benny and some of the crowd here is sustainable. I don't even think, despite all the propaganda to the contrary, that it's even "renewable." Prehaps it may be regarded as egotistical to say that swimming against a popular perception enforced with almost religious authority takes a certain amount of courage, but I am not in any fear of pointing to the absurdity of the claims.
I won't live much longer, but I want to die embracing the truth as I saw it. I have worked hard, through all of my overly long life to develop my views.
It's a fact that a far more prominent antinuke than any antinuke here has suggested ripping the shit out of the sea floor for so called "renewable energy," If I find an antinuke complaining about mining the seafloor, I have no reluctance to point to incongruity of the argument.
Got it?
No?
I couldn't care less.
Have a nice day.
= new reply since forum marked as read