Dec 5, 2023·edited Dec 5, 2023Liked by Zion Lights
Im not 100% educated on the topic, albeit well-read enough on to be dangerous to those who aren't. I must say I was quite shocked to see those words, not printed across a small banner, but permanently fastened to a wall. Feeling very encouraged by this. If we took all our blood money wasted on wars and bogus renewable energy programs (both serving only those seeking reelection) and applied it to atomic energy research, can you imagine the advancements we could make in waste disposal alone?
I'm a California native so I know how bad it can get. I know exactly why we aren't using more nuclear energy in the most populated and energy starved state in the country, and it has nothing to do with safety and protecting the environment. We have the Brown family (now the Newsoms) to thank for this and the incredible cost of living here. The nuclear industry has quite an uphill battle to fight against those idiots and their sycophants. Love that dress, by the way. Amazing!
Eventually forces of nature like physics and Zion Lights demand to assert themselves in a world that is too often delusional and uninformed. This is excellent reporting. Tipping points like this don’t happen without passionate, informed, persistent people like you. For years nuclear advocates were fighting to keep nuclear plants from closing down. There was no media coverage. The nuclear industry often left the volunteer nuclear advocates swinging in the wind, letting the economics of the situation turn off another reactor. We would not be at this moment without volunteer advocates (many of them at COP28 now) and those too few people within the industry that worked hard to get new builds going against all opposition and resistance. Now to get the US back into building again? And heal a supply chain and build a skilled workforce to get the job done everywhere. It would be nice to see the first group that filed a BS lawsuit to delay a nuclear plant build sued right back, and let the world know it’s time to build again. It seems people are up for the challenge now. This was a good day.
Zion, it's a good article, but I have just a couple of caveats. Indeed Australia still has a ban on commercial nuclear power. It has no need of nuclear power because Australia has an enormous supply of coal readily available. For defense reasons, Australia does need nuclear powered submarines. But political policy has never concerned itself very much with either consistency or hypocrisy.
Japan has indeed reversed its antinuclear position taken after Fukushima in 2011. Japan has no choice. Japan has no domestic energy supplies of coal or natural gas. So its situation is to return to nuclear power or do without electricity.
Germany has indeed maintained its opposition to nuclear power. It is the EU leader in antinuclearism along with Austria. What this shows is that the toxic political legacy of Yuri Andropov still lives on long after his death and the end of the Soviet Union.
The central difficulty with nuclear power is economic. Nuclear power plants are capital intensive. The all-in cost of power may be low, but the rate of return on the large invested capital is an issue. In our modern world, investors want a rapid return on their invested capital. Governments will not allow that, as they generally wish to keep electrical power rates as low as possible. Hence the condundrum.
My final point is simply that the entire UNFCCC endeavour is a pointless waste of time. The world's largest CO2 emitters China, United States and India have not the slightest intention of being bound by any international treaty or agreement to limit emissions. The United States refused this unanimously by Senate vote in 1998. China and India are adding at least one new coal-fired plant per day. Under NO circumstances will they simply abandon this sunk capital.
Hence Net Zero will never be achieved. It's a piece of political rhetoric and nothing more. Attempting to achieve it will only increase further hardship and poverty among the world's undeveloped nations.
But your main point is absolutely true. The world will continue to need greater and greater supplies of highly reliable electricity. And that can only come from more nuclear power. It is the only energy source for which availability of raw fuel is not an issue.
Just as I thought, the outcome of COP 28 was zero. It's another meaningless agreement that the Saudis have indicated will not cause their sales of petroleum to shrink in the slightest. It's long past time to face the facts:
1993: Agenda 21;
1998: Kyoto Protocol;
2007: Bali Roadmap;
2010: Kyoto Extension Agreement;
2015: Paris Accord.
All of these agreements had a number of things in common. World emissions of CO2 varied not one iota afterward. World weather events were unaffected. World temperatures continued their gradual increase without any change. China, India and a host of countries in Asia and Africa have indicated their intention to ignore any or all of these climate agreements. They regard the UNFCCC attempts as environmental neo-colonialism.
So it's long past time to acknowledge that the UNFCCC adventure has been a complete, abject failure.
There is no existential crisis. Tipping points do not exist, as they were nothing more than the invention of one of Merkel's political advisors. They have no scientific validity and are entirely arbitrary.
Yes, the world needs more nuclear energy. The alternative is burning a lot more coal or LNG.
