Top Climate Scientists say IPCC bias against nuclear power ‘impedes decarbonization more than climate denial’

Top Climate Scientists Warn Governments Of ‘Blatant Anti-Nuclear Bias’ In Latest IPCC Climate Report
Indian Point Nuclear Power Station in New York. It sits on the east bank of the Hudson River, about 36 miles north of Midtown Manhattan.

Some of the scientists most often cited by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have taken the unusual step of warning leaders of G-20 nations that a recent IPCC report uses a double standard when it comes to its treatment of nuclear as compared to renewables.

“The anti-nuclear bias of this latest IPCC release is rather blatant,” said  Kerry Emanuel, a climate scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, “and reflects the ideology of the environmental movement. History may record that this was more of an impediment to decarbonization than climate denial.”

Other signers of the letter include Tom Wigley, a widely-cited climate scientist who has contributed to IPCC reports on 13 separate occasions, David Lea, professor of Earth Sciences at University of California, Santa Barbara, and Peter Raven, Winner of the National Medal of Science, 2001.

“Such fear-mongering about nuclear has serious consequences,” the authors write. “As IPCC itself acknowledges, public fears of nuclear are behind the technology’s slower-than-desirable development.

The letter signers include leading radiation experts who expressed outrage that the IPCC had claimed a link between nuclear power stations and leukemia when in reality “there is no valid evidentiary support for it and the supposed connection has been thoroughly dismissed in the literature.”


Here is the letter: http://environmentalprogress.org/big-news/2018/10/25/open-letter-to-heads-of-state-of-the-g-20-from-scientists-and-scholars-on-nuclear-for-climate-change

0 0 votes
Article Rating
138 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Rocketscientist
November 1, 2018 12:54 pm

The blatant anti-energy bias of the IPCC is far more obvious.

Tom Gelsthorpe
Reply to  Rocketscientist
November 1, 2018 1:13 pm

Chauffeured limousines, A.C., Jets, salmon mousse, and mansions for the IPCC big shots; ox carts, gruel and hovels for the hoi polloi.

Reply to  Tom Gelsthorpe
November 1, 2018 9:02 pm

there is no ‘the’ in ‘hoi polloi’

hoi means ‘the’…

HotScot
Reply to  Leo Smith
November 2, 2018 2:55 am

Leo Smith

I didn’t know that.

Like I always say, every day’s a schoolday on WUWT. 🙂

Walter Sobchak
Reply to  Leo Smith
November 2, 2018 8:42 am

I think that is a bit pedantic, Leo:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hoi%20polloi

Usage and Meanings of Hoi Polloi: Usage Guide —
Since hoi polloi is a transliteration of the Greek for “the many,” some critics have asserted that the phrase should not be preceded by the. They find “the hoi polloi” to be redundant, equivalent to “the the many”—an opinion that fails to recognize that hoi means nothing at all in English. Nonetheless, the opinion has influenced the omission of the in the usage of some writers.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Walter Sobchak
November 2, 2018 9:58 am

Good comment, Walter. Were I to use the phrase, I would use the “the” as part of it. 🙂

brians356
Reply to  Leo Smith
November 2, 2018 12:05 pm

There’s one in every crowd. (I should know, I’m one of them.) In the context of English usage, the literal Greek translation has been discarded. Now “the hoi polloi” is generally accepted.

Like it or not, what’s considered proper English evolves to reflect usage – often improper usage. Same for pronunciation, where “gigawatt” should be pronounced jig’ e wot, not unlike “gigantic”. (Doc Brown was correct in “Back To The Future”.) Try that now and you will be laughed out of Starbucks.

John Tillman
Reply to  brians356
November 2, 2018 6:27 pm

Except that it always should have been pronounced “giga”, with two hard “g”s, since its from the Greek for “giant”, ie γίγας, “gigas”.

I agree that “the hoi polloi” is right in English, just as I support “the El Nino”. When the two word phrase becomes a single thing, then I’m OK with adding an apparently redundant definite article in English.

Major Meteor
Reply to  Tom Gelsthorpe
November 2, 2018 11:38 am

Here is the proper usage of ‘hoi pulloi’.

ThomasJK
Reply to  Tom Gelsthorpe
November 4, 2018 4:41 am

Some of the ‘bennies’ that are being conferred on the U. N. MFWICS are somewhat typical of the “perquisites” that socialist fascist regimes confer on each other at the expense of the peasant, serf and slave classes who are their providers and who are under their control.

Reply to  Rocketscientist
November 1, 2018 3:28 pm

Anti-energy us just their means to an end, which is anti-western democracy, as these forms of government tend to be the most prosperous. The agenda of the UNFCCC is to equalize the prosperity of the developed world with the s-hole countries whose prosperity is squandered by their inept and corrupt leadership, all of whom fundamentally have an equal voice in the UNFCCC.

As the western democracy with the deepest pockets, the US has declared that we will not participate in this blatant attempt at extortion. The only path they have left is to destroy western prosperity and the quickest way to do this is to inflate the cost of energy, especially if it affects western democracies disproportionately, after all, how many s-hole countries can safely maintain a nuke plant?

MarkW
Reply to  co2isnotevil
November 1, 2018 4:42 pm

All of whom have an equal voice in the UN. Period.
Which explains why the UN itself is worthless.

AGW is not Science
Reply to  Rocketscientist
November 2, 2018 6:52 am

Ding Ding Ding! We have a winner!

LdB
Reply to  Rocketscientist
November 2, 2018 9:31 am

They also have a very strong socialist bias with wealth redistribution, social equality all built into the propaganda they pump out.

Joe Crawford
Reply to  LdB
November 4, 2018 8:46 am

That ‘strong socialist bias’ could be why they never joined the ‘developing’ or the ‘developed’ crowd :<)

Tom Halla
November 1, 2018 12:55 pm

I have concluded that much of the green blob’s pushing “renewables” is that they realize wind and solar cannot sustain industrial society. They do have a strong nihilist tendency.
Remember, having cheap and unlimited power would be like giving an idiot child a machine gun.

Thomas Homer
Reply to  Tom Halla
November 1, 2018 1:13 pm

Tom Halla – “wind and solar cannot sustain industrial society”

True.

Similarly, since both solar and wind energy extraction are constrained by a function of Earth’s surface area it should be readily apparent that neither is scalable.

