Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Bill Gates has joined the growing list of Greens who think renewables alone cannot replace fossil fuels.
What I learned at work this year
By Bill Gates
December 29, 2018…
Global emissions of greenhouse gases went up in 2018. For me, that just reinforces the fact that the only way to prevent the worst climate-change scenarios is to get some breakthroughs in clean energy.
Some people think we have all the tools we need, and that driving down the cost of renewables like solar and wind solves the problem. I am glad to see solar and wind getting cheaper and we should be deploying them wherever it makes sense.
But solar and wind are intermittent sources of energy, and we are unlikely to have super-cheap batteries anytime soon that would allow us to store sufficient energy for when the sun isn’t shining or the wind isn’t blowing. Besides, electricity accounts for only 25% of all emissions. We need to solve the other 75% too.
This year Breakthrough Energy Ventures, the clean-energy investment fund I’m involved with, announced the first companies we’re putting money into. You can see the list at http://www.b-t.energy/ventures/our-investment-portfolio/. We are looking at all the major drivers of climate change. The companies we chose are run by brilliant people and show a lot of promise for taking innovative clean-energy ideas out of the lab and getting them to market.
Next year I will speak out more about how the U.S. needs to regain its leading role in nuclear power research. (This is unrelated to my work with the foundation.)
Nuclear is ideal for dealing with climate change, because it is the only carbon-free, scalable energy source that’s available 24 hours a day. The problems with today’s reactors, such as the risk of accidents, can be solved through innovation.
The United States is uniquely suited to create these advances with its world-class scientists, entrepreneurs, and investment capital.
Unfortunately, America is no longer the global leader on nuclear energy that it was 50 years ago. To regain this position, it will need to commit new funding, update regulations, and show investors that it’s serious.
There are several promising ideas in advanced nuclear that should be explored if we get over these obstacles. TerraPower, the company I started 10 years ago, uses an approach called a traveling wave reactor that is safe, prevents proliferation, and produces very little waste. We had hoped to build a pilot project in China, but recent policy changes here in the U.S. have made that unlikely. We may be able to build it in the United States if the funding and regulatory changes that I mentioned earlier happen.
The world needs to be working on lots of solutions to stop climate change. Advanced nuclear is one, and I hope to persuade U.S. leaders to get into the game.
…
Read more: https://www.gatesnotes.com/About-Bill-Gates/Year-in-Review-2018
Anthony, myself, many others at WUWT have repeatedly said we have no problem with policies which encourage nuclear power, though we oppose carbon pricing because it imposes unnecessary hardship.
The evidence is unequivocal that the world could rapidly decarbonise the global economy by embracing nuclear power, without reducing consumption or making radical lifestyle changes.
France switched from coal to nuclear power in the 1970s without breaking their economy. They kept costs down by mass producing standardised reactor components, reprocessing waste fuel, and by reducing bureaucratic impediments by designating nuclear power a strategic national priority. France still generates 71% of their electricity from nuclear reactors, though lately President Macron is attempting to undo this achievement.
If nuclear power is such an obviously solution, why hasn’t it happened?
The main obstacle to going full nuclear in the West is the green movement.
When leading climate scientists beg the world to consider embracing nuclear power to decarbonise the economy, greens respond by calling them names.
Greens tell us we all must have the utmost respect for the global warming concerns of their favourite climate scientists, but that respect goes out the window whenever those same climate scientists say something which contradicts green policy objectives.
Next time a green asks you to make personal lifestyle sacrifices to reduce your carbon footprint, ask them why opposing nuclear power, the only large scale zero carbon energy source likely to receive bipartisan support, is more important to the green movement than reducing CO2. If you get an answer which makes sense let me know – because green excuses that nuclear is too expensive (not in France), or too dangerous (more dangerous than the end of the world?!) simply don’t make sense.
Update (EW): h/t Duncan Smith – Congress appears to be taking advanced nuclear power seriously, they recently passed the bipartisan S.97 – Nuclear Energy Innovation Capabilities Act of 2017.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
First time I’ve seen something genuinely positive from this guy.
He is assuming CO2 is a problem. It is not for two reasons. It is finite, so the free market would come up with a solution naturally, and the small increase has only shown good effects so far (greening of the Earth). No temperature or other problem has been supported by real data on the effect so far.
Coa; is still a dirty technology even with scrubbers. Nuclear is the path forward… that includes fusion… But Gates turns his nose up at recent innovations on tye fusion front with non-tokomak technology.
Molten Salt Reactors are what Fusion would like to be, cheap to build, portable, 70-year old proven test reactors that are not great for making bombs. We can save nature from industrialization and $117 Trillion by not building Massively unsustainable RE: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/07/05/monumental-unsustainable-environmental-impacts/
See: Seaborg.co 250 MWs Thermal in a 20′ 30-ton shipping container. The Case for the Good Reactor https://spark.adobe.com/page/1nzbgqE9xtUZF/
MSRs are not very well developed yet, and they are so radically different from LWRs that developing safety regulations could easily require decades to do, even if the designs were fully proven, which they are not.
We’re probably 20-30 years away from MSRs becoming a viable source of nuclear energy. That doesn’t mean that it is not worth developing them .. but current Gen IV LWRs are going to be available much sooner. Which is fine .. we won’t solve all of the world’s energy supply issues in one fell swoop this year. In the meantime we have plenty of other energy sources available.
Duanne,
MSRs were far along enough for the AEC in 1962 to recommend to JFK that all civilian power be based upon the MSR due to their inherent low pressure, not water approach. Seaborg.co with have IAEA approved blueprints by 2025. Regulations in the USA will allow China, Canada, Denmark, and other countries steal away ORNL’s design.
Building 1,500-atmosphere potential steam bombs if coolant is lost is not a great fission reactor plan. Why spend the money to build a 6′ think containment vessel when you can deal with low pressure and walk away safe design that ran for 20,000 hours in the 1960s.
“Nuclear is ideal for dealing with climate change”
It is not “ideal” because it will not change a damned thing about “climate change”. False solutions to false problems lead to bad priorities choices.
Nuclear is ideal for dealing with people worried about climate change.
Nuclear should satisfy both Climate change fretters and those of us wanting reliable, affordable electricity.
SR
“Nuclear should satisfy both Climate change fretters and those of us wanting reliable, affordable electricity.”
Probably the consumers who are paying for the Summer and Vogtle debacles are having a hard time believing the “affordable” part.
Nuclear is a win for all.
Fossil fuel reserves are finite. We need something that can replace them. It needs to be cheap, plentiful and dispatchable. Clean is a very nice bonus. Nuclear fits the bill. And the Bill is absolutely right.