Im not 100% educated on the topic, albeit well-read enough on to be dangerous to those who aren't. I must say I was quite shocked to see those words, not printed across a small banner, but permanently fastened to a wall. Feeling very encouraged by this. If we took all our blood money wasted on wars and bogus renewable energy programs (both serving only those seeking reelection) and applied it to atomic energy research, can you imagine the advancements we could make in waste disposal alone?
I'm a California native so I know how bad it can get. I know exactly why we aren't using more nuclear energy in the most populated and energy starved state in the country, and it has nothing to do with safety and protecting the environment. We have the Brown family (now the Newsoms) to thank for this and the incredible cost of living here. The nuclear industry has quite an uphill battle to fight against those idiots and their sycophants. Love that dress, by the way. Amazing!
Eventually forces of nature like physics and Zion Lights demand to assert themselves in a world that is too often delusional and uninformed. This is excellent reporting. Tipping points like this don’t happen without passionate, informed, persistent people like you. For years nuclear advocates were fighting to keep nuclear plants from closing down. There was no media coverage. The nuclear industry often left the volunteer nuclear advocates swinging in the wind, letting the economics of the situation turn off another reactor. We would not be at this moment without volunteer advocates (many of them at COP28 now) and those too few people within the industry that worked hard to get new builds going against all opposition and resistance. Now to get the US back into building again? And heal a supply chain and build a skilled workforce to get the job done everywhere. It would be nice to see the first group that filed a BS lawsuit to delay a nuclear plant build sued right back, and let the world know it’s time to build again. It seems people are up for the challenge now. This was a good day.
Signs of light in the energy darkness.
Zion, it's a good article, but I have just a couple of caveats. Indeed Australia still has a ban on commercial nuclear power. It has no need of nuclear power because Australia has an enormous supply of coal readily available. For defense reasons, Australia does need nuclear powered submarines. But political policy has never concerned itself very much with either consistency or hypocrisy.
Japan has indeed reversed its antinuclear position taken after Fukushima in 2011. Japan has no choice. Japan has no domestic energy supplies of coal or natural gas. So its situation is to return to nuclear power or do without electricity.
Germany has indeed maintained its opposition to nuclear power. It is the EU leader in antinuclearism along with Austria. What this shows is that the toxic political legacy of Yuri Andropov still lives on long after his death and the end of the Soviet Union.
The central difficulty with nuclear power is economic. Nuclear power plants are capital intensive. The all-in cost of power may be low, but the rate of return on the large invested capital is an issue. In our modern world, investors want a rapid return on their invested capital. Governments will not allow that, as they generally wish to keep electrical power rates as low as possible. Hence the condundrum.
My final point is simply that the entire UNFCCC endeavour is a pointless waste of time. The world's largest CO2 emitters China, United States and India have not the slightest intention of being bound by any international treaty or agreement to limit emissions. The United States refused this unanimously by Senate vote in 1998. China and India are adding at least one new coal-fired plant per day. Under NO circumstances will they simply abandon this sunk capital.
Hence Net Zero will never be achieved. It's a piece of political rhetoric and nothing more. Attempting to achieve it will only increase further hardship and poverty among the world's undeveloped nations.
But your main point is absolutely true. The world will continue to need greater and greater supplies of highly reliable electricity. And that can only come from more nuclear power. It is the only energy source for which availability of raw fuel is not an issue.
Just as I thought, the outcome of COP 28 was zero. It's another meaningless agreement that the Saudis have indicated will not cause their sales of petroleum to shrink in the slightest. It's long past time to face the facts:
1993: Agenda 21;
1998: Kyoto Protocol;
2007: Bali Roadmap;
2010: Kyoto Extension Agreement;
2015: Paris Accord.
All of these agreements had a number of things in common. World emissions of CO2 varied not one iota afterward. World weather events were unaffected. World temperatures continued their gradual increase without any change. China, India and a host of countries in Asia and Africa have indicated their intention to ignore any or all of these climate agreements. They regard the UNFCCC attempts as environmental neo-colonialism.
So it's long past time to acknowledge that the UNFCCC adventure has been a complete, abject failure.
There is no existential crisis. Tipping points do not exist, as they were nothing more than the invention of one of Merkel's political advisors. They have no scientific validity and are entirely arbitrary.
Yes, the world needs more nuclear energy. The alternative is burning a lot more coal or LNG.