Percy Jackson
Reply to  Thomas Homer
November 1, 2018 1:39 pm

Thomas,
That is nonsense. The same argument can just as easily be made about fossil fuels since mines
can only exist on the Earth’s surface they are also constrained by the surface area and thus fossil fuels can’t be scaled. Fossil fuels are also constrained by the past and thus will run out much faster than solar power will. Whether you like it or not the only long term viable energy source is solar.

Tom Halla
Reply to  Percy Jackson
November 1, 2018 1:44 pm

Solar is not sustainable using only solar, given current technology.

Bryan A
Reply to  Tom Halla
November 1, 2018 2:22 pm

Solar is also unpractical given the technology requires bot large amounts of reliable energy to create the infrastructure necessary for installations and large tracts of open land to gather the needed energy. Powering Manhattan Island alone, given it’s current energy usage and population density would require covering an area the size of the State of Connecticut just to power that one city.
2 nuclear plants with 10 – 1100Mw generators can supply the needed energy on just 25 acres of land or around 6 city blocks in NY City.
In its current state, Solar is highly impractical and a huge waste of land for the minimal return from 1 pm to 5 pm during the summer and 12:30 pm to 3:00 pm during the winter (when the sun is shining strongest)

Bryan A
Reply to  Tom Halla
November 1, 2018 2:34 pm

“bot” should be “both”

MarkW
Reply to  Tom Halla
November 1, 2018 4:47 pm

Bryan, those figures require an utterly unrealistic utilization rate for the solar cells.
In reality it would take at least 10 times as much.

RLu
Reply to  Tom Halla
November 2, 2018 6:05 am

The only way unreliables are viable, is with superconductors. Sites suitable for pumped water are never in the place where the consumers are or where the energy is. With an inter-continental transmission network and power plants (water or salt cookers) in deserts around the world, solar could provide power 24/7/365.

If only the climate scientists would stop their nonsense and build us 100 000 km of Nitrogen cooled cable at a reasonable price. Only use abundant elements and stay away from Mercury, please. No need to swap one imaginary problem for an other environmental disaster.

So it will never happen until mine-able coal runs out.

Bryan A
Reply to  Tom Halla
November 2, 2018 12:34 pm

Mercury is far too warm for superconducting to function properly anyway so definitely stay away from there

Rocketscientist
Reply to  Percy Jackson
November 1, 2018 1:53 pm

Thomas whether you like it or not, all energy on earth with the exception of gravitational force and nuclear are SOLAR. Fossil fuels are merely solar energy that has been stored within the earth.
Solar is an intermittent and rather diffuse energy source that requires concentration to attain the thermal differences needed for efficient energy conversions.

Solar electric panels were invented for the space industry because the extension cords needed to power the satellites were too long and the ignorant craven public was too scared of nuclear generators. Even though, RTGs (Radioactive Thermal Generators) are still the go-to choice for deep space craft that fly where the sun is a dim as your average environmentalist.
Nuclear is a far better energy source for creating electricity than current solar-electric panels.

Rocketscientist
Reply to  Rocketscientist
November 1, 2018 1:55 pm

Sorry, comment meant for Percy.

Percy Jackson
Reply to  Rocketscientist
November 1, 2018 2:02 pm

Rocketscientist,
I am not making any comment about the practicalities of using solar power. I am simply pointing out that it is the only long term option that we have. All other fuel sources will be depleted within a couple of hundred of years.

Bryan A
Reply to  Rocketscientist
November 1, 2018 2:29 pm

Percy
All elements and compounds are only finite not just fossil fuels and will eventually run out

As is the case with the necessary elements to create unrecyclable solar panels..
And costly wind turbines…

All elements are limited to what the earth contains…

We still can’t turn lead into gold
and free energy sources like STEORN proposed are currently still just pie in the sky fallacies

DonM
Reply to  Rocketscientist
November 1, 2018 2:49 pm

“I am not making any comment about the practicalities of using solar power. I am simply pointing out that it is the only long term option that we have. All other fuel sources will be depleted within a couple of hundred of years.”

That is not what you are doing. Your exclusion of nuclear (“all other fuel sources”) makes it clear that all you are doing is advocating for the current darling energy sources (solar/wind), even though you know they cannot sustain … EVEN FOR THE SHORT TERM … an industrial society.

Why are you doing this?

Percy Jackson
Reply to  Rocketscientist
November 1, 2018 2:55 pm

DonM,
Uranium supplies are limited. And the best estimates suggest there is not enough Uranium to power the entire globe for more than a couple of centuries. The only energy source that is viable over time spans of 500 years or more is solar.

Tom Halla
Reply to  Percy Jackson
November 1, 2018 3:04 pm

That assumes a Jimmy Carter special fuel cycle–once through and sequester. It also ignores Thorium, or other types of reactor except light water.

Reply to  Percy Jackson
November 1, 2018 4:08 pm

Percy, can you see a pattern here?

Renewables are gnats on an elephant’s @$$… Solar is the tiniest gnat.

There has never been an energy transition.

Petroleum

Global proved petroleum reserves continue to rise with production.

Forbes

Proved reserves continue to rise because probable & possible reserves and resources are continuously converted to proved reserves by production and reservoir management.

The world has only consumed about 17% of the total recoverable petroleum.

Billion bbl Recoverable Resources
Cumulative Production Proved Reserves Conven. Unconven.
Asia/Pacific                                          100                              50                         95                             90
E. Europe/Eurasia                                          190                            160                      300                          580
OECD Europe                                            80                              10                         90                             25
Middle East                                          320                            800                      310                             50
Africa                                          100                            120                      190                             50
Latin America                                          100                            320                      190                          320
North America                                          310                            220                      260                       1,700
World Total                                      1,200                        1,680                   1,435                       2,815
Years at 28.1 Bbbl/yr                              60                         51                          100
NA Resources  NA yrs
                 1,960         69.75
Total Bbbl % Prod Un-prod Bbbl %Un-prod
                 7,130 17%                 5,930 83%

Natural Gas

Global proved natural gas reserves continue to rise with production.

Proved reserves are only a fraction of the natural gas that will likely be produced from existing fields.

The US, alone, has 72 years worth of natural gas in existing fields.  Another 70+ years in technically recoverable resources and over 1,000 years in resources that are currently technically unrecoverable…

Coal

Coal reserves are sufficient for hundreds of years…

Coal resources are a bit more difficult to assess.  However, they are fracking YUGE. The USGS has not conducted a coal resource assessment for these United States since 1974.

How much coal is in the United States?

The amount of coal that exists in the United States is difficult to estimate because it is buried underground. The most comprehensive national assessment of U.S. coal resources was published by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in 1975, which indicated that as of January 1, 1974, coal resources in the United States totaled 4 trillion short tons. Although more recent regional assessments of U.S. coal resources have been conducted by the USGS, a new national-level assessment of U.S. coal resources has not been conducted.

The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) publishes three measures of how much coal is left in the United States, which are based on various degrees of geologic certainty and on the economic feasibility of mining the coal.

EIA’s estimates for the amount of coal reserves as of January 1, 2017, by type of reserve

  • Demonstrated Reserve Base (DRB) is the sum of coal in both measured and indicated resource categories of reliability. The DRB represents 100% of the in-place coal that could be mined commercially at a given time. EIA estimates the DRB at about 476 billion short tons, of which about 69% is underground mineable coal.
  • Estimated recoverable reserves include only the coal that can be mined with today’s mining technology after considering accessibility constraints and recovery factors. EIA estimates U.S. recoverable coal reserves at about 254 billion short tons, of which about 58% is underground mineable coal.
  • Recoverable reserves at producing mines are the amount of recoverable reserves that coal mining companies report to EIA for their U.S. coal mines that produced more than 25,000 short tons of coal in a year. EIA estimates these reserves at about 17 billion short tons of recoverable reserves, of which 65% is surface mineable coal.

 

Based on U.S. coal production in 2016 of about 0.73 billion short tons, the recoverable coal reserves would last about 348 years, and recoverable reserves at producing mines would last about 23 years. The actual number of years that those reserves will last depends on changes in production and reserves estimates.

[…]

US EIA

This should demonstrate the scale of how much coal there is just in these regionally United States…

The most recent resource estimate is 10 times the demonstrated reserve base, which is roughly 10 times the recoverable reserves at producing mines… And… Despite generating nearly 30% of our electricity from coal, the producing mines have no difficulty supplying more than enough coal.

The world has 1,000’s of years of technically recoverable coal.

Nuclear Fission Fuel

The world has 10’s of thousands of years of uranium resources…

According to the NEA, identified uranium resources total 5.5 million metric tons, and an additional 10.5 million metric tons remain undiscovered—a roughly 230-year supply at today’s consumption rate in total. Further exploration and improvements in extraction technology are likely to at least double this estimate over time.

Using more enrichment work could reduce the uranium needs of LWRs by as much as 30 percent per metric ton of LEU. And separating plutonium and uranium from spent LEU and using them to make fresh fuel could reduce requirements by another 30 percent. Taking both steps would cut the uranium requirements of an LWR in half.

Two technologies could greatly extend the uranium supply itself. Neither is economical now, but both could be in the future if the price of uranium increases substantially. First, the extraction of uranium from seawater would make available 4.5 billion metric tons of uranium—a 60,000-year supply at present rates. Second, fuel-recycling fast-breeder reactors, which generate more fuel than they consume, would use less than 1 percent of the uranium needed for current LWRs. Breeder reactors could match today’s nuclear output for 30,000 years using only the NEA-estimated supplies.

Scientific American

Nuclear Fusion Fuel

If nuclear fusion is ever harnessed, the fuel supply is the closest thing to an infinite energy source.

The Tiniest Gnat’s Prospects

Until such time that solar power plants are deployed above the Earth’s atmosphere, solar power has this much of a chance to replace fossil fuels and nuclear power:

 

John Tillman
Reply to  Rocketscientist
November 1, 2018 2:57 pm

Percy,

I’ll bet you’ve heard of this technology. Maybe just slipped your mind:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor

Reply to  Rocketscientist
November 1, 2018 3:45 pm

I’m just trying to imagine an only solar powered hospital….
as only one exsample…

And I see a big problem concerning storage of solar power, view the coming problems concerning the materials that are necessary – they are limited too….

mike the morlock
Reply to  Rocketscientist
November 1, 2018 4:43 pm

Percy Jackson November 1, 2018 at 2:02 pm
Now I’m not trying to undercut David Middleton, But both of you are missing something. The rest of the solar system. It would be easier to build mining craft to extract radioactives from the “belt” then try and built the storage infrastructure for renewables. Even at our present tech level.
We could use Al Gores mansion for the re-entry landing

michael

Reply to  mike the morlock
November 1, 2018 6:55 pm

And here’s a business plan for 3He mining on the Moon…

MarkW
Reply to  Rocketscientist
November 1, 2018 4:48 pm

Even nuclear is solar, it was just not our star that made it.

MarkW
Reply to  Rocketscientist
November 1, 2018 4:51 pm

Tom, only bit more than 1% of the uranium is used by the time the rod is pulled from the plant. The other 99% could be reprocessed and fed back into power plants, if the greenies would give up their paranoia about industrial society.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Rocketscientist
November 1, 2018 7:20 pm

I keep telling people, mostly Australians, who want coal banned that coal is concentrated sunlight, or in other words a “solar battery”.

beng135
Reply to  Rocketscientist
November 2, 2018 7:11 am

Percy sez:
The only energy source that is viable over time spans of 500 years or more is solar.

Don’t know much ’bout energy, do ya? You could read David’s thorough response, but doubt you’ll bother or understand it. I’ll condense the key phrase: The world has 10’s of thousands of years of uranium resources.

MarkW
Reply to  Rocketscientist
November 2, 2018 1:17 pm

Even the sun will eventually run out.

MarkW
Reply to  Rocketscientist
November 2, 2018 1:18 pm

David, I read somewhere that there is more energy in the uranium trapped in coal, then there is in the coal itself.

Reply to  Percy Jackson
November 1, 2018 2:11 pm

Anyone who claimes that molten salt using either uranium or Thorium is constrained in any practical sense is pretty ignorant. Solar power is constrained by its uncontrollable nature. It has little intrinsic value.

Percy Jackson
Reply to  kent beuchert
November 1, 2018 2:24 pm

In what way does solar power have an uncontrollable nature? It is high predictable
we know when the sun will rises and sets and we know that the solar output is constant to within a percent or so. We also know the average number of sunny days for every location
and so can predict very accurately how much power we will get from a solar panel in a particular location.

As for value electricity produced from solar cells has exactly the same value as electricity produced by any other means. Once the energy is in the grid it is treated the same and valued the same. Plenty of people have installed roof-top solar panels and seen their electricity bills come down which is proof that there is real value in solar polar.

Tom Halla
Reply to  Percy Jackson
November 1, 2018 2:27 pm

Do you actually understand the definition of the term “dispatchable”? As solar and wind require conventional backup for a grid installation, their value is pure cost of fuel based, and they do not meet that test.

Percy Jackson
Reply to  kent beuchert
November 1, 2018 2:47 pm

Tom,
Whether you like it or not fossil fuels are going to run out long before solar power does
(they will lose the race by several billion years). So the issue at some point is going to be how do we construct a society and civilisation based around solar power. The chances are that it won’t look like western civilisation but unless we want to go back to the stone age solar power is all we have and we had better figure out how to use it.

Tom Halla
Reply to  Percy Jackson
November 1, 2018 2:53 pm

Fission or fusion are much more likely to be sustainable than ground based solar, especially given power density. Can one build a plant producing solar power cells using only solar power? Not yet, and I think the problems with fusion will be solved before that becomes practical.

John Tillman
Reply to  kent beuchert
November 1, 2018 2:54 pm

Percy,

We’ll also never run out of splittable (or eventually fusible) atomic nuclei. And the power produced via nuclear reactions is industrial-grade reliable.

Philo
Reply to  kent beuchert
November 1, 2018 2:59 pm

Percy, try running your computer and internet connection just from solar. And then you finally have a deadline for a $100,000 project that has to be delivered in days or you get zip. In the middle of winter any place north of 40° only has usable sunlight for maybe 4 hours.

Marcus
Reply to  kent beuchert
November 1, 2018 3:48 pm

“In what way does solar power have an uncontrollable nature? It is high predictable

Little Percy, please borrow a book from your local library and take it to your little “Safe Space” and look up the definition of CLOUDS… RAIN…SNOW… and most importantly ..12 hours of NIGHT TIME….

MarkW
Reply to  kent beuchert
November 1, 2018 4:56 pm

As usual, Percy demonstrates that he has no idea what he is talking about.
Knowing the average number of “sunny” days is useless. You need to know how sunny it is now, the next minute, the next hour, etc all day long.

MarkW
Reply to  kent beuchert
November 1, 2018 4:58 pm

Percy, no matter how much you whine, the fact remains that it is impossible to build an industrial society around wind and solar.

BTW, I love the way you ignore nuclear and other potential power sources in your desperate attempt to justify your religious faith in solar.

Reply to  kent beuchert
November 2, 2018 7:33 am

Percy – Please schedule your next operation in a hospital running on 100% Solar (or 100$ Wind) with NO backup power from any Fossil or Nuclear source.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Percy Jackson
November 1, 2018 2:41 pm

“Top Climate Scientists” who are also morons, believe that “decarbonization” which would if instituted cause economic misery worldwide, is necessary.

clivehoskin
Reply to  Percy Jackson
November 1, 2018 3:04 pm

You “Lefties”really must love making fools of yourselves.For a start.With-out fossil fuels you won’t be able to generate enough electricity to make the”Solar Panels”AND the panels have to be replaced every 15 years if your lucky.

AGW is not Science
Reply to  clivehoskin
November 2, 2018 6:42 am

@Percy Jackson

Since solar panels and windmills consume more energy (when ALL of it is counted – the mining of raw materials, transport of raw materials, turning of the raw materials into the necessary metals, alloys, cement, etc., the transport of the metals, alloys, etc. to the manufacturing facilities, the manufacture of the component parts, the transport of the cement and the components parts to the site where they will be constructed, the erection of the panels or windmills at the site, the maintenance and repair of the panels and windmills once they are operational, the tear down of the defunct panels and windmills once they reach the end of their (shorter than promised) useful lives, the transport of the scrap to the site they will pollute after that, and the inefficient running of fossil fuel based power plants on stand-by to be ramped up whenever the wind doesn’t blow at the right speed or the sun isn’t shining bright enough) than they will ever produce, all “renewables” will do is speed up the exhaustion of the fossil fuel reserves you’re so concerned about depleting.

All while ensuring economic destruction, famine, and death by energy poverty.

BobM
Reply to  Percy Jackson
November 1, 2018 3:10 pm

“Whether you like it or not the only long term viable energy source is solar.”

Really??? Can you supply a reference for when you think nuclear and hydro will run out? Nuclear is inexhaustible, and we’re in real trouble if it stops raining. Solar can never be anything but intermittent, and really effective only at lower latitudes.

Percy Jackson
Reply to  BobM
November 1, 2018 8:14 pm

BobM,
If you assume that everyone on the earth deserves the same amount of energy as
the average European that comes out at 80 kWh/d. Hydro does not scale and so the only
long term source is solar. Have a look at “Sustainability with the hot air”. David MacKay also puts a figure on nuclear power at 33 kWh/d for conventional sources assuming that we want supplies to last 1000 years. If people work out how to extract Uranium from sea water in some way that is energy efficient then that would be a game changer but no-one has any idea how to do that. So we are stuck with solar power as the only power source that we know how to get to work and that has the capability to provide power for everyone for the next 1000 years.

HotScot
Reply to  BobM
November 2, 2018 3:12 am

Percy Jackson

David McKay also ridiculed renewables.

https://www.ted.com/talks/david_mackay_a_reality_check_on_renewables

dodgy geezer
Reply to  Percy Jackson
November 1, 2018 3:47 pm

there are a lot of hydrocarbons on Titan…..

mike the morlock
Reply to  dodgy geezer
November 1, 2018 4:50 pm

dodgy geezer November 1, 2018 at 3:47 pm
there are a lot of hydrocarbons on Titan…..

“Exxon knew”!!! And hasn’t stated it in their stock reports!!!

I better stop …

michael

Reply to  Percy Jackson
November 1, 2018 4:28 pm

Percy,

There’s only one long term solution and it’s E = mc^2. Even the Sun relies on this, so it’s far more efficient to convert matter to energy ourselves than to rely on a reactor 100 million miles away and hope and catch a tiny fraction of a tiny fraction of a tiny fraction of a percent of its output, as long as the wind is blowing and the skies are clear. BTW, about 2/3 of the planet is covered by clouds at any one time, so availability is certainly an issue.

MarkW
Reply to  Percy Jackson
November 1, 2018 4:45 pm

We have several hundred years of oil and gas, we have close to 1000 years of coal.
By the time we do start running out, we’ll have invented something else much better.
Beyond that we have 100’s of thousands of years of nuclear energy.
By the time that runs out, hopefully will have fusion working.

Wind and solar can’t even generate enough electricity over their lifecycle to replace themselves.
Solar is not, and will never be a viable energy source.

HotScot
Reply to  MarkW
November 2, 2018 3:14 am

MarkW

In 100,000 years time, I’ll have lost interest.

Reply to  Percy Jackson
November 1, 2018 9:10 pm

Te universe itself is not sustainable.

Get over it.

All sources of energy are ultimately nuclear – the sun is a vast dangerous cancer inducing unshielded nuclear reactor.

solar is nor enough to run the ecospshere and mans aspirations. fission will last us 10,0000 years or so by which time sun on earth – fusion power – will probably be viable.

but nothing lasts forever…

Reply to  Percy Jackson
November 1, 2018 9:25 pm

Percy.

Your facts are wrong.

There are 4 billion tonnes of Uranium in the sea that can be extracted at a cost of around $200/kg.

Current uranium prices are around $50/kg.

The contribution of the mined cost of uranium ore to nuclear electricity is about $0.01c per kWh

Uranium is so cheap it is not worth reprocessing it or building breeder reactors.

But even if it cost $200/kg the impact in the cost of nuclear power would be minimal.

Apart from making reprocessing and breeder reactors viable.

We have enough uranium and thorium to power civilization longer than it has itself existed.

Fusion power is ultimate at least theoretically possible. We have a few thousand years to get it working.

Then you can have your ‘solar energy’ in a reactor, shielded and safe.

The sun kills far more people than nuclear energy does. And blocking it from reaching plants with solar panels kills even more plants.

MarkW
Reply to  Leo Smith
November 2, 2018 1:22 pm

Even if the cost of uranium was to increase by a factor of 4, it wouldn’t have a noticeable impact on the price of electricity from nuclear since the cost of the fuel is one of the smallest factors in the cost of production.

jim
Reply to  Percy Jackson
November 2, 2018 12:43 am

Percy Jackson—“The same argument can just as easily be made about fossil fuels since mines
can only exist on the Earth’s surface ”
Not really, mines go below the surface, adding a third dimension.
Add better discovery techniques and more efficiency and you nay have a 4th power function

Greg F
Reply to  Percy Jackson
November 2, 2018 10:58 am

Uranium supplies are limited.

So is silver which is required to make solar cells. Based on the most recent data I can find (USGS 2015) 100 years worth of silver is stretching it. More like 20 years. Take that with a grain of salt. The point is, we have far more uranium reserves then we have silver reserves at present day use.

Reply to  Greg F
November 2, 2018 11:25 am

Greg you are wrong when you say, ” which is required.”

Copper and aluminum can be substituted for silver in solar cells.

MarkW
Reply to  Greg F
November 2, 2018 1:23 pm

They can be substituted, however the already pathetic efficiencies will drop if you do that.

Reply to  Greg F
November 2, 2018 1:47 pm

“They can be substituted”

Thank you MarkW, for acknowledging that Greg was wrong to use the word “required.”

PS, the difference in efficiency between copper and silver over a 4 inch span is negligible.

Greg F
Reply to  Greg F
November 2, 2018 3:41 pm

Copper and aluminum can be substituted for silver in solar cells.

Since they would be considerably cheaper perhaps you could explain why they are not used now. I suspect you can’t.

Aluminium metallization has been used in semiconductors for decades. For semiconductors the metallization is done by sputtering or evaporation deposition. Using sputtering or evaporation deposition for solar cells is not economically feasible.

OTOH, solar cell metallization is done with screen printing a paste. The back side metallization (P) is aluminum while the front side (N) is silver. So in fact aluminum isn’t a substitute. It just can’t be used on the front side.

You can’t use just copper as it readily diffuses into the silicon. So the copper would need a diffusion barrier of some other metal to prevent destruction of the cell. Achieving acceptable results using copper is a decades long problem that has yet to be solved.

Farmer Ch E retired
Reply to  Percy Jackson
November 2, 2018 9:13 pm

Percy Jackson

If you understand the difference between continuous concentrated energy (fossil fuels & nuclear) and intermittent dilute energy (wind and solar), you will understand why Thomas has a valid point. Have you calculated the land area needed by wind and solar energy for them to provide the same power output as conventional energy? How much of earths habitat will be displaced by wind and solar? Then there’s the added problem that wind and solar are intermittent, unstable, and are not available during periods of peak demand. Conventional energy won out over wind and solar because of free market forces (survival of the fittest). Likewise, free market forces can move us to new and different energy sources as they become competitive. You may think fossil fuels will run out as was considered eminent back in the 70’s, but human ingenuity will change our future in ways we can not predict or imagine. I am optimistic.

Retired_Engineer_Jim
Reply to  Percy Jackson
November 3, 2018 9:59 am

Mr Jackson,

You said:

“since mines can only exist on the Earth’s surface they are also constrained by the surface area and thus fossil fuels can’t be scaled.”

I will agree with you with regard to open-pit (open-cast?) mines. However, an awful lot of mines take up very little surface area but cover a lot of “gound” underground – coal mines in Eastern Pennsylvania, and in England, for example.

And if we broaden the discussion past coal (“mines”) and consider oil and gas, the wellhead takes up little surface area, but, again, drains an enormous underground area.
The limitations aren’t what you think.

Sparky
Reply to  Tom Halla
November 1, 2018 1:14 pm

Misanthropic Malthusians.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Sparky
November 1, 2018 2:49 pm

Many maniacal misanthropic malthusians.

MarkW
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
November 1, 2018 5:01 pm

Need to work malignant in their somewhere.

John Tillman
Reply to  MarkW
November 1, 2018 5:06 pm

And mendacious.

MarkW
Reply to  MarkW
November 2, 2018 1:24 pm

Also monotonous, since they keep repeating the same lies over and over.

Harry Passfield
Reply to  Tom Halla
November 1, 2018 1:19 pm

Agreed, Tom.

Also, by restricting the Third World to little or no accessible energy (electricity, mainly), they create a need for many of its inhabitants to join the First World by taking refugee boats across the Med. That totally screws up First World society, and they know it; it’s their plan.

The AGW-with globalised attitude (AGW-WGA) believers want to de-industrialise the West so that they can enforce their peculiar form of politics on it. Sadly, for them, they little realise that the lifetime it might take to realise their ambition is their lifetime: they will never get to enjoy the fruits of their labours. They demand that sceptics think about their grandchildren; why the hell can’t they think about theirs?

Reply to  Tom Halla
November 1, 2018 2:45 pm

That was Ehrlich. I also have in my files:
“Quote by Jeremy Rifkin, Greenhouse Crisis Foundation: “The prospect of cheap fusion energy is the worst thing that could happen to the planet.”
Quote by Paul Ehrlich, professor, Stanford University: “We contend that the position of the nuclear promoters is preposterous beyond the wildest imaginings of most nuclear opponents, primarily because one of the purported “benefits” of nuclear power, the availability of cheap and abundant energy, is in fact a liability.””

Mike Bryant
November 1, 2018 1:01 pm

I would say the bias is blatantly anti-capitalist and common sense.

Harry Passfield
Reply to  Mike Bryant
November 1, 2018 1:46 pm

Mike, which would you say is the country that most exemplifies your idea of ‘common sense’?

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  Harry Passfield
November 1, 2018 4:07 pm

@Harry;

I think Mike is suffering from a misplaced adjective. I believe he meant “anti-capitalist and anti-common sense”. Otherwise it doesn’t make sense as written.

commieBob
Reply to  Mike Bryant
November 1, 2018 1:46 pm

A scientist who genuinely believes in CAGW will favor nuclear power. It’s about the only practical way to supplant fossil fuels.

James Hansen says:

We have to go to carbon-free electricity. That’s the fundamental requirement. If we could get all of our electricity carbon-free, we could solve the problem. And we probably can’t do that without the help of nuclear power. link

Those who are using CAGW as an excuse to collapse capitalism won’t favor nuclear power because it won’t result in the fall of capitalism. For those people, basically neo-Marxists, CAGW is a useful lie.

pochas94
November 1, 2018 1:05 pm

Putting bread on the table trumps honesty every time. You have a lucrative job that pays you very, very well, then who cares about truth? Truth matters only for a very few, but those few have made a great difference.

commieBob
Reply to  pochas94
November 1, 2018 6:31 pm

Upton Sinclair pointed out:

It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it! link

November 1, 2018 1:05 pm

The IPCC is also blatantly anti-science and anti-evidence.

Ragnaar
November 1, 2018 1:08 pm

Split the Democrat party. Ally with these guys, push nuclear power. A few countries are kicking our butts on new nuclear power.

Alan Tomalty
November 1, 2018 1:09 pm

What about all of the nuclear power plants that China has built and the 19 nuclear reactors in France? I don’t see green protests at the Eiffel Tower or in Tiananmen Square. Until we see green protests in both of these places, one cannot take the greenies seriously.

Harry Passfield
Reply to  Alan Tomalty
November 1, 2018 1:21 pm

Yet, afaik, Macron wants to decommission many of France’s nuclear.

bonbon
Reply to  Harry Passfield
November 1, 2018 2:05 pm

What will Macron le petit, c’est marron, do now without Angela? I weep for the poor Davos boy after Environment and Sustainability Minister Nicolas Hulot walked out in August – he so wanted to make planet great again.

Reply to  Harry Passfield
November 1, 2018 2:56 pm

It was Nicolas Hulot, the “deep green” that Macron installed as his Environment Minister, who aimed to get nuclear generation down to 50% from 70%+.

When it became clear that this was a non-starter he resigned. Very publicly. On TV. Without telling Mano first.

The French have no problem with nuclear. It was from a Frenchman that I first heard the comment on Merkel’s decision to shut down nuclear (she needed the Green vote at the time) following Fukushima, “oh, great! And when was the last tsunami in Munich?”

simple-touriste
Reply to  Newminster
November 2, 2018 7:46 pm

Hulot’s claim to fame is Ushuaïa, the TV show showing nature (using many cars, trucks, and helicopters). He became rich and famous thanks to the sponsoring of the TV show by the Ushuaïa brand of shampoo (known for its use of controversial chemicals) – and then claimed to have nothing to do with that brand.

Hulot is the most popular man in France, according to (stupid, rigged) polls about popularity; these polls are used to promote him (and others) as a popular person. But in my experience, every discussion with a real French person about Nicolas Hulot turns to either the chemicals in Ushuaïa shampoos or his use of helicopters.

For polls published according to the norms: the exact questions should always be published with the answers; this is rarely the case. Also the funding should be disclosed.

For popularity contests, a limited list is proposed to people; so the question is never “who do you like most?”, it’s “which is your preferred person in that list”. The whole thing is a con. (Another person promoted by these polls is a famous medical doctor who has a TV show, and who of course is an hysterical, psychotic, demented vaxxer.)

But I believe that French pollsters just make up numbers as they go in some political polls. There are examples of polls that I intuitively don’t believe have any basis in reality, like the polls of the primaries of the presidential election, when islamo-leftist, crooked, serial loser Alain Juppé was highly rated (he was badly beaten by another low IQ, serial loser, François Fillon).

Reply to  Harry Passfield
November 1, 2018 2:57 pm

Sorry, Harry. My comment seems to have wandered up the page!

Mark Pawelek
Reply to  Alan Tomalty
November 1, 2018 1:41 pm

There are 58 nuclear reactors in France, at 19 sites. Giving a total power = 63GW.

Adam Gallon
Reply to  Alan Tomalty
November 1, 2018 1:53 pm

Plenty of protests in France over their nuclear reactor program. The last protests in Tiananmen square went really well, didn’t it.

bonbon
Reply to  Adam Gallon
November 1, 2018 2:40 pm

Ever heard of Gene Sharp, who himself, in a 2006 interview with The Progressive, boasted that he was in Tiananmen Square in 1989, meeting with democracy activists “three or four days before the crackdown,”. Color revolutions, like Maidan, anyone?

MarkW
Reply to  bonbon
November 2, 2018 1:26 pm

I’ve read that if everybody who claimed to have been at Woodstock was brought together in one place, they would cover an area 5 to 10 times larger than Woodstock.

simple-touriste
Reply to  Adam Gallon
November 2, 2018 8:33 pm

“Plenty of protests in France over their nuclear reactor program”

One “activist” even fired a rocket (provided by a terrorist group, the famous courtesy rocket) at the “Superphenix” plant at Creys-Malville, during construction (no victim).

