By dissing Nuclear Power, the left has made themselves vulnerable on climate change

Michael Shellenberger writes in Forbes, video follows:

Republicans Can Own The Libs on Climate Change By Defending Nuclear Plants On The Brink

Do Republicans realize how vulnerable Democrats have made themselves on climate change?

Please share widely

Out of one side of their mouths Democrats say we have just 12 years until climate doomsday.

Out of the other side of their mouth they call for shutting down nuclear plants, our largest source of clean energy.

In February, when she introduced her Green New Deal, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez called for a “transition off of” nuclear, America’s largest source of clean, zero-emissions energy.

Last Monday, at a televised Fox News Townhall meeting, Sen. Bernie Sanders reiterated his call for the closure of nuclear plants.

Now, Democratic lawmakers in Pennsylvania and Ohio are fighting legislation that would save both states’ nuclear plants, and prevent a spike in carbon emissions.

If Democrats get their way, nuclear plants, which constitute 90% of the clean (zero-emissions) electricity in those states, will be replaced by coal and natural gas, and emissions will rise.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
April 18, 2019 5:05 pm

Do Republicans realize how vulnerable Democrats have made themselves on climate change?

No. Republicans are too stupid to realize Democrat vulnerabilities.

Ron Long
Reply to  Gary
April 18, 2019 6:13 pm

Where did that come from?

Reply to  Ron Long
April 18, 2019 6:20 pm

Many years of bitter experience.

Reply to  Ron Long
April 18, 2019 6:26 pm

Many painful years of observation.

Stupidity and cowardice are the hallmarks of Republican political failures.

Stupidity is viewed as resounding success by Democrats, so it’s not like there’s a better choice available.

D. Anderson
Reply to  Ron Long
April 18, 2019 6:27 pm

I know exactly how he feels.

Reply to  Ron Long
April 18, 2019 6:58 pm

… years of GOPe ineptitude and servitude to their corporate, Globalist masters.

Reply to  Ron Long
April 18, 2019 7:44 pm

Love Trump, have been a registered Republican for almost 40 years and approve of this Republican president for the first time since Reagan BUT:

You hear Republican politicians discussing “Climate Change” as if it a real thing. Why? CO2 sequester. Who can do it? Oil companies, who can pump it into depleted fields to boost production and get paid in tax brakes or emissions credits they can sell by the time the legislation is written.

Crony capitalism, both sides do it, the Republican politicians will give the Democrats something for the renewable energy companies in exchange for something for their supporters in the oil industry.

Remember methyl tertiary-butyl ether for oxygenation gas? The R used the D to to pass a great bill to oxygenate gas to help with smog. The refiners used MTBE to do so, making money on the effort. The hazards of MTBE were discovered and it’s use was phased out and it was made illegal in many states. It has been replaced by a subsidized ethanol, another crony capitalist scam, using a food crop for fuel.

Politics is all about picking winners and losers, but the citizens always loose out on these types of legislation.

John MacDonald
Reply to  Drake
April 19, 2019 7:25 am

I suspect most refiners lost money on MTBE. They built expensive new plants that only worked for less than a decade. Then some spent huge sums to clean up contaminated sites and equipment.

Max Porath
Reply to  John MacDonald
April 19, 2019 1:12 pm

I seriously doubt a single refiner lost a dime. The costs, whatever they might be, were passed onto the consumer in the form of higher gas prices.

I wonder how many “refinery fires” just so happened to coincide with the retrofits required to phase MTBE in and then out?

Reply to  Drake
April 19, 2019 5:29 pm

Retired from an electric utility that was invested heavily in Nuclear power. Executive management was “Gung-Ho” on the proposal for Cap-and-Trade. They discussed how they would make a fortune and pushed it. When that did not get passed they then jumped on the “Subsidies band wagon. The utility gets subsidies, easier loans, bragging rights, “Green advertising, corporations that want Green energy and then get to pass on the higher cost with quick approval by the public utility commissions. Then the customers PAY and the utility gets a tax CREDIT for the Green expenditures. Thus the customer gets to pay more for the electricity, more in state and federal taxes and the utility gets a CREDIT (not a deduction – a CREDIT – dollar for dollar less taxes) on their taxes. A large portion of Amazons ZERO federal taxes comes from Green Tax CREDITS.