“Anthony, myself, many others at WUWT have repeatedly said we have no problem with policies which encourage nuclear power”
“Nuclear is a win for all.”
So long as it is not subsidized by the taxpayers, I can agree to let you do it. If Gates, or you, want to develop it and sell me the electricity generated at market prices, that’s great. But if Gates or anybody else wants a handout before doing it, I’d have to say, “Go to Hell.”
NO, it’s NOT! First, it’s got to be FUSION, not fission. Second, the BEST fusion project – which old money bags should dive into and support all the way – is a micro-fusion project here in New Jersey which runs on boron gas. Cf. http://www.focusfusion.org Third, there’s something EVEN BETTER than nuclear energy. It’s HYDRINO POWER, a chemical catalization of Hydrogen to below rest state, i.e. fractional states. Cf. http://www.brilliantlightpower.com Bill Gates is trying to kill a billion people by funding the GLOBAL DIMMING PROJECT. He’s a monster who the devil is manipulating by making him act on incomplete and wrong knowledge. He’s a evil dumbo.
Correct Michael… LPPFusion is THE leader in Focus Fusion (as opposed to the prevailing magnetic confinement tokamaks) … Sometime this quarter their upgraded reactor will begin test firing … since two of three criteria for fusion have already been met, (temperature and confinement time), only one major step remains, which is achieving a pure burn to achieve required densities for fusion…
see LPPFusion.com for details. Great explanatory videos on the cover page.
Why limit the discussion to just LPPFusion? There are several small scale fusion development organizations like
Tri Alpha Energy: https://tae.com/technology-overview/
Helion Energy: http://www.helionenergy.com/
General Fusion: https://generalfusion.com/
I think this site limits comments to 3 links, but there is also
EMC2, Laser Boron (in Australia), Tokamak Energy
and probably others. At least 2 of them are investigating configurations that emit no neutrons. Meanwhile, most US DOE development money goes to the huge scale, over budget, schedule-slipping ITER
My personal enthusiasm for LPPFusion and the FF-1 reactor is informed by the fact that it has achieved the best results to date among the competition and probably farthest along the path to exceed breakeven levels and commercialization. Currently #5 in output among all fusion reactors. (FF-1 on the chart)
http://lppfusion.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/ntauT-chart.png
Very soon we’ll have a sense of whether the company can hit the last criterion for fusion.
Furthermore, LPPFusion is completely transparent about their development program, while others, especially Tri-Alpha, for example, are often totally opaque. Results are submitted for peer-review journals. The LPPFusion design is also incredibly simple (Though the theory behind it is not)… other devices have mechanical parts and are much larger. The FF-1 can fit in a suburban car garage… you can hold the reactor core in your arms… Pretty amazing tech..
But, hey, whatever works.
I’ll be delighted if an other design surges to the fore.
Wow! This is finally Mr. Fusion!
Come on guys, how gullible can you be? I guess as gullible as CNN, which appears to be the only “news” channel that ran this “story”.
What ARE you prattling about?
A fool and zers money are quickly departed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brilliant_Light_Power
I have no idea what Brilliant Light is or was… has nothing to do with LPPFusion… and Dense Plasma Focus.
MSRs are what fusion would like to be, small, cheap to build and portable: The Case for the Good Reactor https://spark.adobe.com/page/1nzbgqE9xtUZF/
Your summary is missing the black hat issues concerning light water high pressure reactors.
60 percent of the population is absolutely terrified concerning nuclear power. Why? What is the reason for the light water reactor fuel rod melt downs, explosions, and radioactive releases?
The inherent safety problem in light water reactors is fuel rods and water.
US technology makes a naturally very, dangerous design less dangerous.
The molten salt reactor is not safer, it does not have the catastrophic failure modes.
The molten salt reactor can be mass produced. The US light water reactor is constructed from 8-inch plate and can hence only be produced in one factory in the world.
The light water reactor turbines are special constructed, long delivery, as they must handle the low temperature wet steam from the 315C reactor.
The molten salt reactor, is waterless, a no fuel rod reactor, that requires 1/3 the fuel that is 1/3 the size. It is 6 times more fuel efficient. It is 1/8th cost.
It has no natural catastrophic failures modes. The salt melts at 400C and boils at 1400C. The reactor operates at around 650C.
From page 683
Introduction to Nuclear Engineering 3rd edition, J. Lamarsh and A. Baratta
The molten salt reactor design was tested in the US 50 years ago. The test was absolutely successful. The test results were not documented by congressional order.
Terrestrial Energy has Canadian regulatory phase 2 approval for a molten salt reactor design.
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/609194/advanced-nuclear-finds-a-more-welcome-home-in-canada/
When was the last time a nuclear sub had a melt down? In the future, I picture, each dwelling have it’s own nuclear power plant. Why does it take 30 years to build a nuclear power plant?
“60 percent of the population is absolutely terrified concerning nuclear power. Why?”
Because the Greens and MSM have made the public terrified of nuclear power via bad publicity.
Old Construction Worker: The USN uses a different design of reactor than used in civilian plants, I would even say it’s a safer design but it also has it’s drawbacks. One is it’s not easy to refuel, two is they use a much higher enrichment of uranium which both lead to three, they are much more expensive.
Refueling is a big issue. Naval ships run a lot at low power or no power (tied up to a pier using shore power), as such a reactor can last 20-25 years before needing refueling. But, if they ran at 100%/365 days a year they would need refueling in ~3yrs. Refueling is a major undertaking and very expensive in naval reactors vs. what is used in the civilian world.
My knowledge is now old (former Navy Nuclear Machinist Mate) but if I remember right they said a reactor vessel probably would last 2 refueling before it would need to be scrapped due to embrittlement of the metal. So in an Aircraft Carrier you would get 40-50 years of life at which point the carrier is likely ready for the scrap heap anyway along with the reactor vessel. But if you have to scrap the reactor vessel and likely entire primary loop, ouch! We are talking the heart of the beast and it isn’t cheap to replace. So much for affordable nuclear power.
How old fashioned I must be. I was raised in a dark place where folks playing with fire would invent some new way of harnessing some physical phenomenon or another to produce useful work. Then they would build it and sell it to the public. Used to work in the old days.
From your links I see that now we have to start with like minded people educating the public at a grassroots level. Government funding for our common dream is a must, too. And I guess physicists and engineers are out. Just psychologists…..
Strangest thing is that these folks only need a couple million bucks to build a system that generates electricity for less than a penny per kWh. That’s basically some multigazzionaire’s after dinner fart. Or probably what some little tax exempt community organizing organization spends on it’s web presence in a year.
