Road to Climate Neutrality

Reposted from Dr. Judith Curry’s Climate Etc.

Posted on February 8, 2021 by curryja 

by Judith Curry

Spatial Requirements of Wind/Solar and Nuclear Energy and Their Respective Costs

“In addition to the energy sector, the climate debate also needs a transition. From ideology and wishful thinking, to facts, figures and rationality.”

An important document was published last week, a collaborative instigated by two members of the European Parliament – one from the Netherlands and the other from Czechoslovakia.  One of the editors on the resulting report is Lucas Bergkamp, who has written several guest posts at Climate Etc.

The study is now available for download on the website www.roadtoclimateneutrality.eu.

This document provides a critical reality check on the rush to replace fossil fuels with renewable energy.

Press Release

Climate study advises EU to embark on a “Nuclear Renaissance” program

A new study on EU climate policy finds that it is practically impossible to generate sufficient energy with wind and solar energy as there is not enough available land to cover all electricity demand. The study, titled ’Road to EU Climate Neutrality by 2050’ advises the EU to embark on a “Nuclear Renaissance” programme in trying to achieve its climate objectives.

The EU has endorsed the ambitious objective of achieving climate neutrality (i.e. net zero greenhouse gas carbon emissions) by 2050. An energy transition away from fossil fuels is necessary to achieve this objective. The ECR and the Renew group of the European Parliament have commissioned an independent study into the spatial requirements of wind/solar versus nuclear energy and their respective costs. A team of experts came to the conclusion that it is practically impossible to provide enough energy with renewables.

The study includes a case study done for two EU member states: The Netherlands, a country along the North Sea with abundant wind, and the Czech Republic, a landlocked country with no access to sea and a geographical more challenging landscape. In realistic scenarios, there is not enough land to meet all power demand if the Czech Republic and The Netherlands were to rely solely or predominantly on wind and solar power.

The study, initiated by Dutch MEP Rob Roos and Czech MEP Ondřej Knotek and peer-reviewed in part by, among other respected scientists, Nobel Prize-winning economist William Nordhaus, finds that nuclear energy is also more cost-effective than renewables. Even if taken into account major efficiency improvements in solar and wind farms, nuclear energy will remain the cheaper option in 2050. In this comparison, the enormous costs for adapting the electricity grid, such as connecting wind turbines at sea or solar parks on land, are not even included. That price tag is also invariably lower for nuclear energy.

“We found it remarkable that – in transitioning away from fossil fuels – the EU made a policy decision in favour of renewable energy without considering the relative pros and cons of all carbon-neutral technologies”, both MEPs stated.

Mr Roos: “Nuclear energy is always available, cheaper and saves the landscape. Moreover, further research into, for example, the thorium molten salt reactor offers enormous opportunities for our export position. Let’s invest our tax money in that. ”

At the moment, sun and wind energy are being pushed and nuclear energy is being held back. The study contains several policy recommendations for the European Commission to change its approach.

Mr Knotek: “The EU is well invited to create a technology-neutral level playing field for decarbonized power generation technologies. To this end, the EU should adopt a ‘Nuclear Renaissance’ program that places nuclear energy on equal footing with renewable energy. The EU policies today are discriminative when it comes to nuclear energy. It’s time for all policy makers to live up to the EU principle of technological neutrality”

The study also concluded that EU 2050 climate neutrality, if achieved, will likely cause only a very small decrease in the average global atmospheric temperature increase, estimated at between 0.05°C and 0.15°C in 2100, and no more than between 0.02°C and 0.06°C in 2050, assuming no carbon leakage occurs. Electricity-generating technologies therefore should be evaluated for the degree to which they constitute ‘no regrets’ solutions.

Excerpts from Executive Summary

This report presents a summary of the results of a study1 that examines three issues that are key to the EU climate neutrality’s ambition:

i. The effect of EU climate neutrality on the average global atmospheric temperature by 2050 and 2100;

ii. The spatial (land and sea) requirements for wind and solar energy versus nuclear energy in the Czech Republic and The Netherlands; and

iii. The cost of wind/solar energy and of nuclear energy for these two countries.