John Endicott
Reply to  Ron Long
April 19, 2019 6:44 am

Where did that come from?

Years and years of observing “establishment” Republicans.

Bill Capron
Reply to  John Endicott
April 19, 2019 7:08 am

We could have a book of completions to the sentence; Republicans are too stupid to recngnize ________
Yes, Dems are vulnerable, but to Republicans; it’s heartbreaking.

Reply to  Ron Long
April 19, 2019 10:21 am

Ditto to MarkW. Congressional GOP haven’t had a brain since Newt left. They’ve been so fixed on getting their share of the graft that they haven’t bothered to win at anything.

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  KaliforniaKook
April 19, 2019 11:49 am

I remember a political cartoon, showing Newt dressed in furs and an iron helm. The caption was something to the effect of “Gingrich Khan rallies the troops”. We sure could use him again.

James A Schrumpf
Reply to  Gary
April 18, 2019 7:20 pm

I just wish they’d both realize there’s nothing to fear from the Earth’s natural variations and get on to something important.

Reply to  James A Schrumpf
April 19, 2019 6:53 am

…get on to something important…

That’s exactly where we’ve always gone wrong.

Mike Restin
Reply to  Gary
April 18, 2019 8:51 pm

“The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives.
The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes.
The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected.”
G.K. Chesterton – Illustrated London News, April 19, 1924

Reply to  Gary
April 19, 2019 8:28 am

It’s not that they’re stupid, it’s that they’re playing the same game and on the take from the same big entities.

Reply to  Mom2Kids
April 19, 2019 10:27 am

Mom, other than your first phrase, I’m in complete agreement. But maybe you’re right, and the Democrats are just smarter about politics.

Reply to  Gary
April 19, 2019 9:37 am

The basic premise is flawed. Democrats know that they can get away with pretty much anything because the corrupt mainstream media will cover for them.

Joel O'Bryan
April 18, 2019 5:12 pm

The Left’s call for immediate “Climate Action” to Save the Planet while simultaneously calling for closure of nuclear power plants tells us all we need to know about their real motive behind the climate change alarmism.

Climate Change is non-problem.
The real goal is to destroy Western capitalism, as many of their more honest Socialists have openly stated. Climate change has just been a Trojan Horse for socialism’s poison pill. Rentseeking climate scientists jumped on-board the climate money gravy train the Democrat’s created to corrupt the science to justify their end – the end is of course Power. The power of political elite. The East and West Coast Liberals in the US and the Liberals in other Western democracies who have decided “they are our betters” and we are all deplorables who must be subjugated and ruled.

Electing Trump was the middle finger to the Elites in both parties in the US. Building out nuclear power will be an even bigger middle finger to them.

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
April 18, 2019 6:24 pm

Well said Joel
It is very interesting watching from afar how a great nation the USA can even elect some people to their Congress who are intent of destroying your country with crazy NGD schemes.Surely there are enough sane voters to put such crazy ideas where they belong in the rubish bin along with the candidates pushing this drivel.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Gwan
April 18, 2019 7:02 pm

Here in the US, there are districts for the US Congress seats where if you have an “R” beside your name you are guaranteed to win the general election. Similarly. there are also many Democratic Party stronghold districts where whoever gets the D nomination will win the general election.

AOC merely surprised a complacent incumbent long-time Democrat congressman in a typically low-turnout primary election by energizing a small segment of the Democrat voting block to turn-out in force and vote for her. Once having won the low-turnout Primary for her party’s nomination to get on the general election ticket, her victory was then assured.

It generally is not a problem for Congress as there are 435 House seats, where a few crazies get drowned out.

The only reason AO-C has gotten the voice she has is because the Democratic Party is disintegrating, and is thus in great disarray. The leaders of the Party like Pelosi of course deny this, but to anyone who steps back and disconnects themselves from the “message” it is apparent. She and her more moderate Dems have lost control of their Left wing. And it is dragging many of their Presidential nomination contenders to left as well. A place where they know they cannot win the general election.
The Democratic Party is about to splinter. It has been 10 years in the making with Obama’s use of Identity Politics to brings about his 2 victories. Identity politics though eventually eats its own. This is now happening. And either Bernie or Joe Biden getting the nomination will make it happen.

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
April 19, 2019 8:29 am

Completely agree. The goal is starving, freezing peasants. Not too many of them either.

Wasn’t it Kissinger who said something along the lines of ‘fewer people are easier to control’?

nw sage
April 18, 2019 5:37 pm

Please don’t confuse the tizzys with the facts – their mind (well, all they ever had) is made up.

Paul Nevins
April 18, 2019 5:42 pm

The anti nuclear stance of the many environmental and left wing NGO’s is how I know they don’t believe any of their own global warming claims. They all know their anti nuclear claims have always been bogus and they could easily embrace nuclear power especially modern plant designs. This would massively reduce carbon emissions. If they believed for one minute that climate change was a real risk they would have done this thirty years ago.

April 18, 2019 5:54 pm

“Now, Democratic lawmakers in Pennsylvania and Ohio are fighting legislation that would save both states’ nuclear plants, and prevent a spike in carbon emissions.
“If Democrats get their way, nuclear plants, which constitute 90% of the clean (zero-emissions) electricity in those states, will be replaced by coal and natural gas, and emissions will rise. ”

Yes, and I don’t want to be switched over willy-nilly to so-called ‘green renewable’ sources of electricity, which will triple my electric bill for no reason other than corporate greed by the company that offers this option. But that’s what the “other option” is – an almost guaranteed loss of power at times when it’s most needed.

Just keep this stuff coming. We need to know as much as possible if we’re to get these self-serving control freak idiots out of even the remote possibility of power/control of anything. It’s nice to know that they are annoying Pelosi. She’s speaking out against them. Never thought I’d see something like that but… well, life is full of surprises, isn’t it?

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  Sara
April 18, 2019 11:24 pm

will triple my electric bill for no reason other than corporate greed

Your bill will go up if “green energy” is mandated, but it won’t be corporate greed.
Unreliable electrons require backup electrons.
The suppliers will need two systems, and the reliable one will have to be run inefficiently
to be available when the unreliable one is not doing anything. Thus costs double+.
Because a couple levels of government must be involved, another layer of costs is incurred.
Corporations and the greedy shareholders — pension funds, individuals, mutual fund owners — (about half the people in the nation) will find supplying you with electrons is a poor investment. The money needed to keep the lights on long term will drift away, and more government will be required.
Not only will your cost go up, but your level of service will go down. Oh, and taxes will go up, also.

Gary Pearse
April 18, 2019 5:59 pm

How to get conservative voters to stop voting in RINOs in the US! In Canada, I’ve told those who will listen that the party they are voting for isn’t the one they think it is. Were it not for Trump, the Republicans would finally end up becoming indistinguishable from Democrats. They had buckled under and become Democrat lite and they were following the Democrats furthur left.

The Conservative parties in Europe had long ago become essentially in-name-only and often found themselves out-lefing their opponents. Without Trump the Swamp would have continued to swell with (former) Republicans.

Trump is a tsunami. The wave gave Europeans outside the club inspiration and the Matrix immediately began to crumble. People far left of anything known to Europeans are now gobbling up seats in the House and the end is a foregone conclusion. Macron is toast. Merkle knows its over. CO2 is rising inexorably and soon even the half- hearted lipservice will stop. The Climateers are getting meaner but they now understand nothing will ever be done to stop the collapse. They know they are hugely overemployed and soon to be unemployed.

Roger Knights
Reply to  Gary Pearse
April 19, 2019 4:40 am

“People far left of anything known to Europeans are now gobbling up seats in the House and the end is a foregone conclusion.”


April 18, 2019 6:11 pm

They are either liars, stupid or crazy. Take your pick.

Moderately Cross of East Anglia
Reply to  Grant
April 19, 2019 1:00 am

Can I vote all three?

John Endicott
Reply to  Grant
April 19, 2019 6:48 am

Why do you think those three things are mutually exclusive? They can be (and some are) all of the above.

