Environment & Energy

Last edited Sun Jan 26, 2025, 02:00 PM - Edit history (1)

...the safety and health of future generations, or bizarre penny pinching nonsense about the construction costs of energy infrastructure that will be in operation for 80 years as opposed to less than 20 years for the wind crap that's been hyped only to drive extreme global warming faster and faster and faster.

I repeat, the United States once built more than 100 commercial nuclear reactors while providing the lowest cost electricity in the industrial world.

I am going to note that the human race has squandered trillions of dollars on this reactionary solar and wind scam for no positive effect on addressing the destruction of the planetary atmosphere, other than making things get worse faster:

I'm not chanting slogans. I'm fucking paying attention: Coda to the Disastrous 2024 CO2 Readings at the Mauna Loa CO2 Observatory: The Worst December Ever Recorded.

From a previous post in my 2024 series of observations of the disastrous 2024 readings at the Mauna Loa CO₂ Observatory something called "data" which includes a graphic, and a link, to how much money has been squandered on solar and wind junk, not counting the fucking fossil fuel redundancy and junk included, nor the cost of the destruction of the planetary atmosphere it did nothing to prevent:

The Disastrous 2024 CO2 Data Recorded at Mauna Loa: Yet Another Update 12/08/2024

Since I personally have a low opinion of the intellectual capabilities of people who oppose nuclear energy, who think we can mine the planet's ocean floor and destroy all its wilderness for a reactionary return to dependence of our energy supplies on the weather, abandoned in the late 19th and early 20th century for a reason, I'll reproduce the graphic, since many people can't read (or, like shit for brains antinuke Benjamin Sovacool, think) very well:

The amount of money spent on so called "renewable energy" since 2015 is 4.12 trillion dollars, compared to 377 billion dollars spent on nuclear energy, mostly to keep vapid cultists spouting fear and ignorance from destroying the valuable nuclear infrastructure we still have.



IEA overview, Energy Investments.

The graphic is interactive at the link; one can calculate overall expenditures on what the IEA dubiously calls "clean energy."

We are using more fossil fuels than ever:



IEA World Energy Outlook 2024
Table A.1a: World energy supply Page 296

Now I hear a lot of idiotic whining about the Vogtle reactors from clueless people who can't acknowledge the history of the US nuclear system, still the largest in the world, but soon to be passed by China because ignorance won. Seventy percent of the costs went to building the first reactor, and what was learned in the process, to build back better a nuclear manufacturing infrastructure, and what was learned from building the first resulted in only 30% of the costs for the second resulted from building the second. Were the trend allow to continue we'd be in better shape.

A nuclear infrastructure requires a highly educated workforce, highly skilled construction teams, but most importantly, the intellectual and moral strength to give a shit about the future. A country possessing these features will be strong and healthy.

I really, really, don't want to hear about extreme global heating from people who whine about the costs of nuclear energy, the only hope left for the future of this planet. I regard such people as a big part of the cause of this disaster, and clearly, like the assholes in Germany, they couldn't care less about the topic. They're not paying attention. They're clueless. They have no appreciation of the cost, only some of which is financial, of destroying the planetary atmosphere. The status quo, which include bulldozing wilderness for solar and wind farms, is clearly unsustainable; the planet is in flames.

Nuclear energy saves lives, and has prevented about two full years of carbon dioxide releases at the current rapidly rising rate:

Prevented Mortality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Historical and Projected Nuclear Power (Pushker A. Kharecha* and James E. Hansen Environ. Sci. Technol., 2013, 47 (9), pp 4889–4895)

It follows that opposing nuclear energy kills people.

Without nuclear energy's contribution over the last 70 years of highly successful operations, this in an atmosphere of stupid catcalls, as opposed to the insane sun and wind worship cultural environment of idiotic cheering by reactionaries, we'd be looking at carbon dioxide concentrations in the planetary atmosphere at around 440 ppm, as opposed to the 427 ppm we saw in 2024, and the 430 ppm we are now sure to see in 2025.

Have a pleasant Sunday.