Is this the new muskonomy I’ve heard so much about?
I’ve been watching BLP for the last 15 years.
From a ‘possible’ it went to ‘maybe’ and it’s now at a ‘scam’ level as far as I’m concerned. The demo video I saw had ‘hydrino’ stuff crushed between two rotating electrodes, which were connected to high-amperage DC.
They had panels of solar cells powering an LED light bank.
When the stuff was crushed, there’d be an arc. (Wow, big surprise there!)
When the arc flashed – the LED panel light up. (Wow! Impressive!)
Impressive, if you weren’t familiar with old fashioned carbon arc projectors. Whole lot of very intense light (and heat) generated, and if you put a solar panel close to it, you’d get a whole lot of power.
If they have a WORKING, repeatable, out-of-the-lab production ready COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE item, I’d take them out of the ‘scam’ level to ‘possible’ again. But they’re notably devoid of commercial applications, and pretty claims on a web site don’t mean much.
Fusion would be nice. But I think we’re still a ways off from it. I’ll take fission plants in the interim. “Perfect” is often the enemy of ‘good enough for now’ engineering.
I wrote this on Bill Gates blog one year ago – he is slowly coming around to reality on energy, but still regards increasing atmospheric CO2 as a problem. It is not a problem.
Regards, Allan
https://www.gatesnotes.com/Books/Energy-and-Civilization
Bill wrote:
“The main disagreement I have with Smil is about how quickly we can make the transition to clean energy.”
Bill, I really like your work on malaria and on vaccines – I probably like a lot of other things you are doing too.
But Bill, I have spent my career in energy and have studied global warming alarmism since 1985 – you are an intelligent man, but it appears that you are being ill-advised on climate and energy.
Below is reference to a primer on the subject – take your time, study it, and contact me via my website if you want to discuss.
The term “climate change” is so vague and the definition is so changeable that it is NOT a falsifiable hypothesis. It is therefore unscientific nonsense. The term “catastrophic human-made global warming” is a falsifiable hypothesis, and it was falsified long ago – when CO2 rose sharply after ~1940 while temperature declined from ~1945 to ~1977. As my co-authors and I wrote in 2002, “the alleged global warming crisis DOES NOT EXIST”.
Current forms of clean/green energy are not green and produce little useful (dispatchable) energy. All they do is destabilize the grid and drive up energy costs, which increases Excess Winter Deaths among the elderly and the poor. Sure there may be better forms of energy out there – but current “solutions” are costly fiascos, due primarily to intermittency. My co-authors and I wrote this conclusion in 2002, and since then tens of trillions of dollars of scarce global resources have been squandered on green energy nonsense.
[end of excerpt]
Allan. Did you get a response from Bill?
Bill did not reply, to my knowledge, but he apparently has moved to my position about the fatal flaws of current green energy, due to intermittency. My comments to Bill of one year ago were:
“Current forms of clean/green energy are not green and produce little useful (dispatchable) energy. All they do is destabilize the grid and drive up energy costs, which increases Excess Winter Deaths among the elderly and the poor. Sure, there may be better forms of energy out there – but current “solutions” are costly fiascos, due primarily to intermittency.”
In Bill’s article on energy of one year ago, there is little if any recognition of the intermittency problem:
https://www.gatesnotes.com/Books/Energy-and-Civilization
In the above note, written this month, Gates states:
“But solar and wind are intermittent sources of energy, and we are unlikely to have super-cheap batteries anytime soon that would allow us to store sufficient energy for when the sun isn’t shining or the wind isn’t blowing.”
That comment is correct, imo.
Whether he came to this realization from my note of one year ago or from other sources is unknown- but it is an important positive step.
Whether he read my “primer” on climate and energy, posted on wattsup, is also unknown – but apparently he is still a believer in the CO2-drives-climate falsehood, and that falsehood will not well-serve him or humanity.
Regards, Allan
He is not prepared to step away from the Green leftists dream of de-industrialisation, despite being one of the greatest industrial enablers out there.
The left believe destroying the world economy is worth it, if it brings UN championed single entity governance of the World’s citizens.
The Man Made Climate Change scam, is just the useful vehicle they have adopted top further their cause.
We should all be thankful they picked on CO2. A more beneficial component of the atmosphere it is difficult to image other than H2O.
They refuse to debate the case against CO2 with any scientists because they know they will be embarrassed and ridiculed, for what they have pushed into the ever willing MSM and the, oh so caring (sic) left wing advocates out there.
The “we are unlikely to have super-cheap batteries anytime soon that would allow us to store sufficient energy for when the sun isn’t shining or the wind isn’t blowing” may be true, but doesn’t go far enough, and STILL makes it seem like the pipe dream of “magic batteries” is coming, if only just a bit further off.
The problem with renewables isn’t JUST its intermittency and unpredictability, it is ALSO its lack of energy DENSITY. The amount of land that would need to be wasted on the stupidity of windmills and solar panels, EVEN IGNORING INTERMITTENCY, is enormous and completely unnecessary, when far better options (like the aforementioned nuclear, AND FOSSIL FUELS) abound. The fact that these essentially useless things also don’t last anywhere near as long as they are supposed to and also contribute to extensive toxic waste after their less-than-promised supposedly (but not really) “useful” lives are over just piles on the absurdity.
“The world needs to be working on lots of solutions to stop climate change.”
You can’t stop the climate from changing Bill. The working solution part is great, by why not just leave it at that.
Microsoft came up with great stuff. You did it because you are creative and a visionary, not because you were trying to save the world. Stick with what worked for you in the past and leave the zealotry and propaganda our of it. More will listen.
Matthew: Well, providing functional computer affordable to the masses was kinda positive, the Apple guys did not seem interested in that market. What I found funny is this- Gates succeeded by beating competitors, not handing out money. Bill Gates should know better than most people that handing out money is not the way to succeed at projects like this. Good to see realistic thinking stirring, at least.
Gates literally bullied his initial competition with thugs. He is a power hungry Savage, always was, always will be. He didn’t compete fairly, he abused his competition and bought out government officials. The guy is scum. Period.
And he’s pushing geoengineering as well as depopulation in Africa under the guise of providing health benefits, which vaccines do not, at best they only mask symptoms.
The guy is a maniacal psychopath and any perception of him to the opposite is self deception
Q.What’s the incidence of Smallpox?
A.Zero, it’s been eradicated by vaccination.
Thus you are shown to be talking out of your arse & so all you say can be ignored.
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2015/11/02/bill-gates-socialism-can-save-us-climate-change/
I only agree with his push for nuclear. The rest of his sentiments are globalist taking point eugenics
Still a thief.
Gates seems to actually take global warming seriously on it’s own premises. A good many in the green blob seem to want something that will not work, strictly because it cannot work. As Gates does not appear to be that sort of nihilist, nuclear is the only plausible choice.
I know the Gates Foundation seems to integrate issues, like climate change, energy poverty and health care.
Our tiny consulting firm is involved with them developing MDR TB drugs in South Africa. Not surprised that they are supporting the Nuclear option.
Happy New Year to All!
This guy didn’t get to be a billionaire by way of inheritance. He’s one smart fellow and a real philanthropist as well. If he buys the global warming scare, so what? At least he’s practical about the solution and has obviously come to the same conclusion as did Lomborg. Quit wasting your money on low energy density, intermittent dead ends like wind and solar and spend it on R& D in nuclear or whatever else offers real promise.
Trebla
You said, “He’s one smart fellow…” Who also had some luck when IBM went looking for someone to write an OS, and perhaps some larceny. There are rumors about Gates purloining the source code for BASIC back in the days of the Stanford Homebrew Computing Club.
As I recall, Gates offered to sell Microsoft to IBM @ur momisugly 1981 for @ur momisugly$100,000. Watson did not see a future or market for personal computers. I lived in Bellvue WA at the time and was involved in recruiting coders for Microsoft. They were a hiring machine in those days.
Bill bought QDOS (Quick and Dirty Operating System) from Seattle Computer Products, which was the OS they quickly developed for their own 16-bit 8086 board. Look it up it’s well documented.
Smart in some ways…not-so-smart in others.
Have you forgotten about his idea to calm hurricanes?
http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/08/28/hurricanes.gates.gray/
Gates is A smart monopolist who suppressed rival technologies… was nailed for these practices in the EU… in the US anything goes for the Predator Class despite all the cat about free, competitive markets.
Microsoft products generally are poor.
At least posa doesn’t have blinders on
For most leftists, a monopolist is anyone who is able to succeed on their own.
Because courts, using screwed up political definitions declared MS a monopoly doesn’t make it one.
@MarkW.
“Microsoft being a monopoly is not a matter of opinion, but a matter of fact and little has changed since these facts of emerged. It’s completely logical when considering that they have been accused of anti-competitive and monopolistic practices by virtually every modern nation, fined 10’s of billions of dollars for this to date, being saved from being split up by the court of appeals by a technicality, and that they have been fighting multiple governing bodies around the world on the grounds of anti-trust for the past 30 or so years.”
https://medium.com/@wtfmitchel/the-monopoly-formerly-known-as-microsoft-cb81c1163b1a
Monopolies are, of course, antithetical to competitive capitalism. There are “natural monopolies”, and like them, such entities have to be regulated when the market can’t. That or they care broken up.
Capitalists of course love monopolies, or rather, owning monopolies. But monopolies are not good for the economy or overall commonweal.
Gates’ mom brought his company to IBM’s attention, thanks to having met its CEO, John Opel, via her charitable work.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Maxwell_Gates
IBM was interested in MS BASIC for its PC. As for MS DOS:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Gates#IBM_partnership
Indeed, MarkW, even when Microsoft was at the peak of it’s “monopoly” power, it was not really a monopoly, there were several other OSes on the market even then. Yes, they had the lions share of the market, and they used that market muscle to get favorable concessions from manufacturers of PCs, but they were never the only game in town and thus were *not* a Monopoly:
mo·nop·o·ly.
[məˈnäpəlē]
NOUN
1.the exclusive possession or control of the supply of or trade in a commodity or service.
Apparently there is a grand conspiracy to victimize MS and Gates:
“In 2004, it was ruled again that Microsoft operated in an anticompetitive and monopolistic manner for virtually the same reasons as before in the US, but this time by the EU (29 countries excluding the US), and was consequently slapped with massive fine of $794 million. They were also fined $497 in 2007 and and $1.5 billion in 2008 for failing to comply with the sanctions handed down by the EU Commission. Even countries such as China have followed suit”
Who said anything about a conspiracy? Microsoft is/was a very aggressive (and yes even predatory) company, it was also the biggest in it’s market at the time, quite a lot bigger than its closest competitor (and it did have several competitors, still does).
It seems likely that an intelligent left leaning person would believe in CAGW. If Gates were to put some effort in studying the problem, he might become a skeptic.
I stumbled on the above quote while searching for a similar quote from Listen Liberal!.
The Left’s War on Science confirms what I read from many other sources. The left accuses conservatives of being anti-science. In fact, the shoe is on the other foot. The left uses science only when it suits their purposes. Otherwise they are absolutely vicious in suppressing good science and promoting pseudoscience.
If a pseudoscience movement was difficult to believe it would never attract enough attention to be noticed as a pseudoscience movement. The ridiculous proposition that renewables can save us from global warming is what led me to climate skepticism – if the solution is ridiculous, the problem the solution is meant to solve deserves closer attention. In this sense Bill Gates has taken an important first step towards the realisation that the climate movement is full of hot air.
Eric
You highlighted a few passages from your article but I think one of the most revealing is:
“<I am glad to see solar and wind getting cheaper and we should be deploying them wherever it makes sense.” (My emphasis).
I don’t imagine any of us have anything against renewables other than the wholesale deployment of them where they do more harm than good.
Perhaps Gates is trying to say something here that doesn’t alienate him from the alarmist crowd entirely.
The guy isn’t daft although like anyone he has made mistakes but it seems he may have more insight than many give him credit for.
And to be fair to him, he seems a pragmatist. He was/is constantly under fire for the ‘shambles’ of the Microsoft operating system from purists but no one has done more to bring technology into the reach of society than he has.
Perhaps his foundation can help to do the same with energy into the future.
I suspect Bill Gates still wholeheartedly accepts the premise that anthropogenic CO2 is a crisis, otherwise if he was worried about offending anyone he would simply back away from the energy issue. There are plenty of other issues he could spend his time on.
I suspect Bill is simply trying to apply logic to green ideology. The possibility that the green movement is illogical is too enormous for him to accept, though he is probably deeply troubled by the inconsistencies he has noticed.
It will be interesting to see what happens. Greens usually get into trouble with their fellow greens when they try to be logical.
OK Eric, so Bill is trying to figure out a way to have his cake and eat it too, ie, placate the green crowd while actually powering the computer, etc. Do you think someday he will realize that there has not been any industry in the history of mankind that wholesale chopped up and fried our feathered friends like wind and solar? I’m thinking that Bill has enough integrity that this realization will be a dramatic wake-up call. Go Nukes!
And “wherever it makes sense” would be in locations too far from the grid to make a connection to REAL power plants feasible; anywhere else they are worse than useless and do far more harm than good.