These were the old “good” days of protest, with mass protests. Now they can’t find a big enough group of French “concerned” protesters, so they go to the plants near the frontier and assemble a group of French/German/Belgian protesters…

simple-touriste
Reply to  Alan Tomalty
November 2, 2018 8:03 pm

If you didn’t see the protests and attacks on the 19 French nuclear power plants (58 pressurized water reactors), you don’t look very hard.

Greenpiss invaders doing firework in the Cattenom plant:

comment image

https://www.ouest-france.fr/environnement/greenpeace/cattenom-des-militants-de-greenpeace-interpelles-sur-le-site-de-la-centrale-nucleaire-5307835

Latitude
November 1, 2018 1:17 pm

The IPCC can’t possibly believe in global warming..and at the same time put policies in place that increase emissions…they don’t believe it at all
Nuclear would solve all the problems without disrupting any infrastructure…but the UN/IPCC does not want to solve the problem…they want to keep the problem going

SMC
Reply to  Latitude
November 1, 2018 1:33 pm

Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies. -Groucho Marx

bonbon
Reply to  SMC
November 1, 2018 2:07 pm

Macron gets no cigar.

simple-touriste
Reply to  bonbon
November 2, 2018 8:13 pm

Contrary to all the French commentariat wrote, Macron was badly humiliated in the pre-election debate. On all subjects including economy and finance. By Marine Le Pen (MLP). Who is a pathetic low IQ “far right” commie.

All the French “fact checkers” had to go all in and sacrifice their credibility to allow Macron to save face on this one. But even a child who can read would see through the propaganda, as fact checkers were contradicting each others in the fact checking of MLP, and even themselves. (Most adults don’t seem to have the abilities of a normally intelligent child these days.)

Macron, the banker (Rothschild bank), couldn’t handle simple finance and banking subjects. Too much macro-fusions and not enough simple traditional banking at Rothschild? You wonder if they even know what money is. (Macron doesn’t. The French fact checkers don’t either.)

Might be a hint why macro-fusion/acquisitions is so often a destruction of value. These higher finance people are just clueless.

pochas94
Reply to  Latitude
November 1, 2018 1:36 pm

The IPCC is just a bunch of party animals.

Al Miller
November 1, 2018 1:21 pm

When the people at the root cause of this massive fiasco have repeatedly stated that this in no way really about the environment, but a redistribution of wealth do we really need to keep discussing this fraud on mankind?

I prefer to spread the word that many have not seen that it is a in fact a cabal determined to take control of our earth. I, as a Canadian, am absolutely sickened that our present government is fully on board to destroy the country in favour of the UN new world order.

Harry Passfield
Reply to  Al Miller
November 1, 2018 1:36 pm

I have a dream (someone said that once) that the BBC and many other major players in the MSN would publish the quotes of AGW/UN activist Christiana Figueras, which I know are familiar to many here, but such as:

This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the industrial revolution. That will not happen overnight and it will not happen at a single conference on climate change, be it COP 15, 21, 40 – you choose the number. It just does not occur like that. It is a process, because of the depth of the transformation.

clivehoskin
Reply to  Harry Passfield
November 1, 2018 4:10 pm

And don’t forget this gem.In Nov. 2010, Ottmar Edenhoffer, one of the co-chairs of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), said in an interview with German NZZ Online,“One must say clearly that we redistribute defacto the world’s wealth by climate policy. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy.”

Jimfrey
November 1, 2018 1:45 pm

Now they know what happens when you sup with devil; their scientific reputation was used and abused to further the greenie agenda.

bonbon
Reply to  Jimfrey
November 1, 2018 2:13 pm

This is what happens as Edgar Allan Poe knew well :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bon-Bon_(short_story)

I’m off to make an omelette.

J Mac
Reply to  bonbon
November 1, 2018 2:37 pm

bonbon,
Alas. Neither the sun is shining nor the wind blowing at my house today.
There is just no way to make a ‘carbon-free’ omelette here! /s
(Yes, I realize that is an oxymoronic statement, even if the omelette was made with tofu and grasshoppers.)

November 1, 2018 2:19 pm

While one could make a (really invalid) argument against conventional light water nuclear reactors, there is no conceivable argument one could make against molten salt reactors, powered either by Thorium or uranium (preferred fuel). The argument that a power technology must be “sustainable” is also idiotic. Uranium and Thorium can power the world for untold thousands of years, certainly long after fusion becones practical.
Conventional nuclear beats solar and wind but molten salt easily beats conventional nuclear.

Tasfay Martinov
November 1, 2018 2:47 pm

Phobia of nuclear power is up there scientifically with phobia of vaccinations. The same perverse logic underlie both.

simple-touriste
Reply to  Tasfay Martinov
November 2, 2018 8:26 pm

Phobia of which vaccination?

Why should healthy babies be put at great risk by getting tens of inoculations, even for diseases that don’t exist in their country?

Why can’t the vaccine makers sell their drugs like normal drug dealers? Why do they always need to suppress dissent? Why do “conservatives” side with drug dealers and agree to suppress free speech on vaccines? Why do these people later complain about suppress speech?

November 1, 2018 3:02 pm

“decarbonization”
I stopped after that.
Vacuous and meaningless.

simple-touriste
Reply to  Matthew W
November 2, 2018 8:28 pm

But we need de-Middle East extraction-ication.

Joel Snider
November 1, 2018 3:28 pm

About how many different types of bias are demonstrated by the IPCC?

Wiliam Haas
November 1, 2018 3:35 pm

The IPCC is only pseudo scientific. They are really a political organization.

rd50
November 1, 2018 4:00 pm

A very serious and well documented letter.
It will be interesting to see how much interest it receives in the news media.

MarkW
November 1, 2018 4:41 pm

“expressed outrage that the IPCC had claimed a link between nuclear power stations and leukemia”

They notice that the IPCC is anti-science when it comes to something they know about, but they still trust it on everything else.

Cognitive dissonance settings to 11.

Michael Jankowski
November 1, 2018 4:59 pm

Pretty amusing that these serious warmistas now find the IPCC to be fear-mongering, biased, and fraudulent.

Oh, but they weren’t fear-mongering, biased, or fraudulent on anything but nuclear power, lol.