Of course, it would have been preferable had the European Commission itself done a comprehensive cost/benefit analysis of

alternative policy options available to pursue the EU’s climate neutrality objective. The fact that no such analysis has been conducted, despite the European Commission’s ‘Better Regulation,’ highlights the strong political forces and sense of urgency behind EU climate policy-making.5

In light of the spatial and economic consequences of renewable energy relative to nuclear energy, the EU is well advised to consider a “Nuclear Renaissance” program. Under this program, the EU would create a level playing field for all electricity generation technologies.

Key Takeaways:

The EU’s 2050 climate neutrality strategy involves a high risk of ineffectiveness. The anticipated energy transition, however, can hedge against this risk by deploying ‘no regrets’ solutions that are resistant to climate-related ineffectiveness. Nuclear power is such a solution.

In addition, with respect to both spatial requirements (area of land required) and costs of electricity, nuclear power offers substantial advantages over renewable power (any combination of wind and solar). The cost advantage of nuclear power increases once system costs are added to the equation, and increases further with higher penetration rates of wind and solar.

These advantages have been recognized in the Czech Republic, but not (yet) by policy makers at the EU level and in The Netherlands.

4.8 22 votes
Article Rating
83 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
ResourceGuy
February 9, 2021 6:06 am
MarkW
Reply to  ResourceGuy
February 9, 2021 9:37 am

On the other hand, renewables lead to poverty for everyone and death for millions.

Redge
Reply to  MarkW
February 9, 2021 10:23 am

renewables lead to poverty for everyone

Not everyone, but yeah, I get your point

Richard Page
Reply to  Redge
February 9, 2021 11:51 am

Basically the rich would get richer and the poor would get shafted.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Richard Page
February 11, 2021 9:12 am

Basically the rich will get richer and the middle class will get shafted. The poor will remain so, but will probably get more “vote buying” transfer payments from the government loons pushing green energy scams.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  MarkW
February 9, 2021 12:42 pm

death of millions? Maybe you do not understand the true scope of what the Left has in mind.
Try “hundreds of millions to billions” over the next 80 years.

alastair gray
February 9, 2021 6:16 am

Unfortunately to the politicians of Europe UK and the US this report is simply fake news and will go straight into the trash can. We are regrettably doomed to a cold miserable and totalitarian future

DMacKenzie
Reply to  alastair gray
February 9, 2021 6:48 am

“In addition to the energy sector, the climate debate also needs a transition. From ideology and wishful thinking, to facts, figures and rationality.”

So called journalists can publish a totally unresearched climate scare article in a few minutes of their time, submitted complete with pics of Earth on fire…The publishers don’t even need to sell advertising to businesses…they sell clicks….the more outlandish and scary the headline is, the more clicks…feeding a social media echo chamber based on irrational mass fears.

Plus, politicians don’t use long term engineering studies any more. They just check their social media feeds for popularity memes, and adjust policies to address the irrational fears that bring them more voter popularity. If there is a pic of turtle with a straw up his nose, they will ban drinking straws at the next legislative session…just to appeal to the irrational fears of twitterati…It is unfixable without charging people for sending out trivia over the internet, on a per recipient basis….

Last edited 5 months ago by DMacKenzie
Reply to  DMacKenzie
February 9, 2021 8:05 am

The climate debate is all political which never sticks to facts, figures and rationality. If it did, there would be no climate debate and Biden wouldn’t be hell bent on destroying America, in fact, he probably wouldn’t even be President.

Kpar
Reply to  co2isnotevil
February 9, 2021 8:20 am

Popular will is less important than it used to be. Biden was not elected, IMHO.

He was placed there by Donkey operatives, stung by their assumption that Hillary could not lose and their failure to use the “means” at their disposal at that time.

They weren’t going to be caught with their pants down again.

Bill Everett
Reply to  co2isnotevil
February 9, 2021 8:29 am

The current level of human contribution of CO2 into the atmosphere is less than 1/50000th of atmosphere. This level of CO2 isn’t doing anything to anything.

AndyHce
Reply to  Bill Everett
February 9, 2021 7:47 pm

It isn’t responsible for the roughly 20% growth in photosynthesis of land plants and a possibly larger large increase in sea born photosynthesis?