Almost everything CAGW depends on will have some major fault that will be noticed only by experts in that particular field. I am guessing that such specialists often give the rest of CAGW a bye and assume that the particular fault they see isn’t representative of the whole.
One of my hobbies is history. I became a skeptic when Dr. Mann tried to erase the MWP. Only then did I bring my technical background to bear on the problem.
Excellent comment from Dr Evil,AKA Mr Microsoft.
The Gang Greens Heads will be exploding.
As these lovely people do not want a “decarbonized” economy,they want a de-peopled world and have not been shy about saying so.
Of course Nuclear makes sense, too much sense which is why we have seen decades devoted to vilifying atomic power.
It is my belief the smear campaign against nuclear was a test run for the CAGW myths.
2019 would be a good year to start giving the Gang Green what they claim they want, a “carbon free lifestyle” would be most amusing to observe,as lived by those pushing for zero fossil fuels in their lives.
I still want to see my reality show brought to life. Each contestant would be assigned his or her own “Carbon Nazi” who would snatch away everything they had that was made from, produced with the use of, or functioned via energy produced from, fossil fuels. So, strip them naked, take their cell phones, tow away their cars, bulldoze their homes, and let them chase after their next meal with a stick they sharpened on a rock, wearing only the skins of the meals they managed to catch. Any contestant who fails to cope is then banned from preaching AGW bullshit for life.
What ‘Climate Crisis’ is that which Bill Gates is talking about? I have not noticed one here. I have only noticed better rain, less hurricanes and some good environmental effects like the greening of the Earth.
Yes nicholas, but clearly you only live on planet Earth which has all those benefits brought about by increased CO2, on the planets far far away, populated by the little Green men and women things operate in a completely different way.
There, any change in climate conditions is considered disastrous…
There must be a catch. We just don’t see it yet.
A lot of green nuclear advocates support a carbon tax, to incentivise investment in nuclear power. Bill Gates supported the recent failed Washington State carbon tax proposition, despite the 2018 bill dropping support for subsidising poor people to compensate for cost of living increases.
Sadly Bill Gates still seems to be infected by the Satanic CO2 virus in spite of his intelligence. The money he is pouring into duff intermittent energy should be going into nuclear development. A huge waste of opportunity here.
He should be visiting some of the respectable sceptical sites to get a more balanced view and tickle his little grey cells.
Bill and Melinda have done enormous good with their philanthropy in Africa and other developing parts of the 3rdWorld concerning malaria and tropical diseases.
But some of his ideas are completely bonkers, like his $4,000 toilet to “solve” poor Africans sanitary waste disposal needs. Like who can pay for that on mass scale or keep them running past initial installation? He won’t and they can’t.
Bill certainly qualifies as sometimes as someone having more dollars than sense (cents). Sadly, he must surround himself with sycophant scientists and engineer advosrs, unwilling to tell him bullshit is still bullshit, even if it’s his.
I disagree with how much he has helped with malaria in Africa. He was part of the age group that eliminated DDT in Africa killing millions and retarding millions more. I also disagree with how much of his or anyone else’s philanthropy has helped.
I owned a business in Africa and never seen any good come from do gooders.
Africans want cheap energy, cheap food, security and good capitalist jobs. Not one NGO I ever ran into promoted making this happen, not one. Africans are sitting on all the resources they need and want to develop those resources? Why doesn’t Bill Gates work with the World Bank to get them a loan?
They do not want anymore damn clean burning dung stoves from these NGO’s.
BS – “age groups” don’t do anything. Individuals, organizations, and governments do things.
Besides, the governments that banned DDT in 1972 were populated by people born long before World War Two. Bill Gates was only 17 years old in 1972 … not even old enough to vote, let alone run the government.
DDT was outlawed in Mexico with NAFTA and in Kenya in 1987. I am about the same age as Gates and sat in the same anti-nuc /DDT seminars he probably sat in during his time in collage. My attempted indoctrination was on the UW Madison campus. I didn’t agree with the leftist argument then and I don’t now. Marxism lives on through environmentalism.
I feel gates is a coward for not using his money and power to help stop the leftist march and the suffering it is causing in the world. He has made billions off the free market capitalism and won’t confront those who are trying to destroy it.
Populist governments are on the rise because of the fake shallow elites with big money and power telling us and others how to manage our lives. Leftist killed 100’s of millions of people and potential truly elite people/leaders during the last century, now we are stuck with fake shallow supposed elites trying to run things.
Yes, it was an age thing and we still haven’t recovered. It will take another 100 years, God willing.
jjs -sorry, you have no freakin idea what you’re talking about. DDT was banned by the USA in 1972, and by most of the rest of the world shortly thereafter.
NAFTA did not get signed and ratified until 1994, and had nothing to do with DDT.
First, note that jjs did not claim NAFTA was ratified any sooner than 1994. Re-read his sentence, he’s claiming two separate things there. 1) that it was banned in Mexico due to NAFTA and 2) that in was banned in Kenya in 1987
DDT was banned by the USA in 1972, and by most of the rest of the world shortly thereafter
NAFTA did not get signed and ratified until 1994, and had nothing to do with DDT.
Yes and no. While true it was banned by the USA in 1972, NAFTA did indeed have something to say about it, or more specifically a NAFTA “side agreement” known as the
“North America Agreement for Environmental Cooperation” which mandated the phase-out of the pesticide DDT in Mexico by the year 2007. The agreement came into effect January 1, 1994
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Agreement_on_Environmental_Cooperation
so jjs was right on the money when he said “DDT was outlawed in Mexico with NAFTA”
as for Kenya, I have no idea when it was banned there so can not say if he was also correct about “and in Kenya in 1987”
The Libtards are finally realizing that their bustling metropolises can’t stay lit reliably at night with just wind and solar. And without lights (and electricity) to police them, and their gritty crime-loving dark-side, big cities like Chicago, Boston, Baltimore, Atlanta are nothing but one black-out night away from an “Escape from New York” hellhole, with criminals, gang-rapers, and looters on free reign with fearful cops holed up in their precinct bunkers waiting until daylight to view the carnage.
And the sad part is Bill Gates is actually one of the brighter Libtards… as Libtards go.
Well, thats positive.
Of course, you know they will want to pay for it with a carbon tax. Has to be a catch.
US can finance construction with greenbacks, at least for materials and labour that is domestic with US companies. No borrowing or taxes needed. The operators income and profits will be in regular currency so no restriction on exporting profits or paying expenses outside US
Like anything else the Libtards end up taxing, the tax revenue stream gets used to fund some constituency or public union or welfare that then becomes a must fund non-discretionary expense down the road. So when the carbon tax revenue stream starts to dry up, like the tobacco money did, like the highway funds on gas taxes will, falling carbon tax money shortfalls will have to be taken from general revenues to feed the beast the Left creates.
The best solution is to not go down that carbon tax road paved of good intentions.
Here’s a theory on Bill Gates and his recent land purchase. In 2018, he paid 171 million for 14,500 acres of highly productive farmland in Southern Washington from John Hancock Life Insurance Company. The land is in the Horse Heaven Hills, just south of the Tri-Cities of Kennewick, Pasco, and Richland (home of the Hanford nuclear reservation where I once worked for 13 years).
My theory is that if farming doesn’t pay out, he can install wind turbines, solar panels, and nuclear plants. After all, this is a windy, sunny place that is friendly to nuclear.
Something missing from the post, Congress has passes a bill to help advance nuclear power….they are doing this to prevent CO2 but to me, it is a win/win (we get reliable power).
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/09/us-congress-passes-bill-to-help-advanced-nuclear-power/
Thanks, post updated.
Bill seems to be paying attention to some of the facts.
Further, the Foundations does some good things.
If some of his investments fail that’s no big deal. (Trickle down $$)
Compare to Bloomberg, Soros, or Steyer – –
Can you think of anything nice to say about them?
Me neither.
No idea what Gates is talking about (specifically), especially the “traveling wave reactor”??, but all the world needs to do is embrace molten salt thorium reactors. Proven reliable, durable, and safe 50 years ago at Clinch River TN. Only abandoned because Adm Zumwalt (US Navy) thought the uranium-based fission reactors were more established and he wanted to launch a nuclear submarine fleet. He shut down the thorium research.
Read the book “Super Fuel”
Thorium-fueled fission reactors cannot run-away, can be made small, portable, and totally scalable, and can be used to consume transuranic waste from military and civilian nuclear operations, rather than spending billions to bury forever.
The Indians and Chinese are moving forward with thorium-fueled reactors using declassified American research and technology from the 50s and 60s. Intellectual theft, as usual.
C’mon Trump – declare American Nuclear Supremacy for the next millenium by launching the thorium-based nuclear-power revolution. This is basic engineering – no fancy-pants research needed
The Greens will shi* their drawers!
Eric
“If nuclear power is such an obviousLY solution,…”
We actually did it at Oak Ridge in the 60’s. Here is Oak Ridge’s video from 1969 showing the success of the molten salt reactor. The proved that molten salt was the way to cool reactors and not using water, especially pressurized water. And a scale up reactor was never authorized because politically it lost out to uranium breeder reactors that would not breed in the fast spectrum. Thorium breeds very well in the thermal spectrum. You will note at the 17 minute mark of this video that is what the ORNL guys wanted to do next after they proved that molten salt was the best way to cool a reactor. But they never got the chance. And we lost the nuclear power we were all promised.
https://youtu.be/tyDbq5HRs0o
GeologyJim
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traveling_wave_reactor
That is Admiral Hyman Rickover, not Elmo Zumwalt. Zumwalt was later and was a Surface Warfare guy who became CNO.
Admiral Rickover summarized his experience with “paper reactors”:
An academic reactor or reactor plant almost always has the following basic characteristics:
It is simple.
It is small.
It is cheap.
It is light.
It can be built very quickly.
It is very flexible in purpose.
Very little development will be required. It will use off-the-shelf components.
The reactor is in the study phase. It is not being built now.
On the other hand a practical reactor can be distinguished by the following characteristics:
It is being built now.
It is behind schedule.
It requires an immense amount of development on apparently trivial items.
It is very expensive.
It takes a long time to build because of its engineering development problems.
It is large.
It is heavy.
It is complicated.
The tools of the academic designer are a piece of paper and a pencil with an eraser. If a mistake is made, it can always be erased and changed.
Which is why almost no designs get beyond the paper study/artist conception stage.
Thanks, Shoki, for the correction. That’s what I get for writing off the top of my head
Apologies to Zumwalt
Jim, what you wrote is basically true, but it was not at Clinch River, but at Oak Ridge, the reactor fuel was U233, not Thorium (yes, it was designed with Th in mind), and it did not produce electricity, but consumed it for cooling. Wikipedia: The 233UF4 was the result of breeding from thorium in other reactors. Since this was an engineering test, the large, expensive breeding blanket of thorium salt was omitted in favor of neutron measurements.
See the Oak Ridge video from 1969 supporting what you say. The next step was going to be a LFTR.
https://youtu.be/tyDbq5HRs0o
Thorium is mentioned as the next fuel at the 17 minute mark.
Thorium is mentioned as the next likely fuel at the 17 minute mark.
Sorry, Adm Zumwalt never had anything to do with not funding nuclear R&D on MSRs. Zumwalt retired from the Navy in 1974. The earliest MSR R&D in the US was ongoing through 1976, it was run not by Naval Reactors but by Oak Ridge, and it was never a naval nuclear propulsion program. Adm. Rickover totally controlled the naval nuclear propulsion and he never sponsored any research into MSR, though he did authorize a liquid sodium cooled reactor that proved unwieldy and was shut down.
MSRs are still in a very early stage of development, with current experimental designs being just a handful of years or less in progress. It will be at least two decades perhaps three decades before they become a viable source of nuclear energy production. Which is fine as we have plenty of other less radical designs ready to go online now.
Agreed – and if feasible, scale them to run individual households so “grid dependence” can be ended. Imagine no reliance on wires strung through tree-line roads during storms! And enough power to produce heat as well as electricity, all on site and safe.
Now THAT would be “progressive!”
Being almost 92 years of age I can clearly recall the anti nuclear era of the 1950 tees to the 1970 tees . A poster with a Mother holding a baby to her breast with a mushroom cloud rising in the background.
Only when society realises that the Greens are not into “Saving the Planet”but to only want the worlds economy to collapse, as per the late Maurace Strong , then we will be offered the alternative, that of World Government, to get us back on our feet. Run of course by the United Nations.
So what of the true caring Greens out there. Well Joseph Stalin of the old USSR said it clearly. He referred to the Wests supporters of Communism as supporter of Communism as “Useful idiots”.
That of course must include a lot of politicians, although seeing over the years just how they operate its more likely that all that most of them are thinking about is getting re-elected, and any convienent “Bandwaggon”passing by, such as the Green blob will do.
MJE
Thank you for the wisdom and Happy New Year!
Well Joseph Stalin of the old USSR said it clearly. He referred to the Wests supporters of Communism as supporter of Communism as “Useful idiots”.
Nail hit squarely on the head. The Green Movement is nothing more than a highly successful Russian disinformation campaign to slow down the steady development of the West’s technology. Nothing indicates the failure of an ideology, country or politics than an ever more successful competitor. You can’t hide success for very long when your people who live in poverty see the rising standard of living in the West. We know that the entirety of the anti-fracking movement is a Russian disinformation campaign, it’s been documented and even covered here at WUWT.
So what’s changed? Trump and the liberal narrative of collusion with Russia. Liberals like Gates are finding it too much of a double think (cognitive dissonance) to support both the current version of the Russian green disinformation campaign and Trump loves Putin narrative. Additionally, liberal elites at the end of the day are a greedy bunch, that’s why they create these narratives in the first place, nuclear power is now at a stage of development where billions of dollars can be potentially made by selling power plants and their associated components.
Were it not for the liberal infestation at all levels of US government, the FBI and CIA counter-intelligence groups would have exposed this disinformation campaign years ago. The mere existence of former CIA Director John Brennen, a debatably “former” Communist, demonstrates the level of infestation and it’s effects. That America hasn’t yet collapsed is in spite of our best facial efforts and not because of them…
Nice tinfoil hat ya got there. Seen any black helicopters lately hovering over your house?
Sheesh.
The so-called “Green Movement” began in the late 19th century, and got a huge boost during the administration of Teddy Roosevelt, our original conservationist President. Long before Lenin gained control of Russia and created the Soviet state. Soviet influence in the US was nil in the 1960s and 1970s when the modern environmental movement was born. That is, unless you believe Richard Nixon was a commie sympathizer – he signed the nation’s first environmental laws, including NEPA and creation of the EPA.
Duane, it is certainly true the Conservation movement began at the time of TR. Conservation groups were mainly “outdoorsmen”, i.e. hunters and fishers, and had very practical (and non political) concerns about not despoiling the wild and wildlife. This was related to effort of folks like Seth Green (no pun there) who developed the concept of fish hatcheries.
Today’s “Greens” have absolutely no relation to the Conservationists with whom I grew up . As a proud member of the Genesee (NYS) Conservation Club we participated in the first Earth Days walking riverbanks, picking up litter (not those silly unproductive “walks” complete with protest signs). Those of us with technical backgrounds served on action groups to identify and propose solutions to sewerage fouling our rivers and streams.
Our Clubhouse also served as a gun club (with antlers, deer heads and mounted trout decorating the walls); imagining a few of today’s “Greens” in the midst of that group is amusing.
I’ll give you my simple opinion of the disconnect between the movement of TR’s day and modern “Greens”:
At the fall of the Soviet Union and East Germany, the far progressive left was in disfavor; it was an easy enough step for them to pick up the green banner and in a few years (decades?) twist it to wrap around their former global, progressive and anti-capitalist agenda.
The environmental/deep ecology movement was ‘hijacked’.
It must be and will be recovered but not until the financial underpinnings of the hijacker’s rackets are fully exposed.
This is happening but we will not see the truth exposed by the MSM.
The 3 presidents who changed how we think about the environment were republicans. TR, tricky Dick, and George W Bush.
There is a difference between progressive thinking and the ‘progressive political agenda’.
“Cuomo Vows New York Will Lead Nation With Progressive Agenda”
So what does that look like. ” He has listed legalizing recreational marijuana, codifying abortion rights and fixing New York City’s subways as three priorities for the new year.”
When progressive thinking works it becomes a conservative thinking. For example, ending the draft and establishing an all volunteer military.
T. Roosevelt was a “progressive”, very much in love with big government and using other people’s money to “do good”.
Scrolling through Bill’s investment link I was relieved to see that none of the companies are in the wind/solar scam. He could do so much to make the necessary move to nuclear so it’s disappointing when he supports deploying wind and solar “wherever it makes sense.” That’s misleading because he’s knows that limits their use to non-grid applications. Germany has clearly illustrated to the entire world that a wind and solar “energiewende” is an unworkable, uneconomical catastrophic mistake.
I am very glad to see common sense take hold and Bill Gates throw his support behind Atomic power. This, or some form or fashion of nuclear will be the work horse of electrical generation for centuries to come. I keep hearing advocation of modular Molten Salt reactors, but have yet to see one built. It would be good to have some advanced work on these and other prototypes since Fusion is still 30 years away. As always.
The one argument the Greens would be right about if they ever argued this point, is that towards the longer term future, the price point of fossil fuels will cause harm to the economy as they become more expensive just due to supply and demand. And fossil fuels which make up thousands of other products, may have a higher and better use for our present petro chemical requirements. Not to mention future products which have yet to be developed. Which is why they are trying so hard with carbon taxes to discourage the use of fossil fuels, although it appears to just be a crass tax grab. And an attempt to regulate the primary energy that is crucial to our advanced civilization and way of life, as well as the developing world. The way it is being rolled out, such as labeling ‘carbon’ as pollution is juvenile at best, and idiotic at worst.
Which is why it is so important that a form of safe inexhaustible nuclear energy is ramped up to tie into our present and future electrical grids. However, with inexhaustible electricity, we will be able to manufacture complex long chain carbon molecules to our hearts content forever. The carbon based economy will be with us forever, because life and nearly everything associated with maintaining life, is carbon based. So, carbon based fuels are never going to be replaced by electricity, only how they are manufactured for thousands of years to come. Long live carbon and CO2, the stuff of life. But let’s get on with the task of developing safe, inexhaustible nuclear energy so as we can transition to a electricity driven world when fossil fuels become to expensive to utilize economically. That is a rational arguement, not some BS about carbon/CO2 ruining the climate. They have probably helped save the climate with the smidgeon of warming we may have gained from the usage of carbon based fossil fuels.
Maybe Mr Gates sees that if the most rabid greens have their way then the computer industry is sunk, as increases in electricity prices and taxation for subsidies consumes more of everyone’s money. Google already got the message with their report on current green energy technology not being viable in maintaining industry (or the citizenry) with readily dispatchable power.
Green energy in the form of wind and solar are terrible methods of supplying electricity, in contrast nuclear power has a long history of safely supplying electricity to large populations.
“…Global emissions of greenhouse gases went up in 2018. For me, that just reinforces the fact that the only way to prevent the worst climate-change scenarios is to get some breakthroughs in clean energy…”
A rise in 2018 reinforced worst-case senarious? Wah?
Scenarios not senarious, lol. I crack myself up…
“If nuclear power is such an obviously solution, why hasn’t it happened?”
It hasn’t happened because nuclear power would advance Capitalism.
Remember, climate alarmism isn’t about the climate or saving the planet, its about Marxists finding ways to hobble and encumber Capitalism.
Nuclear power would advance Capitalism, so it is not a solution for the Marxist greenies. It does not matter if it reduces CO2 emissions, Marxist greenies are not even slightly interested. They simply can’t endorse it.
i hasn’t happened because it would crash world economies. Oil and gas is the biggest global industry. It doesn’t want nuclear.
It can afford to pay greens to stop it.
Very, very little oil is used in power production.
The Greens (and their Marxist backers) have spent decades telling the world the Nuclear is dangerous and evil. If they go back on that now, people would start to wonder what else they’ve claimed was wrong.
~¿~
By that definition, China is not a Marxist state, as they have 13 nuke power plants under construction, 43 planned, and 136 proposed. Perhaps because they don’t allow organizations like Greenpeace to run their policies. source: http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/facts-and-figures/world-nuclear-power-reactors-and-uranium-requireme.aspx
Bill Gates: “TerraPower, the company I started 10 years ago”
https://www.powermag.com/molten-salt-reactors-military-applications-behind-the-energy-promises/
“Molten Salt Reactors: Military Applications Behind the Energy Promises”
Despite the title, this article is a very interesting account of past and current designs, written by a French nuclear energy professional.
Bill Gates has been a backer of Thorium GEn 4 small nucler reactors for years now. These are NOT light water reactors, but are basically molten salt reactors, whihc can burn either low grade uranium or thorium. Some (the now defunct Transatomic Power) molten salt designers preffered uranium, since usuingThoriumresults at an intermediate stage of the process produces plutonium, which we want to avoid. Molten salt reactors ais actually not a new concept – such experimental machines have been built and operated manydecades ago. But they were not practical becaus ethey could never be built with a reactor core using carbon moderators larg enough toproduce enough power output. And molten salt is very corrosive and not until a few years ago have alloys been developed that coud withstand the corrosive effects for a practcal length of time. Transatomic Power was rolling right along,having solvedalof thetechnical poblems but ran out of money. It has ceased operation but has placed its plans in the public domain for anyone to use. The remaining half dozen or so companies seem to be doing OK and have backing that will cary them into commercialization,mid 2020’s. China and India are also developing these reactors and the reasons are patently obvious : this technology is far superior to the massive light water reactors that are around today, even the Gen 3+ versions. They are cheaper – the two I consider the leaders, Moltex Energy (an English firm) and Terrestrial Energy have hired engineering cost analysis firms and their independent estimates of build costs are $1950/per watt and $2500 per watt, respectively. That’s well under half the cost of even the cheapest available conventional reactors today – those built by Chinese and Russian firms. Levelized cost of output is 4.4 cents per kWhr and 5 cents per kWhr, respectively. That’s roughly half the cost of current nuclear builds, and as cheap or cheaper than any fossil fuel. These Small Nuclear Reactors will be built in factories and sited virtualy anywhweere, being air cooled andnot requiring a body of water nearby forcooling. The can load follow, which allows them not to need mid and peak load fossil fuel generators, they cannot have an accident of any consequence – they cannot melt down, and the uranium fuel is not under any significant pressure – any fuel that might somehow ever leak out would freeze instantly upon encountering temperatures below 600 degrees. They will be built in factories and assmbled on sites that require minimal preparation. These are NOT massive structures. They are also very resistant to nuclear proliferation.
Hmmm . . . sounds too good to be true, so it probably is really not what it is being claimed.
There are a host of identified disadvantages. Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_fluoride_thorium_reactor ) details 22 separate ones associated with molten fluoride salt thorium reactors . . . most of these are very challenging and largely unresolved.
I’m shocked, shocked to find kent banging on about MSRs here.
Aside from trying to reason Gate’s incentive for supporting nuclear power I agree with it. Wind and solar are neither reliable nor economic enough to do the job and increasing the numbers will never get us there. This doesn’t mean I think AGW skepticism is being compromised I believe nuclear is a better source of electricity in large grids than fossil fuels. But if I had to guess (can’t pass it up) I think his decision is logic based and practical.
Indeed. Gates is an intelligence person despite his having bought into CAGW (even intelligent people can fall for cons), I don’t doubt that he’s given nuclear power a logical assessment and came to the same practical conclusion that nuclear is an excellent source of steady, reliable, clean (IE doesn’t spew real pollutants, regardless of it’s lack of CO2 emissions) large grid energy. I’d have to doubt his intelligence if he didn’t give it a logical assessment based on the facts and not the hysteria.
The last two Earling2 and Tom summed it up well. But expect a massive and very emotionally charged campaign against Nuclear. Nuclear energy is the last thing that the Top Greens really want, its goes against all that they are working hard for, World Government via the UN. And that particular system will be Communism.
In fact a good step forward is to get rid of the UN. First Trump should stop paying them any money, then he could evict them from that building and have it relocated in one of the poorest countries in Africa, where they can truly serve the Poor.
The early UN, the pre-war League of Nations, mostly white people ran it, and that did not stop war or major problems, and the present mostly black and brown populated one today is even worse at solving the world many problems.
Its become just a soap box for many worlds leaders, such as our Ex PM RUDD.
The IPCC is of course just a mouthpiece for those so called undeveloped nations who think that the Western countries owes them a permanent flow of money.
MJE
“…then he could evict them from that building….” Didn’t we/US give the property, building and tax exemption to the UN? I don’t think we can evict them though that would be appropriate considering their open non support of the US and Capitalism.
The buildings not that big so wall it off – even at New York Union rates, it won’t cost that much to build a wall around it.
markl, Tax exemptions can be revoked and there’s always eminent domain. If it can be used to take away a citizen’s home, it can certainly be used to take back the UN building.
Yeah surely there’s a need for a new “cloverleaf” highway junction or something on that real estate.
It’s Fen’s Law:
“The Left doesn’t really believe in the things they lecture the rest of us about “.
Applied here, it means you are wasting your time and energy arguing with the Greens that nuclear is the solution to any climate crisis. You are shelling a hill the enemy never occupied.
They don’t care about solving “global warming” because it’s not about saving the planet, it’s about Global Marxism via redistribution of energy production and consumption.
Nuclear energy will not solve this, eradicating postmodernism and the Marxists will.
Positive. The green blight is a niche solution, as is the black blob, that are first-order forcings of catastrophic anthropogenic political climate change, which is a threat to lowlands, highlands, and islands.
If we eliminate the use of fossil fuels by going nuclear, we’ll have to find an alternate way to pump plant food into the atmosphere.
Have everyone use propane for grilling and cooking? – ala CO2 ‘generators’ in greenhouses? (they simply burn propane)