You have captured the current mindset around climate (politics/science) perfectly, Cynthia.
The climate alarmist mentality has evolved into a mass cult, effectively forcing the politicians of the world to spend trillions over the next 30 years on 'solutions' that are almost entirely pointless, for a problem that probably doesn't even exist. The economic impact will almost certainly be sustained global hyper-inflation, and a wave of resultant economic implications that inevitably accompany an inflationary economy.
Climate change stopped being about science decades ago. From the moment the IPCC ( a part of the UN) was formed, it became all about global politics and the centralisation of political power.
As you so wisely said, nuclear is the only alternative energy source we should even consider pursuing, especially in light of the affiliated technological opportunities. Renewables, in their current variation, are just a cobbled complex mess that will prove to be an enormous ecological disaster - they already are.
When sound minds finally look back at this point in history, they will only be able to shake their heads and question, how did we get it so wrong, and so easily reach a point of abject, collective madness?
It's amusing to see someone support nuclear power in a column that claims to support history as a teacher. Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and Fukushima show the weakness of this argument. The claim that renewable energy sources are a complex, cobbled mess is belied by their expotential increase in use and the efforts by many in the energy sector to create a smart grid. The control of power by concentrated means is one of the goals of the oligarchy, and nuclear is their obvious choice. I should have thought that Ms Chung would oppose this effort.
Hi Michael. First off, nuclear power has changed quite a bit and what you are referencing as historical is not a reason why nuclear power should be considered unsafe today. If you want to learn about how nuclear power functions today, I would suggest you look at at least one of the RTF lectures that were given by my friend and colleague Cuautemoc Reale-Hernandez who is a nuclear engineer working on a lead-cooled small modular reactor. You can view his two very informative lectures here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9comzEhhNo and here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McUdnYZX-vI.
In the case of nuclear fusion this is by far the cleanest energy form and most energy dense form we will have access to when up and running. It also has applications as the fusion plasma torch which will be able to cost-effectively turn landfills literally into resources mines by reducing its matter to its elemental (even ionic) forms. There is absolutely no pollution from this and nuclear fusion has no danger of the kind of disaster you are concerned about, it is an actual impossibility with nuclear fusion reactors.
Amidst an energy crisis, I think it is not only foolish to approach green energy without nuclear, but will continue to create the kind of hardships we see Germany facing presently, a country that has shutdown most of its nuclear power generation (down to 11.4%) with the aim to completely shut it down by 2022. Their country is now in a desperate situation, as is much of Europe in requiring energy be supplied to their country to support their people.
In addition, as reported by Nuclear Newswire:
“According to Kirsty Gogan, cofounder of TerraPraxis and a senior climate and energy advisor to the U.K. government, ‘All three Green Zone applications by nuclear groups were rejected’… this example is just another inconsistency in the fight against climate change from governments and nongovernmental organizations around the globe, considering that a recent U.N. report shows that international climate objectives will not be met without nuclear power. Given that nuclear power currently produces 20 percent of the energy (and 43 percent of the zero-carbon energy) in the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) geographical scope, it is clear that it should be a big part of the global economy’s drive to net zero. Yet, nuclear advocates will be frustratingly left on the sidelines of the green zone at the upcoming COP26 megaconference.”
So even according to the UNECE, nuclear must play a vital role in climate change objective achieving zero-carbon energy.
In the lecture I linked above, where I spoke at a conference who were very pro-green energy, not a single person disagreed that nuclear power was clean.
In terms of the wishes of the oligarchy, if you think the oligarchy is behind nuclear power, and that they have been running the show, why have nuclear power plants decreased in number rather than increase? Also, explain why COP26 is in close partnership with the Great Reset agenda. Or do you think Klaus Schwab is your buddy?
Just again to re-emphasize thorium molten salt reactors and nuclear fusion reactors are entirely meltdown proof, they don't function the same way as nuclear fission reactors (which by the way are very safe today).
Hi Michael, I can understand the points you have made, but to get to the heart of these issues we need to analyse context, semantics, time, and of course, reality.
The environmental movement’s argument against nuclear energy insistently references disasters such as Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and Fukushima.
The number of deaths from nuclear incidents have been infinitesimal relative to the global population. Nuclear energy has been part of the world’s energy mix for over 70 years, and there are currently around 440 power reactors (plus another 50 in production), with another 220 research reactors in operation. On those numbers, that is around a 0.5% failure rate over 7 decades. The annualised risk is statistically irrelevant. According to ourworldindata.org, In an average year nobody would die. A death rate of 0.07 deaths per terawatt-hour means it would take 14 years before a single person would die…..even this might be an overestimate.