Iain Reid
Reply to  AndyHce
February 10, 2021 12:12 am

Andy,

that is irrational.
CO 2 is a major source of what plants require to survive therefore the importance of CO 2 to plant is several orders of magnitude to it’s effect on climate.
There is no correlation.

Bill Everett
Reply to  AndyHce
February 10, 2021 7:49 am

I should have made clear that I was talking about warming.

Bill Everett
Reply to  AndyHce
February 10, 2021 8:03 am

I believe that the growth in Earth’s vegetation level is caused primarily by the Earth’s warming not by the increase in the Earth’s CO2 level. I think that the rise in the Earth’s CO2 level is caused by the increase in vegetation, and especially broadleaf vegetation. I think that the CO2 mapping using satellite data from OCO-2 shows the correlation between higher levels of CO2 and the locations of intense levels of broadleaf vegetation such as the Amazon Rain Forest.

Jon Salmi
Reply to  co2isnotevil
February 9, 2021 12:44 pm

How about emphasizing a factual scare story, namely the coming glacial period. Unless mankind gets away from this global warming nonsense and turns its attention to developing fission power we will have no chance of surviving through to the next interglacial with civilization intact. We may not even now have enough time, but we must get started.

Richard Page
Reply to  Jon Salmi
February 9, 2021 1:47 pm

Put the climate scientists out in front and tell them to turn back the glaciers!

Jon Salmi
Reply to  Jon Salmi
February 9, 2021 3:26 pm

My aplogies – I meant fusion power, of course!

PCman999
Reply to  Jon Salmi
February 9, 2021 7:45 pm

You had it right with fission. Fusion will never work with tritium at $30,000 a gram! Even allowing for some tritium production in the fusion reactor, it’ll never get within an order of magnitude of current energy sources. Molten salt reactors using thorium from the leftover waste from rare earth metals mining for instance are much more worthy of development.

Reply to  PCman999
February 10, 2021 8:31 am

The fusion cycle that needs to be perfected in a machine (it already powers the Sun) is:

H + D => He3
He3 + D => H + He4

It’s self sustaining by producing the high energy proton (H) required to initiate the reaction and a charged He4 ion which can be directly converted into electricity.

On the Sun the D is produced by H + H fusion which can be bypassed since we already have a sufficient supply of D and we don’t need all the positrons.

On Earth, it might be easiest to collide orthogonal beams of accelerated particles since chaotic motion from a high temperature plasma will result in other fusion reactions that will create those pesky neutrons. The basic idea is very fast H and He3 beams colliding with relatively slow, precisely shaped, focused and steerable beams of D in 2 separate reaction chambers. This will minimize, if not eliminate, the possibility of D + D fusion and its resulting neutron.

It’s technologically possible to produce enough beam energy to initiate fusion and to turn moving charges into usable electricity. The biggest technical challenge is capturing and collecting the fusion products so that the proton can be redirected to sustain the reaction and the He can be converted into a usable current. Boostrapping the reaction requires an independent source of high energy protons.

Climate believer
February 9, 2021 6:54 am

Here’s a snapshot of how France is producing it’s electricity.

As you can see we need about 80,000 MW of power today.

Wind and sun combined are producing 5,413 MW.

In a few hours the sun will set, that will leave just 3872 MW.

Their plans are ridiculous without Nuclear.

Electricity production by type Feb 2021.png
Ron Long
Reply to  Climate believer
February 9, 2021 8:28 am

France, gone nuclear, huh, Climate believer? I wonder if that accounts for the high quality of their wines?

Ben Vorlich
Reply to  Ron Long
February 9, 2021 9:19 am

Ron,
France went nuclear after Arab Oil embargoes, as a country with little or no fossil fuel reserves this was a sensible choice. Despite Europe relying on French nuclear they are happy with Macron’s plans to move from reliable to unreliable electricity generation

Climate believer
Reply to  Ron Long
February 9, 2021 12:14 pm

Actually now you mention it, there is a power station, not a stones throw from the vineyards of Côtes Du Bourg, near Bordeaux.

