Eminently sensible article. Stopping oil is nonsense given how essential it is to a host of irreplaceable products and services our civilization. The science and practice of modern medicine along would be utterly impossible without a host of petrochemical products. Modern agriculture is utterly impossible to produce food on the scale done by our civilization and upon which the lives of billions depend.
But it's quite right that we can usefully reduce dependency on oil and gas by increasing use of electricity generated from nuclear power. There are always complaints about how long a nuclear plant takes to build, and unpleasant whining that this length prevents it from being a solution. This is a phony argument. Canada's first nuclear power demonstration reactor, NPD-2, was built in less than two years. I know; one of my best friends (now deceased two years ago) was one of the draftsmen designers for the plant. The delays preventing nuclear power plant construction are entirely artificial and of purely human origin.
Second, a nuclear power plant is forever. When modern society builds power stations now, there is no expectation of ever shutting them off and walking away. The Sir Adam Beck 2 hydraulic station in Niagara Falls will operate forever. Ontario is now refurbishing ALL its nuclear power plants for operation for more than 60 years of productive life. At that time in the future, there will be another decision made to renovate them again. As long as modern civilization exists, it will need reliable electric power. And that means nuclear.
We all want the same things, cleaner energy, less poverty, more progress for all.
A small minority are playing a game to hold the success and successful back simply because they want what is delivered but don’t want to be the ones to deliver because it’s too hard for them to deal with their own cognitive dissonance or outdated political stand.
Fortunately as in the past, they will only get away with it for so long, knowing it was such a shame they held nuclear back and prevented the carbon emission reductions that could have helped us all.
Ni time to delay, let’s build away!
We are the first sustainable generation, just look at the damage from before, Hanna Ritchie explains that so well in here:
Looking at air quality data in France pre and post nuclear, is like a switch being turned off.
Is there any analysis which shows the impact of the ‘third world’ electrifying by switching to coal compared to continuing to cook with charcoal, wood and dung?
Why do you think "climate change" even exists, never mind that it has to be "solved"? The UN, the WEF etc are plainly lying to us. It's just incessant propaganda.
Can I prove they are lying? Of course.
Their hockey stick graph shows that the temperature of the world never did anything strange until the Industrial Revolution. Just a steady decline until then. So it follows that any increase since then must indeed be down to us.
But this is the ACTUAL graph showing the changes in the world's temperature since 900 AD:
Climate change exists as a cause because the United Nations needed a new reason to exist after the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union. Global warming seemed to require a global governance to resolve the issue, and only the UN could fill that role. This has occurred despite the fact that the United Nations' original mission was to prevent a land war in Europe after 1945. With its major funder the United States slashing its UN contributions, the UN needed a new cause, as the Tombstone on the Hudson was eitherwise going to collapse in a river of unpaid bills and its own irrelevance.
It should be manifestly obvious that it has failed this original Eurocentric mission on at least four major occasions: invasion of Hungary 1956; the breakup of Yugoslavia 1990+; the two Russian invasions of Ukraine in 2014 and 2022. So having failed abysmally in its main mission every single time it was put to the test, the UN under de Cuellar expects to be rewarded by being assigned a new mission and granted a new lease on life.
Eminently sensible article. Stopping oil is nonsense given how essential it is to a host of irreplaceable products and services our civilization. The science and practice of modern medicine along would be utterly impossible without a host of petrochemical products. Modern agriculture is utterly impossible to produce food on the scale done by our civilization and upon which the lives of billions depend.
But it's quite right that we can usefully reduce dependency on oil and gas by increasing use of electricity generated from nuclear power. There are always complaints about how long a nuclear plant takes to build, and unpleasant whining that this length prevents it from being a solution. This is a phony argument. Canada's first nuclear power demonstration reactor, NPD-2, was built in less than two years. I know; one of my best friends (now deceased two years ago) was one of the draftsmen designers for the plant. The delays preventing nuclear power plant construction are entirely artificial and of purely human origin.
Second, a nuclear power plant is forever. When modern society builds power stations now, there is no expectation of ever shutting them off and walking away. The Sir Adam Beck 2 hydraulic station in Niagara Falls will operate forever. Ontario is now refurbishing ALL its nuclear power plants for operation for more than 60 years of productive life. At that time in the future, there will be another decision made to renovate them again. As long as modern civilization exists, it will need reliable electric power. And that means nuclear.
It’s always so good to read your posts.
We all want the same things, cleaner energy, less poverty, more progress for all.
A small minority are playing a game to hold the success and successful back simply because they want what is delivered but don’t want to be the ones to deliver because it’s too hard for them to deal with their own cognitive dissonance or outdated political stand.
Fortunately as in the past, they will only get away with it for so long, knowing it was such a shame they held nuclear back and prevented the carbon emission reductions that could have helped us all.
Ni time to delay, let’s build away!
We are the first sustainable generation, just look at the damage from before, Hanna Ritchie explains that so well in here:
https://open.spotify.com/episode/7LAWY49zl6KwI2DlVmazCe?si=GdwUmtSERlmqiHy6fUiQJw
Behold! I am pleased with the contents of this article.
Just Start Nuclear....
Where can I get the T-shirt..?
Looking at air quality data in France pre and post nuclear, is like a switch being turned off.
Is there any analysis which shows the impact of the ‘third world’ electrifying by switching to coal compared to continuing to cook with charcoal, wood and dung?
And finally, try Isaac Asimov’s Naked Sun.
I've covered fuel transitions in lower-income countries here > https://zionlights.substack.com/p/the-inconvenient-truth-about-gas
Thanks for the recommendation, but I've already read all of the Robot and Foundation series!
Love your stuff. No, it is not possible to 'just stop oil'. Despite all the sloganeering.
A very enlightening read Zion, Isaac Asimov indeed had great foresight and so do you!
Why do you think "climate change" even exists, never mind that it has to be "solved"? The UN, the WEF etc are plainly lying to us. It's just incessant propaganda.
Can I prove they are lying? Of course.
Their hockey stick graph shows that the temperature of the world never did anything strange until the Industrial Revolution. Just a steady decline until then. So it follows that any increase since then must indeed be down to us.
But this is the ACTUAL graph showing the changes in the world's temperature since 900 AD:
https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F8364a449-efa6-48c2-b63d-1f84ee53d690_360x179.png
Notice the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ace Age.
If their most important "proof" is a blatant lie, then why believe them on "climate change" at all? Indeed, why believe them on anything?
Climate change exists as a cause because the United Nations needed a new reason to exist after the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union. Global warming seemed to require a global governance to resolve the issue, and only the UN could fill that role. This has occurred despite the fact that the United Nations' original mission was to prevent a land war in Europe after 1945. With its major funder the United States slashing its UN contributions, the UN needed a new cause, as the Tombstone on the Hudson was eitherwise going to collapse in a river of unpaid bills and its own irrelevance.
It should be manifestly obvious that it has failed this original Eurocentric mission on at least four major occasions: invasion of Hungary 1956; the breakup of Yugoslavia 1990+; the two Russian invasions of Ukraine in 2014 and 2022. So having failed abysmally in its main mission every single time it was put to the test, the UN under de Cuellar expects to be rewarded by being assigned a new mission and granted a new lease on life.
Been saying this for years!
Petroleum is too valuable to burn.