What is so confusing about the environmental activist argument is that we are supposed to be in a state of ‘Climate Crisis’, ‘Catastrophe’ and ‘Code Red For The Planet’, with just a few years before we are wiped out as a race. If the rhetoric is to be believed, then surely low carbon energy solutions should be enthusiastically embraced and implemented immediately, especially those that can supply base load power, such as nuclear. Are environmental activists really willing to perish while standing at the pulpit of ideology? Not likely. The radical environmental movement is all about crushing capitalism, not science, or even the survival of the planet, and unfortunately, the blinded masses go along for the ride.
The reality is that globally, renewable energy is still only supplying less than 30% of our energy needs and is expected to be around no more than 45% by 2040. This leaves a huge energy demand gap, which is predominantly generated using fossil fuels, and those numbers are based only on replacing current grid consumption.
The demand for electricity will increase by an indeterminable magnitude as the world attempts to convert to a transportation fleet of EV cars and trucks, produce green hydrogen, and supply energy intensive industries such as fertiliser production, and aluminum and steel production, just to name a few.
According to S&P Global, the demand for liquid fuels, gas and coal will still be increasing by 2050. A fossil free world is simply not a reality for the foreseeable future, and the sooner the ideologues stop pretending it is, the better it will be for all of us. Delusions of grandeur do not solve problems, and simply lead to extremely bad strategic decision making, as we are witnessing through the development and implementation of national and global climate policies.
Renewables are realistically just skimming the surface of global energy demand. The pragmatists of politics and energy planning know that nuclear is the perfect energy source, and are already in the process of making this happen.
In regards to renewables being a complex, cobbled mess? Calling something smart, doesn’t make it so. It’s true that there has been some incredible electrical engineering gone into making renewables even work at all.
The poster child for poor renewable grid implementation is undoubtedly California, where the instability of the grid has at times been barely above third world level.
The largest European economies are not much better, although ‘greenwashing’ is the strategy of choice, where manufacturing is outsourced, and energy supply is imported from neighbouring countries. Hardly a model of successful ‘energy transition’.
Australia also entered the elite renewable hall of shame, with an over zealous impulse to demonstrate a dependence on renewable energy resulting in South Australian electricity prices shooting through the roof (some of the most expensive in the world) accompanied by rampant blackouts and grid instability.
While the renewable energy grids of the world are promoted as engineering wonders, the truth is much different. There is no way that a planned energy grid would ever be conceived based on millions of different energy sources, all out of phase and feeding in constantly varying levels of supply.
The business case alone would simply be preposterous.The infrastructure complexity and cost in comparison to utilising several base load energy sources would be enough to have the project concept scrapped before it even began. The risk to grid stability would always be high because it is so dependent on so many individual sources, each contributing very little relative to total demand. Equally concerning is the very low median output relative to the potential engineered energy production capacity of each generating device (if only the wind would always blow, or the sun always shine!)
If it got past the concept stage, the enormous operational costs of a bloated labour force and massive perennial maintenance would be the final nail in the coffin, and yet here we are, increasingly dependent on an energy grid that is exactly this Frankensteinian monster.
As for oligarchs and nuclear, I’m assuming you are referring to the technocrat, Bill Gates. Globalised power goes far beyond entrepreneurs leveraging commercial opportunities. We are currently living in an age where the World Economic Forum is now developing policy for the politicians of the world, while the UN is increasingly taking on the role of global arbiter through the implementation of treaties, and the enforcement of International Law.
Sovereign rights and national and state laws are being supplanted by International Law, with climate the nexus for the greatest overreach of power by an unelected global political entity in the modern era.
Capitalism is not the vehicle of global power; its antithesis holds that mantle. In the words of WEF founder and chairman, Klaus Schwab, ‘You will own nothing, and you will be happy’.
That tells you all you need to know. And it’s not a suggestion.
I'm late to the party on this post, but glad that I read your comprehensive comment. I had already been changing my mind on nuclear but you've given me much food for thought. Thank you!
Nuclear energy is certainly a subject that creates fear and apprehension for many, despite the risk of death or injury being hugely disproportionate to the empirical evidence. It is not unlike our fear of death at the hands of an animal. For many of us, our greatest fear is being eaten alive by a shark, and yet across the planet, only around 10 people are killed in shark attacks each year. Conversely, around 750,000 people die from diseases carried by mosquitos over the same period, an animal we never consider in terms of lethality.
Unfortunately, the human race has always responded dramatically to notions of risk and catastrophe. It is a primal fear, which is built into our DNA, and it just so happens that the most recent horror story we are enamoured by is a 'climate disaster', supposedly of our own making.
In an attempt to create a double jeopardy, the radical climate movement have ruthlessly maligned nuclear energy as a baseload energy source, despite the outstanding reliability and benefits relative to renewable energy sources.
Of course, the empirical evidence for either a major nuclear disaster using contemporary nuclear energy technology, or the probability of a cataclysmic climate catastrophe due to CO2 emissions simply doesn't exist. That hasn’t stopped the western world from spending trillions on nonsensical renewable energy solutions.
Regardless of whether one believes the world will be imperiled by a climate catastrophe, or not, nuclear energy makes a lot of sense as a means of energy generation.
Thankfully, in the world of evidence based science and engineering, a lot is happening in the development of nuclear energy. One of the most exciting innovations is the creation of ‘small modular reactors’, which are designed to be incredibly safe.
What also makes small modular reactors so exciting is that they can be built very quickly relative to a traditional nuclear power plants, and they can be set up where they are needed most. This makes it possible to provide autonomous energy supply to small rural communities and third world countries, while also delivering energy to metropolitan and national grid networks.
In fact the Pentagon in the US has just approved the first ‘microreactor’, which is basically a factory-built small modular reactor that can be transported by truck to disaster areas, military bases, and remote locations where infrastructure simply doesn’t exist. They can be run continuously for up to 10 years without refueling, and can be integrated seamlessly with existing distributed grids.
Another exciting development is the use of thorium as a fuel source for nuclear energy.
Thorium is much more abundant than uranium, but is less radioactive. In fact it needs a fissile material such as recycled plutonium for it to be used as a fuel source. This means that the significant volume of nuclear waste the world has in its stockpile can now be used up in the production of nuclear energy, and I have been told by an electrical engineer that there is no residual radioactive waste at the completion of the fuel’s energy generation cycle.
The use of thorium as a fuel is in the advanced stages of development in nuclear energy focused countries such as Norway, China and India, with live testing of thorium bearing fuel in existing nuclear power plants already completed.
Of course, neither small modular reactors or thorium as a nuclear fuel source are discussed in the mainstream media, who much prefer the climate alarmist narrative, propagating fear and fantasy over facts.
Thankfully, most of the world just gets on with the job of being the wonderfully innovative and adaptable human race that we are, all while climate extremists sit with their hands glued to the road, pointlessly disrupting society as they stew in their self imposed misery, wishing only the worst for the people of the world.
You are VERY knowledgeable, Peter. What's your background? May I use this in a future episode of my Substack? So many things I didn't know that fit perfectly with the economic vision I have of a world of small commonwealths. And I love that new reactors would use the waste and the end result would have no residual radioactivity. It's like discovering mushrooms that eat oil spills and generate electricity!
I have a business consulting and writing background.
You are more than welcome to use the content I have written. If you are going to write a post relating to nuclear energy and the topics I discussed, the following are just two of many resources on the subject. I found both sites to be informative and credible when referenced against other sources.
https://whatisnuclear.com/ was created by a group of nuclear engineers who set out to demystify nuclear energy, while https://www.world-nuclear.org/ is an industry body that creates reports, white papers and publications on behalf of the nuclear industry.
OMG, I love you Cynthia. I was actually looking for your research on Tiananmen Square for a discussion on another thread. But then I saw this and had to read it. In a recent episode of mine, Noam Chomsky IS the Problem, I talk about his confidence that young people will save us! Case in point, Greta speaking at Davos!
Grumpy old woman that I am, I think anyone who believes youth will save us doesn't live near a high school. I say other clever things but they don't hold a candle to your Greta-bashing. But here they are, just as a sign of solidarity in age (in my case) and wisdom (in yours!)
The dangers of catastrophic climate change have been documented and many of the points are undeniable facts, especially concerning the temperature of the ocean, the spread of deserts and the collapse of biodiversity. Of course it could all be misunderstood--but the evidence is not treated seriously in this article. More importantly, it is assume that the use of nuclear power, as opposed to the end of a consumer culture--and the false Gods of growth and consumption, is the obvious solution. Nuclear power could play some role, but the main issue is getting the petroleum industry out of the game and allowing citizens to produce their own energy like they did before.
You have captured the current mindset around climate (politics/science) perfectly, Cynthia.