Pauleta
February 9, 2021 6:55 am

This makes too much sense and it’s a logic alternative. I guess it won’t fly with politicians and policy makers.

February 9, 2021 6:58 am

Greta under ivestigation in India:

“Teenage climate activist Greta Thunberg posted a document to Twitter containing tweets that she was told to post and actions she should take regarding the current protests in India. She quickly deleted the tweet.”

“BREAKING UPDATE: Greta Thunberg is now facing a criminal conspiracy investigation in India over deleted farmers protest tweets (New York Post)”

Source

Reply to  Krishna Gans
February 9, 2021 9:24 am
February 9, 2021 7:13 am

Wouldn’t a much more effective to make some real efforts to get more and more publicity for all those temperature charts listed by NOTRICKSZONE that show that no warming is occurring? It seem like it is the time to stop ignoring them..

Walter Horsting
February 9, 2021 7:14 am

Save nature from the Greens and Massively unsustainable RE: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/07/05/monumental-unsustainable-environmental-impacts/
The Case for the Good Reactor https://spark.adobe.com/page/1nzbgqE9xtUZF/
Seaborg.co

Gordon A. Dressler
February 9, 2021 8:01 am

Referencing the above article’s italicized, lead-in sentence: if “facts, figures and rationality” were actually used, there would no longer be a “climate debate”.

Yes, it really is that simple.

Last edited 5 months ago by Gordon A. Dressler
Kpar
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
February 9, 2021 8:22 am

Right you are, Gordon.

gringojay
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
February 9, 2021 9:36 am

One would have thought that people in the developed countries had enough common sense to assemble the report’s inconvenient truth decades ago. Still, it was only last year that our betters informed us that 2+2=4 is an assumption – at least now we been assured that transitioning is double plus good, & so we are allowed to read that “climate debate also needs a transition.”

Reply to  gringojay
February 10, 2021 3:26 am

“climate debate also needs a transition.”
I thought they were gonna suggest we cut out all the dickheads and utter tits, leaving us with only rainbows and lessobesians.

fretslider
February 9, 2021 8:10 am

the climate debate also needs a transition. From ideology and wishful thinking, to facts, figures and rationality.”

Its needed that for a very long time, but I don’t see any chance of it. 2 MEPs out of 705 isn’t huge and even then Europarl is little more than a rubber stamp for the all powerful commission, anyway.

Under VDL the EU can’t be trusted, even Canada and Japan came to that conclusion.

commieBob
Reply to  fretslider
February 9, 2021 8:29 am

Some folks think VDL can’t be trusted and are demanding her resignation. link

I’m curious about your remarks regarding Canada and Japan. Can you expand on that or provide a link?

Vuk
Reply to  commieBob
February 9, 2021 9:07 am

As the German defence minister she was a confirmed failure and while running the EU, she is doing her best to keep up with her well earned reputation, keeping the score on the strong downward trend line. .

Reply to  Vuk
February 9, 2021 10:27 am

Failures are the best certifcates to be delegated to the EU Commission.

Climate believer
Reply to  Krishna Gans
February 9, 2021 11:10 am

Yep, that’s the rule, turds float to the top.

Reply to  Climate believer
February 10, 2021 3:27 am

Ain’t nuffin’ floats higher than scum mate!

fretslider
Reply to  commieBob
February 9, 2021 9:29 am

Regarding export controls on vaccines

Aimed at the UK they would also have affected C and J

Kpar
February 9, 2021 8:23 am

“These advantages have been recognized in the Czech Republic, but not (yet) by policy makers at the EU level and in The Netherlands.”

Yep, that sounds about right…

Ron Long
February 9, 2021 8:23 am

If Judith Curry is going to wait for the CAGW-New Green Weenie to show sign of including “A transition idiology and wishful thinking, to facts, figures, and rationality” she is in for a long wait, like eternity. Advance nuclear energy? Fool, didn’t you see the movie Chins Syndrome”? Ruined economies, increased climate-related deaths and carbon taxation are small prices to pay for creating a global control system, the real push between these CAGW fools in a hurry.

Garfield
Reply to  Ron Long
February 9, 2021 10:16 am

That is correct.

