Back when there was temporary shortage of natural gas, that fossil fuel was the favorite of warmers. When it became abundant, they were against it. They just pretend to be even handed. Well what about nuclear energy? It doesn’t produce carbon dioxide (CO2) but they do not like it. My guess is that many of them are just following through on their objective of destroying capitalism.
However, a group of influential warmers now say they were wrong to oppose nuclear energy.
At the Paris COP21 in December 2015, a press conference was held where 4 noted warmers announced that they were going to back development of nuclear energy.
The energycollective.com posted the story of this turnaround. The posting listed the 4 and their CVs as follows:
Ken Caldeira: Department of Global Ecology, Carnegie Institution for Sciences, Stanford, CA: environmental science of climate, carbon, and energy.
Kerry Emanuel: MIT, meteorology: atmospheric convection and the mechanisms acting to intensify hurricanes.
Tom Wigley: U. of Adelaide, Australia: mathematical physicist, carbon science modeling
James Hansen: former head of NASA: atmospheric chemistry: climate science.
If you closely follow the global warming issue, you are probably familiar with each of these gentlemen.
Ken Caldeira opened the press conference and he pretty well sums up what these 4 are thinking in the following:
“Many years ago, I was protesting against nuclear power at the Shoreham Nuclear Plant on Long Island and I was arrested for protesting nuclear power. At that time, I thought, we had bioenergy and some wind and solar and that would be enough to solve the problem.
I’ve come to see now that the magnitude of the problem is so great that we can’t afford to leave technologies unused that can potentially help.
There’s really only one technology that I know of that can provide carbon free power when the sun is not shining and the wind is not blowing at the scale modern civilization requires and that is nuclear power. And whatever you think of nuclear power, we need to let it compete on its own merits given an appropriate regulatory environment and a sensible, cost competitive market situation.
And we shouldn’t discriminate against individual technologies. It’s not about either/or, we’re not talking about whether we favor solar power, wind or nuclear power; I’m in favor of anything that can prevent climate change, protect the environment and allow poor people to get food and health care and education
The basic plea here is let’s focus on the climate agenda, and the climate agenda is about supplying energy in a way that does not damage our environment. We need to allow technologies to compete on their own merits.”
The other 3 add their comments too and the press conference can be seen below:
These 4 are big time leaders of the warmers. They are finally acknowledging what most of already knew—-Wind, solar and biofuels are not up to the task of providing the globe’s energy needs. When Earth begins to cool, maybe they will agree that fossil fuels are not all that bad.
The environmentalists have virtually frozen out nuclear by making the siting almost impossible through regulations and lawsuits. It can easily take ten or so years to get permission from the local, State and Federal authorities to build a power plant. This often makes the nukes prohibitively expensive. Undoing this regulatory nightmare and changing the minds of the radical environments is not going to be easily done nor maybe even possible. The wind and solar industries will probably oppose this movement as well. That is until the lights begin to go out around the globe. Then the citizens will take this problem into their own hands and solve it.