The climate alarmist mentality has evolved into a mass cult, effectively forcing the politicians of the world to spend trillions over the next 30 years on 'solutions' that are almost entirely pointless, for a problem that probably doesn't even exist. The economic impact will almost certainly be sustained global hyper-inflation, and a wave of resultant economic implications that inevitably accompany an inflationary economy.
Climate change stopped being about science decades ago. From the moment the IPCC ( a part of the UN) was formed, it became all about global politics and the centralisation of political power.
As you so wisely said, nuclear is the only alternative energy source we should even consider pursuing, especially in light of the affiliated technological opportunities. Renewables, in their current variation, are just a cobbled complex mess that will prove to be an enormous ecological disaster - they already are.
When sound minds finally look back at this point in history, they will only be able to shake their heads and question, how did we get it so wrong, and so easily reach a point of abject, collective madness?
It's amusing to see someone support nuclear power in a column that claims to support history as a teacher. Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and Fukushima show the weakness of this argument. The claim that renewable energy sources are a complex, cobbled mess is belied by their expotential increase in use and the efforts by many in the energy sector to create a smart grid. The control of power by concentrated means is one of the goals of the oligarchy, and nuclear is their obvious choice. I should have thought that Ms Chung would oppose this effort.
Hi Michael. First off, nuclear power has changed quite a bit and what you are referencing as historical is not a reason why nuclear power should be considered unsafe today. If you want to learn about how nuclear power functions today, I would suggest you look at at least one of the RTF lectures that were given by my friend and colleague Cuautemoc Reale-Hernandez who is a nuclear engineer working on a lead-cooled small modular reactor. You can view his two very informative lectures here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9comzEhhNo and here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McUdnYZX-vI.
In the case of nuclear fusion this is by far the cleanest energy form and most energy dense form we will have access to when up and running. It also has applications as the fusion plasma torch which will be able to cost-effectively turn landfills literally into resources mines by reducing its matter to its elemental (even ionic) forms. There is absolutely no pollution from this and nuclear fusion has no danger of the kind of disaster you are concerned about, it is an actual impossibility with nuclear fusion reactors.
Amidst an energy crisis, I think it is not only foolish to approach green energy without nuclear, but will continue to create the kind of hardships we see Germany facing presently, a country that has shutdown most of its nuclear power generation (down to 11.4%) with the aim to completely shut it down by 2022. Their country is now in a desperate situation, as is much of Europe in requiring energy be supplied to their country to support their people.
In addition, as reported by Nuclear Newswire:
“According to Kirsty Gogan, cofounder of TerraPraxis and a senior climate and energy advisor to the U.K. government, ‘All three Green Zone applications by nuclear groups were rejected’… this example is just another inconsistency in the fight against climate change from governments and nongovernmental organizations around the globe, considering that a recent U.N. report shows that international climate objectives will not be met without nuclear power. Given that nuclear power currently produces 20 percent of the energy (and 43 percent of the zero-carbon energy) in the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) geographical scope, it is clear that it should be a big part of the global economy’s drive to net zero. Yet, nuclear advocates will be frustratingly left on the sidelines of the green zone at the upcoming COP26 megaconference.”
So even according to the UNECE, nuclear must play a vital role in climate change objective achieving zero-carbon energy.
In the lecture I linked above, where I spoke at a conference who were very pro-green energy, not a single person disagreed that nuclear power was clean.
In terms of the wishes of the oligarchy, if you think the oligarchy is behind nuclear power, and that they have been running the show, why have nuclear power plants decreased in number rather than increase? Also, explain why COP26 is in close partnership with the Great Reset agenda. Or do you think Klaus Schwab is your buddy?
Just again to re-emphasize thorium molten salt reactors and nuclear fusion reactors are entirely meltdown proof, they don't function the same way as nuclear fission reactors (which by the way are very safe today).
Hi Michael, I can understand the points you have made, but to get to the heart of these issues we need to analyse context, semantics, time, and of course, reality.
The environmental movement’s argument against nuclear energy insistently references disasters such as Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and Fukushima.
The number of deaths from nuclear incidents have been infinitesimal relative to the global population. Nuclear energy has been part of the world’s energy mix for over 70 years, and there are currently around 440 power reactors (plus another 50 in production), with another 220 research reactors in operation. On those numbers, that is around a 0.5% failure rate over 7 decades. The annualised risk is statistically irrelevant. According to ourworldindata.org, In an average year nobody would die. A death rate of 0.07 deaths per terawatt-hour means it would take 14 years before a single person would die…..even this might be an overestimate.
What is so confusing about the environmental activist argument is that we are supposed to be in a state of ‘Climate Crisis’, ‘Catastrophe’ and ‘Code Red For The Planet’, with just a few years before we are wiped out as a race. If the rhetoric is to be believed, then surely low carbon energy solutions should be enthusiastically embraced and implemented immediately, especially those that can supply base load power, such as nuclear. Are environmental activists really willing to perish while standing at the pulpit of ideology? Not likely. The radical environmental movement is all about crushing capitalism, not science, or even the survival of the planet, and unfortunately, the blinded masses go along for the ride.
The reality is that globally, renewable energy is still only supplying less than 30% of our energy needs and is expected to be around no more than 45% by 2040. This leaves a huge energy demand gap, which is predominantly generated using fossil fuels, and those numbers are based only on replacing current grid consumption.
The demand for electricity will increase by an indeterminable magnitude as the world attempts to convert to a transportation fleet of EV cars and trucks, produce green hydrogen, and supply energy intensive industries such as fertiliser production, and aluminum and steel production, just to name a few.
According to S&P Global, the demand for liquid fuels, gas and coal will still be increasing by 2050. A fossil free world is simply not a reality for the foreseeable future, and the sooner the ideologues stop pretending it is, the better it will be for all of us. Delusions of grandeur do not solve problems, and simply lead to extremely bad strategic decision making, as we are witnessing through the development and implementation of national and global climate policies.
Renewables are realistically just skimming the surface of global energy demand. The pragmatists of politics and energy planning know that nuclear is the perfect energy source, and are already in the process of making this happen.
In regards to renewables being a complex, cobbled mess? Calling something smart, doesn’t make it so. It’s true that there has been some incredible electrical engineering gone into making renewables even work at all.
The poster child for poor renewable grid implementation is undoubtedly California, where the instability of the grid has at times been barely above third world level.
The largest European economies are not much better, although ‘greenwashing’ is the strategy of choice, where manufacturing is outsourced, and energy supply is imported from neighbouring countries. Hardly a model of successful ‘energy transition’.
Australia also entered the elite renewable hall of shame, with an over zealous impulse to demonstrate a dependence on renewable energy resulting in South Australian electricity prices shooting through the roof (some of the most expensive in the world) accompanied by rampant blackouts and grid instability.
While the renewable energy grids of the world are promoted as engineering wonders, the truth is much different. There is no way that a planned energy grid would ever be conceived based on millions of different energy sources, all out of phase and feeding in constantly varying levels of supply.
The business case alone would simply be preposterous.The infrastructure complexity and cost in comparison to utilising several base load energy sources would be enough to have the project concept scrapped before it even began. The risk to grid stability would always be high because it is so dependent on so many individual sources, each contributing very little relative to total demand. Equally concerning is the very low median output relative to the potential engineered energy production capacity of each generating device (if only the wind would always blow, or the sun always shine!)
If it got past the concept stage, the enormous operational costs of a bloated labour force and massive perennial maintenance would be the final nail in the coffin, and yet here we are, increasingly dependent on an energy grid that is exactly this Frankensteinian monster.
As for oligarchs and nuclear, I’m assuming you are referring to the technocrat, Bill Gates. Globalised power goes far beyond entrepreneurs leveraging commercial opportunities. We are currently living in an age where the World Economic Forum is now developing policy for the politicians of the world, while the UN is increasingly taking on the role of global arbiter through the implementation of treaties, and the enforcement of International Law.
Sovereign rights and national and state laws are being supplanted by International Law, with climate the nexus for the greatest overreach of power by an unelected global political entity in the modern era.
Capitalism is not the vehicle of global power; its antithesis holds that mantle. In the words of WEF founder and chairman, Klaus Schwab, ‘You will own nothing, and you will be happy’.
That tells you all you need to know. And it’s not a suggestion.
I'm late to the party on this post, but glad that I read your comprehensive comment. I had already been changing my mind on nuclear but you've given me much food for thought. Thank you!
I'm glad you found the content useful, Tereza.
Nuclear energy is certainly a subject that creates fear and apprehension for many, despite the risk of death or injury being hugely disproportionate to the empirical evidence. It is not unlike our fear of death at the hands of an animal. For many of us, our greatest fear is being eaten alive by a shark, and yet across the planet, only around 10 people are killed in shark attacks each year. Conversely, around 750,000 people die from diseases carried by mosquitos over the same period, an animal we never consider in terms of lethality.
Unfortunately, the human race has always responded dramatically to notions of risk and catastrophe. It is a primal fear, which is built into our DNA, and it just so happens that the most recent horror story we are enamoured by is a 'climate disaster', supposedly of our own making.
In an attempt to create a double jeopardy, the radical climate movement have ruthlessly maligned nuclear energy as a baseload energy source, despite the outstanding reliability and benefits relative to renewable energy sources.
Of course, the empirical evidence for either a major nuclear disaster using contemporary nuclear energy technology, or the probability of a cataclysmic climate catastrophe due to CO2 emissions simply doesn't exist. That hasn’t stopped the western world from spending trillions on nonsensical renewable energy solutions.
Regardless of whether one believes the world will be imperiled by a climate catastrophe, or not, nuclear energy makes a lot of sense as a means of energy generation.
Thankfully, in the world of evidence based science and engineering, a lot is happening in the development of nuclear energy. One of the most exciting innovations is the creation of ‘small modular reactors’, which are designed to be incredibly safe.
What also makes small modular reactors so exciting is that they can be built very quickly relative to a traditional nuclear power plants, and they can be set up where they are needed most. This makes it possible to provide autonomous energy supply to small rural communities and third world countries, while also delivering energy to metropolitan and national grid networks.
In fact the Pentagon in the US has just approved the first ‘microreactor’, which is basically a factory-built small modular reactor that can be transported by truck to disaster areas, military bases, and remote locations where infrastructure simply doesn’t exist. They can be run continuously for up to 10 years without refueling, and can be integrated seamlessly with existing distributed grids.
Another exciting development is the use of thorium as a fuel source for nuclear energy.
Thorium is much more abundant than uranium, but is less radioactive. In fact it needs a fissile material such as recycled plutonium for it to be used as a fuel source. This means that the significant volume of nuclear waste the world has in its stockpile can now be used up in the production of nuclear energy, and I have been told by an electrical engineer that there is no residual radioactive waste at the completion of the fuel’s energy generation cycle.
The use of thorium as a fuel is in the advanced stages of development in nuclear energy focused countries such as Norway, China and India, with live testing of thorium bearing fuel in existing nuclear power plants already completed.
Of course, neither small modular reactors or thorium as a nuclear fuel source are discussed in the mainstream media, who much prefer the climate alarmist narrative, propagating fear and fantasy over facts.
Thankfully, most of the world just gets on with the job of being the wonderfully innovative and adaptable human race that we are, all while climate extremists sit with their hands glued to the road, pointlessly disrupting society as they stew in their self imposed misery, wishing only the worst for the people of the world.
You are VERY knowledgeable, Peter. What's your background? May I use this in a future episode of my Substack? So many things I didn't know that fit perfectly with the economic vision I have of a world of small commonwealths. And I love that new reactors would use the waste and the end result would have no residual radioactivity. It's like discovering mushrooms that eat oil spills and generate electricity!
I have a business consulting and writing background.
You are more than welcome to use the content I have written. If you are going to write a post relating to nuclear energy and the topics I discussed, the following are just two of many resources on the subject. I found both sites to be informative and credible when referenced against other sources.
https://whatisnuclear.com/ was created by a group of nuclear engineers who set out to demystify nuclear energy, while https://www.world-nuclear.org/ is an industry body that creates reports, white papers and publications on behalf of the nuclear industry.
https://whatisnuclear.com/
https://www.world-nuclear.org/
Well said!
Thank you, Amelie.
OMG, I love you Cynthia. I was actually looking for your research on Tiananmen Square for a discussion on another thread. But then I saw this and had to read it. In a recent episode of mine, Noam Chomsky IS the Problem, I talk about his confidence that young people will save us! Case in point, Greta speaking at Davos!
Grumpy old woman that I am, I think anyone who believes youth will save us doesn't live near a high school. I say other clever things but they don't hold a candle to your Greta-bashing. But here they are, just as a sign of solidarity in age (in my case) and wisdom (in yours!)
https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/noam-chomsky-is-the-problem
The dangers of catastrophic climate change have been documented and many of the points are undeniable facts, especially concerning the temperature of the ocean, the spread of deserts and the collapse of biodiversity. Of course it could all be misunderstood--but the evidence is not treated seriously in this article. More importantly, it is assume that the use of nuclear power, as opposed to the end of a consumer culture--and the false Gods of growth and consumption, is the obvious solution. Nuclear power could play some role, but the main issue is getting the petroleum industry out of the game and allowing citizens to produce their own energy like they did before.