Hocus Locus
April 18, 2019 6:13 pm

It is unethical to see no clear path to unbounded Energy as anything but an existential threat.
Sound familiar? That is similar to the tactic fronted by frenetic climate alarmists who are trying to push a dozen pet agendas and several for-profit agendas crafted specially for them, all at once — rallying the people over a global average temperature signal that is presently buried in noise, and a CO2-to-temperature causation that may turn out to be nil or even backwards. Unfortunately there is an international scam in progress and the scammers are clever, they have seized the moral high-ground because it had been left unoccupied and undefended. Those who praise humanity and progress for its own sake, and would remind others we should never judge ourselves in haste, must have wandered off somewhere.
There is also a scuffle on the Global Warming moral high-ground as the folks who run nuclear power plants are kicked in the face and tossed off the mound. They expected to be welcomed with open arms because nuclear energy will help save the planet from CO2. They did not realize the movement is rife with people whose irrational fear of radiation exceeds any commitment to the environment. Anyone who even mentions nuclear power gets a feral and brutal response. I’ve taken pity on the nuclear industry and have tried to explain the phenomenon but they’re not taking it very well. Like the Amish, our nuclear power industry needs staunch defenders surrounding it. They’re just too polite for their own good.
Unfortunately, we have passed beyond peak politeness. To force Energy debates to address practical solutions, bullies are needed. We must rout the occupiers and re-take the moral high-ground because we place a high priority on survival, and for the children’s sake. And because … well … “What a piece of work is a man! How noble in reason, how infinite in faculty! In form and moving how express and admirable! In action how like an angel, in apprehension how like a god! The beauty of the world. The paragon of animals…” And other such stuff.

(quoting myself again)

J Mac
April 18, 2019 6:20 pm

Man made climate change is a socialist agenda fraud. Just tell them to buzz off and keep the reactors running at 100%!

Mark Pawelek
Reply to  J Mac
April 19, 2019 6:59 am

Not a fraud. A scam. No one ever planned it. People with a pessimistic outlook on life believe because their pessimism drives a belief in harmful: nuclear power, global warming, even plastics!

That’s why I call climate change a death cult too. Like Freud’s theorized Thanatos made real as a political movement. Not everyone pushing climate catastrophe is in on the pessimism; most just established their careers on it. I think most around the IPCC are like this. They go with the flow. Publish the paper. Get the grant. Model, and avoid hard science. Some of them, like Mann, are probably death cultists. It has this peculiar character of scam, deathcult and save the world evangelism to it. Like the thuggees of India.

In India, murders and “thuggees” convinced themselves their robbery and murder was good. People are masters at hoodwinking themselves to support a base cause and elevating it to world saviourship.

April 18, 2019 6:48 pm

Gen 4 nuclear should be endorsed by Trump. We’re gonna eventually need it anyway.Why not be the one to bring it up first?

Reply to  Mikey
April 18, 2019 11:10 pm

If you were wondering what Gen 4 is, this article describes the “six reactor technologies which they believe represent the future shape of nuclear energy”.

“These were selected on the basis of being clean, safe and cost-effective means of meeting increased energy demands on a sustainable basis, while being resistant to diversion of materials for weapons proliferation and secure from terrorist attacks.”

Reply to  Toto
April 19, 2019 2:01 pm

Wow. Your link takes me to the website of not just a government but a committee of governments!!! Given the track record of ALL governments and/or committees when they start picking winners and losers I expect it’s highly likely the 6 selected technologies never make it out of the starting blocks when it comes to commercial development. Where can I get a piece of this action? I’ll take a short position!

Reply to  Red94ViperRT10
April 20, 2019 10:59 pm

Yeah, they will probably decide to wait for fusion, just to make sure that the future is not nuclear.

April 18, 2019 7:05 pm

The eco-left don’t believe we NEED Nuclear … what we NEED … according to their orthodoxy is to all reduce our energy use by 75-80%. To live like the noble savages in the bush. To commune with mother Gaia … and if she kills us from exposure, well … cest la vie …

James A Schrumpf
April 18, 2019 7:25 pm

I just wish they’d both realize there’s nothing to fear from the Earth’s natural variations and get on to something important.

April 18, 2019 7:58 pm

Okay, well, while you’re all dissing both political parties, the people at Accuweather have left us with an article that says the glaciers all over the world are shrinking faster than usual.

So the Democrats will use this as an excuse to inflict another carbon tax on us and howl about emissions – especially that wall-eyed wonder from the Bronx – and the GOPers will start an inquiry into it, or something. and meantime, no one is asking is this report baloney?

Beta Blocker
April 18, 2019 8:20 pm

These two articles from the Bacon’s Rebellion blog highlight the intense efforts green energy lobbying groups are making to thwart the expansion of gas pipeline capacity in the mid-Atlantic and in the Northeast.

Is Winter Coming For Virginia Pipeline Projects?

Bacon Bits: Restored Licenses; Dominion’s Millstone Plant; RGGI

Just like it is with Diablo Canyon in California, shutting down Indian Point in New York State is a done deal.

If gas fired generation capacity can’t expand to fill the energy gap in both states, what happens in eight or ten years when wind and solar aren’t delivering on their promises?

Anyway, this is what New York state’s politicians, and apparently a majority of New York state’s voters, want to see happen. Likewise with California’s politicians and a majority of California’s voters.

When 2030 arrives, will Californians and New Yorkers still be happy with their decision?

Reply to  Beta Blocker
April 19, 2019 7:08 am

Would be a very good idea for the states surrounding California and New York to invest in Nuclear. By the time the plants are built those two states will be begging for power.

Beta Blocker
Reply to  peter
April 19, 2019 9:43 am

When it comes to energy reliability, keeping the states of California and New York afloat will become a profitable business investment opportunity in Arizona, Nevada, and Pennsylvania in the period beyond 2030.

Oregon and Washington are anti-nuclear and anti-natural gas, so we won’t see either of those two states stepping up to help out the Californians. Moreover, Oregon and Washington are both headed in the same political directions as California and will have their own energy reliability problems to deal with starting in another decade, or possibly earlier.

Ever rising prices for electricity in New York and California will stimulate a variety of energy conservation measures in those two states, but a point will come where conservation alone isn’t enough. Serious grid reliability problems will begin to develop. Brown outs and blackouts will become increasingly more frequent.

Only after serious problems occur will an honest conversation begin concerning the grid reliability issues of wind and solar. Even after that conversation begins, California’s and New York’s politicians will stick with the renewables until the last dog dies — or freezes, more accurately, if the conversation is happening in New York.

If demand for additional generation capacity develops, it will develop rather suddenly once the assurances of the green politicians are shown to be empty words. The fastest response to an emerging demand for reliable electricity is most quickly served from constructing a series of gas-fired generation facilities in locations suitable for their installation.

By the time the groundswell demand for a reliable supply of electricity becomes acute, cost will be a secondary consideration, because the renewables will have already increased the price of electricity to levels which can better support a more profitable source of income for power generation investors.

When this happens, probably in the period beyond 2030, nuclear will once again be locked in a brutal competition with gas-fired generation for energy investment dollars. Nuclear will have a chance in that competition only if its advocates can get its capital costs under control. The 4th Generation SMRs are key to solving the capital cost problem.

Walter Sobchak
April 18, 2019 9:00 pm

About ten years ago I was at an event with Ted Strickland, then the Governor of Ohio. Ted is a Democrat, but an old fashioned labor union man not at all crazy. He had been elected in 2006 after 16 years of Republican rule flamed out amidst some petty scandals.

I was then, and have been at all times in my life a strong advocate of nuclear energy. I was talking to Ted about the economic problems of the day, which included soaring energy prices. And, of course, the usual suspects were ringing their hands about Global Warming, Al Gore’s movie had been released in 2006.

I told Ted that he could solve the energy and CO2 problems, and obtain thousands of jobs and give Ohio based manufactures a big boost by securing plentiful cheap energy. All he needed to do was promote the construction a bunch of nuclear power plants in southeastern Ohio along the Ohio river.

It is the ideal location for such a project. First. The land is geologically stable. There are no active faults and there have not been major earthquakes in the area for thousands of years. Second, The mountains shield the area from Hurricanes and the rough ground breaks up tornadoes. Third, the river provides a limitless quantity of water. Yes, the river floods, but it is not hard to find high ground that has no flooding risk. Fourth, there are no nearby major centers of population. indeed the whole area is sparsely populated. Fifth, The eastern metropolitan grids and the great lakes grid are all within easy reach.

He listened politely, and did nothing. He lost in 2010. But, the idea is still valid. Free to anybody who wants it

Flight Level
April 19, 2019 2:31 am

It’s part of the master plan. Forcibly phase out what’s reliable and affordable, replace it with a guaranteed by law income on captive clients whose satisfaction is irrelevant in the process.

Actually it’s warfare, a mind virus propagated on unprotected against intellectual terrorism democracy. Where those who know and those who believe have equal rights.

Alike tricking users to click on specifically crafted links that exploit system safety imperfections, take control of their computers and use them for nefarious purposes.

Steven Mosher
April 19, 2019 3:24 am

“Do Republicans realize how vulnerable Democrats have made themselves on climate change?”

Nope, they could have seized on climate change to drive research in nukes and rapid deployment,
but nope, they instead argued that the earth was flat

[??? .mod]
[“…but nope, they instead argued that the earth was flat.” Steve, this is one of your most stupid drive by comments ever. – Anthony]

John Endicott
Reply to  Steven Mosher
April 19, 2019 6:55 am

Seize on an anti-scientific scam (when everything is because of climate change – ie less snow, more snow, wetter, drier, hotter, colder, etc. – it’s not falsifiable therefore not science) for their own power? You mean like Democrats? Ok.

April 19, 2019 7:30 am

I am not sure about the USA English,
but should the start of the title of this post not have been
“By ditching…”

Reply to  henryp
April 19, 2019 7:35 am
Reply to  Anthony Watts
April 19, 2019 7:45 am

Thanks, my bad.
I must admit that I never heard of ‘dissing’ .

willem post
April 19, 2019 7:44 am

People who would deny low cost, steady, always there, 24/7/365, near-zero CO2 nuclear power for the US economy are very seriously deranged.

They likely NEVER designed any energy systems
They spout the PR talking points of lobbyists
Nuclear is an order of magnitude better than solar.

Table 1/Land area Acre/MW CF Generation at site Generation at site Nuclear
MWh/acre/y MWh/acre/60y Times better
Nuclear 0.5 0.90 15779 946728 1
Solar, field-mounted 7 0.15 188 11271 84
Wind, onshore 102 0.30 26 1547 612
Wind, offshore 245 0.45 16 966 980

Over 60 years

A 1000 MW nuclear plant, on 500 acres, would generate 946,728 MWh/acre
Turnkey capital cost $6 billion.

A 1000 MW solar plant, 7000 acres, would generate 11,271 MWh/acre
Turnkey capital cost 60/25 x 1000 x $2.5 million/MW = $6 billion

Nuclear would produce 84 times/acre than solar and would have much less CO2/kWh than solar

New nuclear plants can be designed to be daily load curve-following, as France has been doing for several decades.
New nuclear plants do not require peaking, filling in services of gas turbines, etc., but wind and solar DO REQUIRE THESE SERVICES.
With nuclear, the 24/7/365 balancing service would continue to be by gas turbines, diesel generators, or batteries.

Green Mountain Power, a utility in Vermont

GMP buys H-Q electricity, at the Vermont border, for 5.549 c/kWh, under a recent contract.
GMP buys at 5.549 c/kWh, per GMP spreadsheet titled “GMP Test Year Power Supply Costs filed as VPSB Docket No: Attachment D, Schedule 2, April 14, 2017”.
H-Q is eager to sell more of its SURPLUS electricity to New England and New York.

That is at least 50% less than ridgeline wind and large-scale field-mounted solar, which are heavily subsidized to make their electricity appear to be less costly than reality.

GMP sells to me at 18.5 c/kWh, per rate schedule, including taxes, fees and surcharges.
Consumers pricing for electricity is highly political.

That is implemented by rate setting, taxes, fees, surcharges, etc., mostly on household electric bills, as in Denmark and Germany, etc.
The rate setting is influenced by protecting “RE policy objectives” (highly profitable for GMP), which include highly subsidized, expensive microgrids, islanding, batteries and net metered solar and heat pumps.

Reply to  willem post
April 19, 2019 7:47 am

So who says more CO2 is bad?
Even the mountains are becoming greener. Whay do you think is that?

April 19, 2019 7:48 am

So who says more CO2 is bad?
Even the mountains are becoming greener. Whay do you think is that?

John Endicott
Reply to  henryp
April 19, 2019 8:17 am

So who says more CO2 is bad?

The left/Democrats. Doesn’t matter if it really is or not, the point of the article is that while they claim it’s bad, their policies reject and denigrate the one reliable form of “zero-carbon” energy – Nuclear.

Reply to  John Endicott
April 19, 2019 2:23 pm

Which proves even they don’t believe what they’re touting. Or is that spouting?

April 19, 2019 8:28 am


to get a greener earth [is not that what you want: more trees, more grass and more food? ]
we need more CO2,

Gas is best?

John Endicott
Reply to  henryp
April 19, 2019 10:57 am

Again, you are missing the point of the article. It isn’t about what’s “best” for the plants, it’s about what’s “best” to win politically (which is, really, what climate alarmism is all about – politics) IE beating the other guy at their own game. They claim CO2 is bad but their actions regarding Nuclear (not to mention their hypocritical lifestyle) shows they are not serious about that which opens up opportunities to turn the tables on them. The fact that Nuclear is an excellent source of energy is pure bonus. Nuclear along side gas, oil, and coal is a winning combination of energy sources. Unreliable wind and solar are a losing proposition.

April 19, 2019 8:54 am

It is Good Friday
I wish all of my friends here a good PassOver and a very blessed Easter.
Here is my song for you all

[Thank you. .mod]

Steve O
April 19, 2019 9:21 am

Republicans are struggling to field a coherent and compelling strategy. I suggest a two-point attack:

1) Whatever one may believe about Climate Change, the state of the science does not yet justify radical government intervention.
2) And IF radical intervention was justified, the Democrats’ plans are mind-bogglingly stupid.

The same crowd that wants to save the world because of “science” is the same anti-science crowd that also worked to save the world from nuclear power and GMOs.

kent beuchert
April 19, 2019 9:40 am

GOP needs to push molten salt nuclear reactors – will provide the cheapest power, can be built rapidly in factories and installation on site is simple, requires no cooling water, can be located anywhere, impossible to experience a meltdown or eject radioactive particles into the environment, is highly resistant to nuclear proliferation. There are no negatives associated with this technology.

John Endicott
Reply to  kent beuchert
April 19, 2019 10:51 am

They need to be shown that they are actually commercially viable before any sane person would dare to “push” them. Wise investors want to see the reality instead of the hype.

Beta Blocker
Reply to  John Endicott
April 19, 2019 1:22 pm

NuScale out of Portland, Oregon, is furthest along the difficult path of placing a practical working SMR in service. It will be fully compliant with current NRC standards. Their design uses conventional fuel rods, not molten salt.

Substantial progress is being made. However, this article by Dan Yurman from Neutron Bytes asks important questions about SMRs for which there are not yet clear answers:

Key Questions for Developers of Small Modular Reactors

“Despite the tremendous levels of excitement and publicity for development of small modular reactors (SMRs), many questions remain unanswered about the success factors for bringing them to market.”

Reply to  kent beuchert
April 19, 2019 2:05 pm

kent beuchert

I see you propagating this molten-salt nuke engines everywhere.

But this technology is, as you perfectly know, absolutely inexistent:

Look at all the places in the world where considerable amounts of projects were born in the last decades /sarc.

April 19, 2019 2:23 pm

Instead of losing time and money in hopeless projects based on fission, Mankind rather should invest in fusion.

But… not in a fusion replicating the problems created by breeders with their endless reprocessing chains and waste accumulation.

Using the Deuterium/Tritium (DT) technology is the perfect blind-alley:
– Tritium does not exist, so you have to breed it out of a mix of Lithium and Beryllium in 1200 ton blankets to be exchanged and reprocessed every second year;
– DT produces very high energy neutrons damaging any material around the plasma.

My hope is that one day, projects like ITER and its potential successor DEMO will be able to use DT as a kind of initial ignition upgrading to a state able to process a H+H fusion or similar.

April 19, 2019 4:53 pm

If “decarbonization” is the motive for this SMR push, it all seems like windmills and federal subsidies to me. Let the power generators put their money where they think it will do the most good. Let the government stay out of it. And let he who first says “CO2” be put in the stocks for a week.

Russ Wood
April 21, 2019 8:48 am

As an ex-Brit, I marvel that the USA hasn’t yet fallen apart because of their insistence that the politics can only handle TWO parties. Ideally, the party not in power should be “the loyal Opposition”, forcing, wherever possible, the party in power to do what’s right for the country. But that just ain’t so! The corruption across the whole two-party system as it is makes governance unworkable. And when ONE person (Trump) tries to cut across party considerations and is trying do do what he sees as right for the country, the opposition is doing its damndest to stop him, and his ‘own’ party (but not really) just stands back or even interferes!

Verified by MonsterInsights