“The EU’s 2050 climate neutrality strategy involves a high risk of ineffectiveness.”

And that is this is their target.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Garfield
February 11, 2021 9:52 am

“The EU’s 2050 climate neutrality strategy involves a high risk of ineffectiveness.”

Since CO2 doesn’t actually drive the real Earth’s climate, only the imaginary one in “climate models,” and since their “strategy” won’t produce the needed energy without 100% reliance upon fossil fuels anyway, this should be corrected to read as follows:

“The EU’s 2050 climate neutrality strategy involves a guarantee of complete ineffectiveness.”

Kevin kilty
February 9, 2021 8:31 am

Yes we could use more rational thinking, but it is almost an irrational hope, as people are rarely rational. And crises often do not focus individual minds on reason, but push them into herd irrational, magical thinking.

Woe is us.

Tom Abbott
February 9, 2021 8:44 am

From the article: “The study also concluded that EU 2050 climate neutrality, if achieved, will likely cause only a very small decrease in the average global atmospheric temperature increase, estimated at between 0.05°C and 0.15°C in 2100, and no more than between 0.02°C and 0.06°C in 2050”

So all that effort and money to change the temperature to such a small degree that a human being could not even tell the difference between before the temperature increased and after the temperature increased.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Tom Abbott
February 9, 2021 11:10 am

The idea that their notoriously weak science can estimate a projected temperature range with such precision, over such a time span, is simply preposterous. They pretend that their pronouncements are something more than conjecture and speculation. Just more junk science to feed the fake news.

You’re right about the perceived difference in temperature. Most humans can’t feel a 0.5°C change over a period of an hour, much less a lifetime.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Tom Abbott
February 11, 2021 9:26 am

More to the point, it won’t even reduce the temperature by that supposed amount.

Because atmospheric CO2 levels have never, do not now, and will never drive the Earth’s temperature or climate. Period. There is NO empirical evidence that says it does, and there is plenty of empirical evidence that says it doesn’t. Hypothetical BS doesn’t count.

When (so-called) “science” disagrees with observation, it is WRONG.

Vuk
February 9, 2021 8:48 am

Here in the UK in the last few days, forecast for a bit longer, a bit of global warming would be more than welcomed. As it is usual practice the nature tends to eventually correct aberrations in human thinking trough process of evolving science.
This solar minimum might have or have not something to do with it, count for today is a grand two (SSn=2) points.
No prises for finding that lonely sunspot but it you do not use any additional help it is a good vision test (zoom to the max available, look for a brighter area which is responsible for increase in the TSI, although spots are darker )comment image

Last edited 5 months ago by Vuk
Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Vuk
February 9, 2021 12:58 pm

8 o’clock (32S, 55E in heliographic coord)

Art
February 9, 2021 9:26 am

 “Climate neutrality” is not net zero greenhouse gas carbon emissions. It’s just pretending to have achieved net zero greenhouse gas carbon emissions. For example, paying climate indulgences (carbon credits) to third world nations’ corrupt rulers is claimed to neutralize emissions from the developed world. It doesn’t amount to actual zero emissions in any real way.

griff
February 9, 2021 9:42 am

Complete nonsense: the costs for new nuclear are eye wateringly large… so large nobody can find a way to fund the 2 planned new reactors in the UK at Wylfa and Moorside and the developers have pulled out of the schemes. Hinkley had to be promised a fixed rate for its electricity for 35 years way, way over even current electricity prices.

The Danes just funded an offshore island for connecting offshore wind… there is absolutely no shortage of roof space anywhere in the EU for solar.

I could present another 20 paragraphs of detailed evidence, but my tea is ready!

Reply to  griff
February 9, 2021 10:19 am

You provide never anything.
Eye wateringly are your comments, as usual..

Vuk
Reply to  griff
February 9, 2021 10:21 am

Hi Griffo, nice to see you again
So how come that French produce more from nuclear 48GW than the whole of the UK’s grid demand at peak time 45GW?