BobM
November 1, 2018 5:22 pm

It looks like these authors have found a conscience, or at least a threshold for the IPCC’s un-science dogma they couldn’t swallow quietly. Could some of them take the next step and delve into more of the un-science? Perhaps this is an important crack in the wall. Others, if they also have a conscience, may take notice.

rd50
Reply to  BobM
November 1, 2018 6:47 pm

A crack in the 97%?

James Allen
November 1, 2018 7:20 pm

And then one day…common sense broke out. And people…well, people were shocked.

WXcycles
November 1, 2018 8:17 pm

But what deluded puppies would want to “decarbonize” Earth in the first place? The whole concept is media nonsense to begin with, carbon it’s no more a threat to anyone than the totally imaginary ‘acidification’ of oceans is,

It’s all worthless political-media garbage.

michael hart
November 1, 2018 9:47 pm

It’s a pity the thought is so late coming to them.

They might also want to examine their collective conscience regarding their thoughts, words, and actions since before the last US election. Some people went out and voted for a President who might try to get something done with nuclear power if he received some help and encouragement. But they got called “deplorable”, and worse, for their troubles and the new President is thwarted at every turn by bitter losers looking for petty revenge.

November 1, 2018 10:11 pm

The irony is thick and delicious with that letter, whether the signatories realize it or not.

These distinguished “scientists” think they were the only ones allowed to stretch the truth and fabricate misinformation. They justified their own corruption on the noble cause of CO2 control, but while ignoring the real intent of the UNFCCC was anti-capitalism, anti-Democratic, and anti-Western.
They are now learning the lesson that when you get into bed with the devil for fame and fortune, regaining your soul is impossible.

Emanuel and Co. are just a band of rent seekers who thought they were in control of the climate message when they willingly crawled into bed with the anti-capitalist global socialists (like the Costa Rican Fidel-Cuban mole Christiana Figueres) at the UN and the Green hedge fund billionaires (like Tom Steyer, the Rockefeller’s, George Soros). Climate Change has always been about political power and control (via restrictions on freedoms) and the hollowing-out of the vibrant, resource consuming middle class in Western style democracies.

Kerry Emanuel, et al will now find is that as desperation sets in on the UNFCCC because of their failing efforts, the anti-science rhetoric out of the IPCC will only increase.

Chaamjamal
November 1, 2018 10:55 pm

This kind of thinking arises in people who have not taken into consideration that the underlying motivation in the climate movement is the movement against fossil fuels. Catastrophic ghg climate change provides the rationale. Non emission reduction solutions are unacceptable by definition.

Steve O
Reply to  Chaamjamal
November 2, 2018 8:20 am

I’m becoming more and more comfortable with the idea that opposition to fossil fuels, and promotion of solar and wind power are merely window-dressing, and that the primary objective is the justification of massive wealth transfers.

Tasfay Martinov
November 2, 2018 1:21 am

Searched the media – Marxist bbc and cnn needless to say are silent.

But Forbes have a good and thorough report on this:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/10/29/top-climate-scientists-warn-governments-of-blatant-anti-nuclear-bias-in-latest-ipcc-climate-report/

It ends with a quote from Tom Wigley that I think all of us here could agree with:

“This is a big deal,” said Wigley. “Dishonesty in any branch of the science that underpins the global warming issue taints us all. Dishonesty must always be exposed. If not exposed, lies can persist and damage the truth for a long, long time.”

SAMURAI
November 2, 2018 3:45 am

If CAGW rent seekers were truly concerned about “evil” fossil fuels, they’d be strong advocates for nuclear power as it would “only” cost about $5~7 trillion to completely replace all global coal/natural gas power plants with Thorium Molten Salt Reactors (MSRs), compared to $122 TRILLION (2018 IPCC projection) to replace them with insanely expensive, inefficient, unsustainable, diffuse, intermittent and unreliable wind and solar…

Moreover, MSR power costs per kWh would be 1/10th wind/solar, and 50% cheaper than coal/natural gas.

CAGW has always been a political phenomenon rather than a physical one, designed to destroy capitalismism and increase central governments’ control, power and oppression over individuals and society.

The only upside is that when this stupid CAGW Sc@m is finally tossed on the trash heap of history, the blowback against the Left will be catastrophic…

Steve O
November 2, 2018 4:09 am

The fact that the IPCC is not actively working a full court press to convince people of the benefits of nuclear power reveals that they themselves do not believe the their own reports justifies the alarmism that accompanies them.

You can understand greenie wackadoodles not jumping on board because they’ve spent a lifetime actively opposing the one possible energy solution to what they say is the great threat facing us today. It’s too hard to admit that they’ve spent a lifetime being wrong. I wonder, if nuclear energy were just now invented, if they’d all feel differently about it.

Steve O
November 2, 2018 4:15 am

If the IPCC were to acknowledge that a large-scale, commercially viable, zero carbon energy source already exists, then the game ends. (Oh, we need to convert to nuclear power? Okay.)

If a solution already exists, then there’s no need to fund enormous wealth transfers. There’s no need to call for a “temporary” suspension of democracy. There’s no need for huge increases in taxes, or an massive expansion of state power to regulate people and industry.

It is only predictions of failure that let the game go on.

AGW is not Science
November 2, 2018 6:46 am

“The anti-fossil fuel and anti-nuclear bias of this latest IPCC release is rather blatant,” said Kerry Emanuel, a climate scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, “and reflects the ideology of the environmental movement. History may record that this was more of an impediment to the ending of human suffering than natural climate change denial.”

There, fixed it for ’em.

AGW is not Science
November 2, 2018 6:49 am

“Such fear-mongering about nuclear has serious consequences,” the authors write. “As IPCC itself acknowledges, public fears of nuclear are behind the technology’s slower-than-desirable development.”

Amazing how they can’t see how those “public fears” are essentially based on the same type of fear-mongering Eco-Nazi campaigning that the “climate change” twaddle is based on.

simple-touriste
November 2, 2018 6:35 pm

Even the French CEA (Commissariat à l’Energie Atomique), the state agency in charge of nuclear energy, seems extremely biased against nuclear and radiation, as they simply ignored the report of the French Academies that refuted the extreme fear of low dose radiation, the fear that justifies all the extreme regulatory system that increases the cost of all nuclear operations. The CEA just wants to pretend there is no discussion on the “evidence” of risk of low dose very low dose rate radiation.

%d bloggers like this: