Can you please go over point by point the connection between your last 2 paragraphs and the linked paper? I agree with your first paragraphs about there being many papers out there in general, there sure are.

Where in the paper does it talk about renewable doing nothing about heat waves and nuclear?

It's as if all non-nuclear energy is bad, bad, and nuclear has no flaws and is therefore the only solution.

In this case all "renewables" including hydroelectricity are deemed fickle and intermittent and useless without batteries to store their energy. That is of course a dim, limited, clouded view that is in some cases incorrect.

The concepts of transitioning and intermediate stages on the way to the perfect end solution (of which there are multiple possibilities) seems to escape some posters.

Article in summation says:
Economic supply chains for certain rare earths are problematic in their current configuration from a supply perspective (supplies may run lower than demand)

Poster says:
Solar bad. Wind bad. Nuclear good.


Completely unrelated things. Doing what all the low quality far right BS sites do every day all day:
Here's an article...
Now here's some of my completely unrelated thoughts that have nothing to do with the article...
I know 99% of you wont click on the article and read it so I can get away with this, suckers!!

The claim is that 99% of people don't read articles.

I certainly don't feel like I'm 1% of humanity, and I certainly do read articles, which is why my journal on this website is filled with thousands of papers referring to the primary scientific literature (and data pages like ttose at the Mauna Loa CO₂ Observatory to which I often reference here. )

My feeling is that if one doesn't read articles, one is not in a position either to make assertions about the demographics of practices. Reading is the underpinning of all education. If one does not read, one may be incapable of drawing obvious inferences, for instance the relationship between material costs and sustainability.

I read, pretty much six to ten hours a day. I'm not reading comic books. Most of my reading is involved with high level academic research, heavily weighted to the physical sciences.

"Poster says:
Solar bad. Wind bad. Nuclear good."

It's kinda his thing.

...energy that is acceptable is nuclear energy.

I am not going to apologize for that position especially to people who seem not to have noticed that all of these reactionary "intermediate stages" have left the fucking planet in flames.

Of course there are "some posters" who seem to have not noticed that the world is burning up. I don't find them especially perspicacious.

The implication you make is that the paper supports your claims.

My conclusion is that the paper you linked is completely irrelevant to your claims. My conclusion is you injected the paper to create a false sense of outside empirical support to your claims.

... there will be hell to pay worldwide.

I do note that one possible solution to this problem proposed in the conclusion of the paper is, to borrow your phrase, further rip the shit out of the Earth.

The reactors they are building fast, on time, and on budget will all be operating when all their wind and solar junk will have been landfill for half a century.

China's just announced the production of their first barrel of uranium mined with In Situ Leach mining using oxygen and carbon dioxide - probably the most environmentally unobtrusive way of mining the world's least environmentally damaging fuel. Over 50% of uranium already comes from ISL, but till now acid or sodium bicarbonate was used. Just a few boreholes down to the ore body. In contrast, open cast coal mining rips the whole overburden off the coal seam, creating huge volumes of waste even before shipping and burning the coal. Coal is, of course, the main power source for making the polysilicon used in solar panels, of which China is the dominant supplier.

Last edited Fri Jul 18, 2025, 12:44 PM - Edit history (1)

This, of course, is dependent on building fast spectrum reactors for which the time has clearly come.

I do plan to write here a post here on the advantages of multiple cycled uranium commenting on a technical article I came across which embraces an idea that I expressed more than 10 years ago on Rod Adams website, not that my commentary was original or new then.

On Plutonium, Nuclear War, and Nuclear Peace

It is also important to use all of the transuranium actinides as fuel. I am writing a piece for my son to think about in his career on the wonderful properties of americium as a fuel, necessarily in the fast neutron spectrum. It will have as fertile nuclei once, twice or x times through uranium with thorium. It's a "breed and burn" "CANDLE" which Bill Gates company, Terrapower, has rebranded as a "Traveling Wave" reactor.