Lrp
Reply to  Vuk
February 9, 2021 4:23 pm

griff’s gone mute. Marxist mute

Curious George
Reply to  griff
February 9, 2021 10:45 am

“absolutely no shortage of roof space anywhere in the EU for solar.”
Let’s move the EU to Sahara to guarantee enough sunshine.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Curious George
February 9, 2021 11:48 am

Good idea, but I think the Sahara is moving to the EU, isn’t it?

Climate believer
Reply to  Rich Davis
February 9, 2021 12:43 pm

Indeed, pink snow.

Sentinel dust pyrénées.jpg
MarkW
Reply to  Curious George
February 9, 2021 6:17 pm

Is griff actually stupid enough to believe that it’s possible to get more than a trivial amount of power from roof top solar?

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  MarkW
February 11, 2021 9:28 am

In the UK?! ROTFLMAO!

Mr.
Reply to  griff
February 9, 2021 10:59 am

Your tea is ready, Griff?
When does the bingo start?
What sort of institution are you in?

fred250
Reply to  Mr.
February 9, 2021 1:30 pm

“Your tea is ready, Griff?”

.

His granny makes it for him..

….. never forgets to add the sedatives and other “medicines”..

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Mr.
February 11, 2021 9:30 am

If Griff’s favored energy policies are enacted, he won’t be able to make tea, since gas stoves will be outlawed and electricity mostly nonexistent.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  griff
February 9, 2021 12:10 pm

Have you worked out the amount of solar energy all those hectares of roof panels will produce during the night?

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Rory Forbes
February 11, 2021 9:30 am

And on cloudy, rainy days? Not that THOSE ever happen in the UK. ROTFLMAO.

Climate believer
Reply to  griff
February 9, 2021 12:25 pm

the costs for new nuclear are eye wateringly large…”

…aren’t we supposed to be saving the planet though?

MarkW
Reply to  Climate believer
February 9, 2021 6:18 pm

griff, like the other trolls, is willing to spend unlimited amounts of other people’s money on any solution that he approves of.

Peter W
Reply to  griff
February 9, 2021 12:30 pm

The only reason Nuclear is so expensive is because the anti-nuclear fear mongers fight it so hard.

fred250
Reply to  griff
February 9, 2021 12:36 pm

“here is absolutely no shortage of roof space anywhere in the EU for solar.”

.

ROFLMAO

So everyone can have ZERO ELECTRICITY in winter and at night

What a complete and utter waste of time and money.

Bet YOU wouldn’t put up with that.. just expect everyone else to.

You are a ignorant, hypocritical twerp, griff.

You have NEVER presented any evidence of ANYTHING

You are an evidence-free empty sock.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  griff
February 9, 2021 1:02 pm

“…there is absolutely no shortage of roof space anywhere in the EU for solar.”

Griff’s postings keeps affirming Albert Einstein and provide the WUWT peanut gallery with amusement.

Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about th’universe!

  • A Einstein (widely attributed to, although there is some push-back as to whether he actually said that)
goldminor
Reply to  griff
February 9, 2021 1:48 pm

Sclew the tea. When is your brain going to be ready?

MarkW
Reply to  griff
February 9, 2021 6:16 pm

Green weenies use every legal trick in the book, and a fair number of illegal ones, to make nuclear power expensive. Then they proclaim that nuclear power is just too expensive to consider.
Lack of integrity is a progressive specialty.

observa
Reply to  griff
February 10, 2021 5:40 am

Well howsabout a level playing field for a committed lefty like you Griff? No tenderer of electrons to a national grid can tender anymore than those they can reasonably guarantee 24/7/365 along with FCAS or they keep them? Right up your alley mate.

February 9, 2021 10:23 am

Every Greeny promises Green jobs, Biden, the Gouvernements, here at least all the time the Germans as leaders of idioty in Green Energy questions.

‘Green jobs’ in the German renewables sector have collapsed by 50 per cent in less than a decade. No prizes for guessing where they’ve gone instead – but here’s a clue: it begins with ‘C’ and ends with ‘-hina’.

Green Jobs Collapse in Germany and Go to China Instead. What a Surprise!

beng135
February 9, 2021 10:32 am

A new study on EU climate policy finds that it is practically impossible to generate sufficient energy with wind and solar energy as there is not enough available land to cover all electricity demand.

I wonder how many genuises and supercomputers it took to figure that out.

Kit P
February 9, 2021 10:45 am

Interesting reading is resource management plans by various US utilities. It is a practical document

Kit P
Reply to  Kit P
February 9, 2021 10:46 am

Hit the wrong key! I will finish

Kit P
Reply to  Kit P
February 9, 2021 10:59 am

Did it again.

…a practical discussion for customers demand for the next 20 years.

Only people who are not in a position for keeping customers warm on cold winter days worry about being carbon neutral.

POTUS Clinton talked a lot and did nothing for 8 years as did nothing, and 8 years of the same for Obama. Biden will do the same.

During that time about 20% US power came from nukes. The ‘waste’ problem with lots of talk is the same with nothing accomplished.

It is OK to epic fail when there is no consequences to your wallet.

Rich Davis
February 9, 2021 11:40 am

Czechoslovakia? Seriously, back to the 80’s?

Steve Z
February 9, 2021 11:47 am

Despite all the negative publicity that nuclear power has received due to the Chernobyl and Fukushima incidents, it is clear to anyone who studies the energy density of various power sources that nuclear power should be the ultimate source of electric power, not wind or solar.

It’s interesting that even in the Netherlands, which is known for many windmills dating back before the use of electric power, cannot generate enough electric power from wind to satisfy the country’s needs. Both the Netherlands and the Czech Republic are too far north to generate much power from solar except in the months around the summer solstice. They both also have relatively cloudy climates in all seasons.

As another poster below noted, France has a very advanced nuclear power system that provides nearly 80% of the country’s electric power, with most of the rest from hydroelectric (it helps to have mountains with high rainfall/snowfall such as the Alps, Pyrenees, and Massif Central). France does not have much coal or oil resources, so that development of nuclear power was their way of reducing their dependence on the Middle East or Russia.

Although new technologies such as fracking have increased the supply of oil and natural gas, we may eventually run out of them, although it is unclear when this will occur. Nuclear power is by far the most abundant source of electric power, although the initial capital cost is higher than for gas- or coal-fired plants. Natural gas is probably our best (and cleanest) source as a transition fuel, and petroleum-derived fuels are best for transportation, where the weight of nuclear reactors would make them prohibitive. If natural supplies of oil and gas run out, it may be possible to synthesize them from organic materials (vegetable oils and animal fats), although these are more expensive than petroleum-derived fuels now.

The use of solar power or wind power is at best intermittent, and needs to be adapted to the local climate. Solar power works well in desert climates near the equator, but has very little output in winter at high latitudes or in cloudy climates, and does nothing at night. Wind power may work well along the coasts or on top of mountains, but does not generate much power in valleys, or climates with few storms (winds tend to be calmer on clear days, and at night).

But for anyone who studies the energy density, solar and wind are not the power of the future–nuclear power is.

Joel O'Bryan
February 9, 2021 12:38 pm

The Leftists’ ardent and unwavering resistance to nuclear power build-out in West, while they simultaneously call fossil fuel CO2 emissions an existential threat to humanity and the environment, is the clearest indication of what the Climate Scam is REALLY all about – a destruction of western-style capitalism and the democratic processes that arise as a result of an affluent middle class that resists being ruled over by elitists.

It has nothing to do with Climate, and everything to do with Change. That Change is a subversion of the West’s democratic capitalism to authoritarian socialism on the model of China and the Chinese Communist Party.

Only those who aren’t paying attention, or who is playing along to cash-in on the calamity for selfish reasons, doesn’t admit or realize the above.

Last edited 5 months ago by joelobryan
Bruce Cobb
February 9, 2021 5:06 pm

For the healthiest, most cost-efficient, and most reliable energy system, nuclear should be an adjunct to, not a replacement of fossil fuels.

February 13, 2021 6:17 am

One would have thought that people in the developed countries had enough common sense to assemble the report’s inconvenient truth decades ago. Still, it was only last year that our betters informed us that 2+2=4 is an assumption – at least now we been assured that transitioning is double plus good, & so we are allowed to read that “climate debate also needs a transition.”

%d bloggers like this: