Stephanie Cooke’s latest opinion piece for the New York Time calls the nuclear revival a fantasy. But it is actually time to burst the anti-nuclear bubble.
This is more of a death rattle than a position piece. Repeating tired talking points in an editorial is how you know things are ending.
The NYT also did a glowing profile of Mady Hilly, so at least they are putting out multiple viewpoints for people to choose from. That’s how I know the pro nuke side is winning.
In Trope 2 Cooke highlight beyond wind and solar, "hydro and geothermal". One would argue that all the easy hydro has been done. In fact environmentalists would like to restrict or reverse existing hydro in the US which is one of the few solutions that has a chance to fill in the gaps from intermittent wind and solar. With the current US regulatory framework, it is hard to imagine new pumped hydro being deployed in a timely manner, look at the timeline to date on the Eagle Mountain Hydroelectric Pumped Storage Project which submitted it's final licensing request in 2009.
One other thing you might do is emphasize the positive qualities of nuclear energy. I believe that the climate is changing and that human beings are part of it, but I don’t see an apocalypse. For those who see apocalypse or those who view things like I do, nuclear energy is a positive.
Nuclear energy requires far less land freeing up more open spaces and habitat for wildlife. Nuclear energy is dispatchable which provides better predictability for people who might want to create more businesses and hence create more jobs. Nuclear jobs pay well, which is good for the local economy.
You might point to things like the Decouple podcast or some of their videos, such as this one
I would back off a little on the caustic rhetoric. I have been pro Nuclear for a long time so I believe your major talking points. Those that are anti-nuclear to the bone will not be changed by any arguments you make. The convertible are those without strong antinuclear opinions. Words like unhinged, trope, utterly memory-holed, utterly absurd feel less like intellectual arguments and more like attacks.
This is more of a death rattle than a position piece. Repeating tired talking points in an editorial is how you know things are ending.
The NYT also did a glowing profile of Mady Hilly, so at least they are putting out multiple viewpoints for people to choose from. That’s how I know the pro nuke side is winning.
In Trope 2 Cooke highlight beyond wind and solar, "hydro and geothermal". One would argue that all the easy hydro has been done. In fact environmentalists would like to restrict or reverse existing hydro in the US which is one of the few solutions that has a chance to fill in the gaps from intermittent wind and solar. With the current US regulatory framework, it is hard to imagine new pumped hydro being deployed in a timely manner, look at the timeline to date on the Eagle Mountain Hydroelectric Pumped Storage Project which submitted it's final licensing request in 2009.
One other thing you might do is emphasize the positive qualities of nuclear energy. I believe that the climate is changing and that human beings are part of it, but I don’t see an apocalypse. For those who see apocalypse or those who view things like I do, nuclear energy is a positive.
Nuclear energy requires far less land freeing up more open spaces and habitat for wildlife. Nuclear energy is dispatchable which provides better predictability for people who might want to create more businesses and hence create more jobs. Nuclear jobs pay well, which is good for the local economy.
You might point to things like the Decouple podcast or some of their videos, such as this one
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jM-b5-uD6jU&list=PLyouH0mkPJXEYBa_DHtD9eVWo8ExIUNA-&index=1&pp=iAQB
I would back off a little on the caustic rhetoric. I have been pro Nuclear for a long time so I believe your major talking points. Those that are anti-nuclear to the bone will not be changed by any arguments you make. The convertible are those without strong antinuclear opinions. Words like unhinged, trope, utterly memory-holed, utterly absurd feel less like intellectual arguments and more like attacks.
Thank you for your succinct rebuttal of anti-nuclear power stalwart Stephanie Cooke's NYT OpEd.
Water vapor, clouds, ice, snow create 30% albedo which makes the Earth cooler not warmer.
W/o GHE there is no WV and no water and Earth goes lunarific, a barren rock ball, 400 K lit side, 100 K dark refuting a warming GHE.
Ubiquitous GHE heat balance graphics don’t plus violate LoT.
Kinetic heat transfer processes of contiguous atmospheric molecules render a surface black body and it’s “extra” upwelling GHE energy impossible.
Since GHE is bogus and CAGW a scam alarmists must resort to fear mongering lies, lawsuits, censorship and violence.