New York Governor Andrew Cuomo

The Guardian Demands More Nuclear Power to Fight Climate Change, Slams Plant Closures

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

According to The Guardian, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo’s Closure of Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant was a big step backwards in the battle to reduce CO2 emissions.

If we want to fight the climate crisis, we must embrace nuclear power

Bhaskar Sunkara
Mon 21 Jun 2021 20.18 AEST

A powerful form of clean energy already exists – and it is far more reliable than wind and solar

On 30 April, the Indian Point nuclear power plant 30 miles north of New York City was shut down. For decades the facility provided the overwhelming majority of the city’s carbon-free electricity as well as good union jobs for almost a thousand people. Federal regulators had deemed the plant perfectly safe.

New York’s governor, Andrew Cuomo, a key figure behind the move, said that the shuttering of Indian Point brought us “a big step closer to achieving our aggressive clean energy goals”. It’s hard to reconcile that optimism with the data that’s recently come out. The first full month without the plant has seen a 46% increase in the average carbon intensity of statewide electric generation compared to when Indian Point was fully operational. New York replaced clean energy from Indian Point with fossil fuel sources like natural gas.

It’s a nightmare we should have seen coming. In Germany, nuclear power formed around a third of the country’s power generation in 2000, when a Green party-spearheaded campaign managed to secure the gradual closure of plants, citing health and safety concerns. Last year, that share fell to 11%, with all remaining stations scheduled to close by next year. A recent paper found that the last two decades of phased nuclear closures led to an increase in CO2 emissions of 36.3 megatons a year – with the increased air pollution potentially killing 1,100 people annually.

So why, given the stakes of global warming, is there still so much hostility to nuclear power?

Some of the paranoia is no doubt rooted in cold war-era associations of peaceful nuclear power with dangerous nuclear weaponry. We can and should separate these two, just like we are able to separate nuclear bombs from nuclear medicine. And we should also push back against popular narratives around Chernobyl and other disasters that simply aren’t replicable with modern technology. …

Other objections to nuclear power, like its reliance on mining, are also not unique to nuclear. Renewables require destructive extraction to unearth lithium and other critical minerals. The answer to those concerns is simple: we should demand environmental and labor regulations from the state and defend good working conditions as our primary consideration. …

Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jun/21/fight-climate-crisis-clean-energy-nuclear-power

I had to check the link twice to verify this was actually published in The Guardian. Apart from the concern about CO2 emissions, most of it reads like something I could have written.

What does this attack on nuclear closures mean for the future of renewable energy?

If even The Guardian is prepared to slam renewable energy proponents for wanting to close nuclear plants, I suggest the renewable energy death spiral has well and truly begun. We frequently laugh at the innumeracy of green claims that renewable energy will somehow save the planet from CO2 emissions and pollution, but clearly a few of them have woken up and started doing the sums.

Having said that, the Guardian doesn’t exactly have clean hands over the closure of nuclear plants. Plenty of Guardian articles have appeared over the years broadly supporting nuclear plant closures, including support for closing Indian Point, though to be fair they also print the occasional pro-nuclear article.

5 27 votes
Article Rating
116 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Derg
June 21, 2021 6:01 pm

Wasn’t Cuomo that Governor who put Covid patients in nursing homes?

Maybe Simon would know.

commieBob
Reply to  Derg
June 21, 2021 6:27 pm

Yep.

Then he tried to hide the evidence.

It seems like ‘liberals’ get a free pass to do anything no matter how stupid or corrupt.

joel
Reply to  commieBob
June 21, 2021 7:36 pm

To be fair, they tried to hid the evidence because of President Trump. They actually said that to justify their actions.

Drake
Reply to  joel
June 22, 2021 8:39 am

They specifically stated they hid evidence from the DOJ to stop TRUMP! from persecuting them. Phony BS, TRUMP! did not get directly involved in his DOJ, the way Clinton, Obama and OBiden have.

Obstruction of Justice. No one from the HY government has been charged for their actions.

Teddy Lee
Reply to  commieBob
June 22, 2021 5:23 am

Or murderous!

n.n
Reply to  Derg
June 21, 2021 6:44 pm

A “burden”, the Choice, a wicked solution to a hard problem.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Derg
June 21, 2021 6:46 pm

The whole world knows Cuomo doesn’t have any smarts. I think we’re going to see a huge surge in New Yorkers’ smarts and a tearless goodbye to Cuomo and deBlazio

Komerade cube
Reply to  Gary Pearse
June 21, 2021 7:05 pm

I live in the NY area. I think you’re optimistically over estimating the intelligence of the typical New Yorker.

Derg
Reply to  Komerade cube
June 21, 2021 7:09 pm

Big cities are crumbling because people make decisions based on feelings. In what clown show would a person elect people who want to defund the police?

The pendulum has swung too far to the left…the good people are leaving big cities.

Scissor
Reply to  Derg
June 21, 2021 7:46 pm

You’re right, and people need to realize that Cuomo doesn’t care about the truth or his constituents. A case could be made that Demo☭rats want to bring down the U.S. so that they can rule over its ashes.

Their desire to defund the police is likely a Trojan Horse to bring about a new federal police force, one that is even more politicized than the FBI.

Steve Case
Reply to  Scissor
June 22, 2021 12:41 am

You mean a new federal police force like the Capitol Police who killed Ashli Babbitt without any accountability whatsoever?

The United States Capitol Police (USCP) is a federal law enforcement agency in the United States charged with protecting the United States Congress within the District of Columbia and throughout the United States and its territories. It answers to the Capitol Police Board and is the only full-service federal law enforcement agency appointed by the legislative branch of the federal government of the United States. Wikipedia

2hotel9
Reply to  Scissor
June 22, 2021 4:44 am

“rather reign in Hell than serve in Heaven”

Joe Crawford
Reply to  Scissor
June 22, 2021 8:35 am

“Their desire to defund the police is likely a Trojan Horse to bring about a new federal police force…”

Why do you think they’re purging the military services of all the Trump voters? The final ‘tell’ will be when they try to repeal or replace the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878.

Jeffery P
Reply to  Derg
June 22, 2021 8:29 am

That’s how most people in the world work. They act on emotion then try to find some reasonable explanations for their actions.

commieBob
Reply to  Gary Pearse
June 21, 2021 7:21 pm

Something like that.

Where I live, in southern Ontario about an hour from Toronto, house prices have gone through the roof. It seems that many folks who live in the big city don’t want to do so any longer. Some folks have expressed the opinion that, given the experience with the wuflu, people see big cities as dangerous.

One of the big five personality traits, openness, is associated with liberals. Openness predicts that one thinks it’s a good idea for borders to be completely unrestricted. It looks like many people have become disenchanted with that idea and are starting to realize that, along with all the good things they bring, foreigners can also bring contagion.

So, it may become more obvious to more people that excess liberalism is dangerous. I’m hoping that will make them more skeptical. It doesn’t take much skepticism to realize that renewable energy is just a castle in the sky. It may be too much to hope that the CAGW mania will subside any time soon but it may be realistic to hope for a tipping point in support of nuclear energy.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Derg
June 22, 2021 3:36 am

Simon only knows about right-wing colluuuuuuusion, not criminal negligence of lefty pols.

Pamela Matlack-Klein
Reply to  Derg
June 22, 2021 7:14 am

Yeah, that’s the one. What has happened to the push to have him resign over his murdering of all those NY citizens?

Jeffery P
Reply to  Derg
June 22, 2021 8:31 am

There’s no post here by Simon. This ad hominin attack is unneeded and unwelcome.

I’m not defending Simon. Please wait until he posts something before posting something like this.

OldGreyGuy
June 21, 2021 6:29 pm

I must be seeing things, there is an article in the Guardian that I agree with in principle.

n.n
Reply to  OldGreyGuy
June 21, 2021 6:40 pm

The day the wind gauntlets stood still. A Green blight not realized. A bird is heard singing from afar. A parade of lions, lionesses, and their cubs play in gay revelry.

n.n
June 21, 2021 6:35 pm

unqualified, monotonic change: one step forward, two steps backward

The man from planned parent/hood, an ethical man speaks.

Gary Pearse
June 21, 2021 6:39 pm

I’ll bet that Germany will keep their two nukes on stream and may even reopen closed ones if dismantling has not yet begun. They opened a coal plant and mine and completed a gas pipeline from Russia in a bid to save their economy no matter what the greens may say, all these signs point to peak renewables in Germany with the rest following suit (if Germans can’t make ruinables work, who is going to beg to differ).

Reply to  Gary Pearse
June 21, 2021 10:20 pm

Hard coal mines are still closed in germany, but the huge lignite quarries are still expanding where whole villages are demolished.

griff
Reply to  Gary Pearse
June 22, 2021 12:51 am

Nonsense. They made some adjustments at the start of their coal closure programme, that’s all.

2hotel9
Reply to  griff
June 22, 2021 4:45 am

Liar.

Derg
Reply to  griff
June 22, 2021 4:46 am

And purchase gas from Russia 😉

Graemethecat
Reply to  griff
June 22, 2021 4:52 am
griff
Reply to  Graemethecat
June 22, 2021 7:28 am

They reopened a coal power plant just shut…

Terry
June 21, 2021 6:44 pm

The Guardian – you just can’t fix stupid.

MarkW
Reply to  Terry
June 23, 2021 12:55 pm

Speaking of which, I see that griff is back.

clipe
June 21, 2021 6:48 pm

The grauniad sees the writing on the wall after the recent byelection results.

BoJo has overplayed his green credentials and the BLOB wants to be seen as rational.

Last edited 1 month ago by clipe
observa
Reply to  clipe
June 21, 2021 7:16 pm

The watermelons increasingly have to face some unpleasant facts with their professed concern for the poor-
Electric cars may make driving too expensive for middle classes, warns Vauxhall chief – The Global Warming Policy Forum (thegwpf.com)
Do I detect increasing dissension in the ranks with the vision splendid?

clipe
Reply to  observa
June 21, 2021 7:38 pm

Volte-face much like the NYT getting out ahead of the facts to stifle them.

http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/2021/06/20/sounds-familiar/

Last edited 1 month ago by clipe
Nick Schroeder
June 21, 2021 6:58 pm

Won’t matter much if the transportation sector and NG appliances do not get electricated.

EIA Total Energy.jpg
TonyL
June 21, 2021 7:24 pm

A question arises.
The Indian Point plant was properly licensed, constantly and properly regulated, and was deemed perfectly safe.
The question is, how, where, and under what circumstances did the state take to itself the power to close the plant. There was no rational argument that the plant must cease operation. There was no “public safety” threat or issue.
The governor simply decided he did not like the plant for his own reasons. As such, he simply told the plant owners to shut down and lose their investment.
That this is treated as legal and acceptable now speaks volumes. And more, a precedent has been set. Now the State can shut down any business or industry on a whim.
Consider this as a standard:
A politician does not like a business “in my back yard”. – Shutdown
An industry becomes “politically incorrect”. – Shutdown
Some random environmentalists see a plant and make a fuss. – Shutdown

There used to be laws regulating things in the public interest. Now perhaps the “public interest” is whatever the people currently in power deem it to be.

Last edited 1 month ago by TonyL
Scissor
Reply to  TonyL
June 21, 2021 7:51 pm

New York State challenged license renewals. They cited safety concerns given its proximity to NYC, and get this, low wholesale electricity prices.

Here’s a story critical of the moves. https://nypost.com/2021/04/28/get-ready-for-blackouts-after-cuomo-foolishly-killed-the-indian-point-plant/

Last edited 1 month ago by Scissor
Frank from NoVA
Reply to  Scissor
June 22, 2021 5:46 am

Nice article by the Post. Couldn’t help but notice that NY’s other three plants received subsidies rather than the axe. Not surprising, as their operator has been playing the CO2 card against their base load competitors (coal and gas combined cycle plants) for many years.

Kevin
Reply to  Frank from NoVA
June 22, 2021 8:31 am

Those plants are upstate. Upstate is merely a resource colony for NYC/Long Island.

MarkW
Reply to  TonyL
June 21, 2021 8:04 pm

What was it Clinton said about executive orders? Stroke of a pen, law of the land.

Petit_Barde
Reply to  TonyL
June 21, 2021 11:49 pm

Or even worse :

This company threatens with my own rotten investments (green BS, etc.). – Shutdown.

Jimmy Walter
June 21, 2021 8:22 pm

Fission reactors are dangerous, especially boiling water and high pressure nuclear reactors, as has been proven by Fukushima, Chernobyl, Three mile Island. Moreover, they produce an unsolved waste problem, not only of spent material, but of nuclear plants that cannot, economically, be decommissioned. The alleged costs of nuclear power ignore these problems. Moreover, they are not scalable to solve the alleged CO2 crisis within the alleged time limit of 2050, much less 2030.

Reply to  Jimmy Walter
June 21, 2021 8:27 pm

yup. their waste products will be around for a billion years

Reply to  billtoo
June 21, 2021 9:49 pm

Well you are lucky that this is so, because you live on a planet made of nuclear waste.

Graemethecat
Reply to  billtoo
June 22, 2021 2:48 am

If a radionuclide has a half-life of a billion years, then by definition its radioactivity is absolutely negligible.

Reply to  Graemethecat
June 22, 2021 4:33 am

yes

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  billtoo
June 22, 2021 11:57 am

Take a block of high-level waste, wait 600 years, and its overall radioactivity is the same as the native pitchblende it came from.

Simon
Reply to  Eric Worrall
June 22, 2021 12:29 am

But I thought climate change is about to destroy the planet.”
Nope the planet will be fine.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Simon
June 22, 2021 2:44 am

Destroying thousands of acres of fields and forests for solar “farms” isn’t fine.

griff
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
June 22, 2021 7:29 am

Well since nobody does that, no problem.

UK solar isn’t built on cut down forest and is allowed on low grade agricultural land, where likely land still grazed or having some conservation use

MarkW
Reply to  griff
June 22, 2021 8:11 am

Is there anything you know that is actually true?

TonyG
Reply to  MarkW
June 22, 2021 1:18 pm

Obviously the woods I watched get clear-cut for a solar installation not far from my house didn’t really happen, because “nobody does that”.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  griff
June 22, 2021 10:58 am

hey Griffy, come to Massachusetts and I’ll show you thousands of acres of destroyed fields and forests converted to solar “farms”

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Simon
June 22, 2021 4:34 am

Of course the planet will be fine, numnutz, just not for the reason you think. There never was a problem with our climate to begin with, and even if there was, there wouldn’t be anything man could do about it.

Derg
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
June 22, 2021 4:49 am

Don’t try to pull that logic on Simon. His stupidity is his own.

MarkW
Reply to  Simon
June 22, 2021 8:10 am

So you agree that there is no need to do anything about CO2.

P Wells
Reply to  MarkW
June 22, 2021 8:34 am

The reality is that we are approaching the next ice age, which will decrease the amount of land available for growing crops. By increasing growth, more CO2 will counteract this. We should be burning MORE coal, not less!

Glen
Reply to  Eric Worrall
June 22, 2021 6:05 am

But I thought climate change is about to destroy the planet.

Mostly it’s about destroying free enterprise.

TonyL
Reply to  Jimmy Walter
June 21, 2021 9:04 pm

Fission reactors are dangerous, especially boiling water and high pressure nuclear reactors, as has been proven by Fukushima, Chernobyl,”

Chernobyl is a graphite moderated reactor, not PWR or BWR.

Moreover, they produce an unsolved waste problem
Fuel reprocessing. France has been doing it for decades without problem. Reprocessing in the US was banished via Executive Order by president Jimmy Carter. It was a sop to the environmental movement as part of his failed bid for re-election, nothing more.

but of nuclear plants that cannot, economically, be decommissioned
Nothing can be done economically if you have a regulatory establishment determined to make some disfavored activity as expensive as possible. Because some activity is expensive does not mean that the activity itself cost a lot of money. It may mean that the regulatory environment is deliberately, prohibitively expensive.

Counterpoint:
How expensive would wind power be if windmills were assessed fines ranging into the $ millions for protected and endangered birds killed, as provided by law? How much more expensive if wind farm operators were threatened with criminal prosecution if the bird kills continue, as provided by law?

Davidf
Reply to  TonyL
June 22, 2021 12:16 am

And, lets consider how many lives are ended and or blighted by Western intransigence in assisting third world nations to use their abundant fossil fuel resources to achieve standards of living we achieved almost 100 years ago.

observa
Reply to  Jimmy Walter
June 21, 2021 9:10 pm

But you reckon lithium batteries are scalable in time?
Origin Warns EVs Could Overload The Power Grid If The Govt Doesn’t Incentivise Smart Chargers (msn.com)
No solar power at night when everyone wants to refuel their battery wheels for work next day.
Not to mention how we’re going to deal with the mountains of incendiary spent batteries or the indestructible windmill blades. Just print more incentives to wave away all the pesky tradeoffs.

Glen
Reply to  observa
June 22, 2021 6:09 am

One word Marianas trench. Okay, that’s two words but…

Pamela Matlack-Klein
Reply to  observa
June 22, 2021 7:28 am

Recently saw a photo of parked EVs that no longer will take a charge. These are vehicles that the French government was using until the batteries died. How do you get rid of these hulks?

Reply to  Jimmy Walter
June 21, 2021 9:48 pm

Its a really dangerous technology that doesn’t kill anyone (Fukushima, 3MI) or kills less tha 100 people (chernobyl) that is only expensive because fear of it has resulted in a ridiculous regulatory environment, and whose decommissionig is paid for by its operators, unlike wind farms and whose actual function reduces global radiation levels by assisting the decay of the billions of tonnes of radioactive elemenst that are already in the environment by burning them up in safe controlled circumstances…
Whereas the uncontrolled ‘natural’ reactor that powers ‘renewable’ energy kills more than 10,000 people a year due to radiation induced skin cancer…

MarkW
Reply to  Leo Smith
June 22, 2021 8:16 am

Chernobyl was a design that was rejected in the west because of it’s inherent instability. The Soviets used it because it was cheap. To save even more money they didn’t build a containment vessel (something that is required everywhere else).
Finally, they were running a test that involved turning off almost all of the safeties, then they screwed up the test, causing them to lose control of the reactor.

Last edited 1 month ago by MarkW
P Wells
Reply to  MarkW
June 22, 2021 8:41 am

Clearest possible evidence that Communism kills!

Reply to  Jimmy Walter
June 21, 2021 10:24 pm

Living is also dangerous, it’s lethal.

Alan the Brit
Reply to  Hans Erren
June 22, 2021 12:07 am

As somebody once said, “life is a sexually transmitted disease that is ultimately fatal!”

Ken Irwin
Reply to  Jimmy Walter
June 21, 2021 11:47 pm

Next time you go sunbathing, you would do well to remember that your are deliberately dosing yourself with the radiation from the biggest nuclear event for light years about us.

That the energy of ±2200 Hiroshima bombs per second is being delivered to target Earth just above your head of which ±1900 is delivered into the thermal energy of the Earth.

If nuclear power frightens you so badly you need to hide underground.

Last edited 1 month ago by Ken Irwin
Davidf
Reply to  Ken Irwin
June 22, 2021 12:20 am

I read somewhere, if you had been standing on the boundary fence of 3MI, when the melt down occurred, maximum dose you could have received would have been equivalent of about 1.5 chest x-rays.

MarkW
Reply to  Davidf
June 22, 2021 8:18 am

Not just standing there, but you had to be standing there for the duration of the crisis, some three weeks, to receive that much radiation.

Davidf
Reply to  Jimmy Walter
June 22, 2021 12:09 am

Total deaths from 3 Mile Island, and Fukushima – 0, bugger all, nothing.

MarkW
Reply to  Davidf
June 22, 2021 8:18 am

There were however about a dozen deaths caused by the totally unnecessary evacuation.

MarkW
Reply to  Jimmy Walter
June 22, 2021 8:09 am

It never ceases to amaze me how the anti-nukes keep dragging up the same disproven facts.
It’s almost as if they are incapable of learning, or thinking on their own.

The waste problem was solved decades ago. It’s just that the politicians won’t permit the solution to be implemented.
As to decommissioning the plants, that’s funded by a bond that was posted before construction was even started.

June 21, 2021 8:26 pm

but tell people they aren’t entitled to a whole body CT whenever they want and that their air travel will be restricted and watch the fireworks begin.

Christopher Hanley
June 21, 2021 8:56 pm

Bhaskar Sunkara’s article has the usual sprinkling of first person plural pronouns ‘we’ and ‘us’.
As a collectivist student of Marxism and Jacobinism Bhaskar may be afraid that to couch his personal opinion otherwise would be construed by comrades as ‘Bonapartism’.

Last edited 1 month ago by Christopher Hanley
Jeff Alberts
June 21, 2021 9:31 pm

Well, y’know, they had to close it, the name was raycis!

Vincent Causey
June 21, 2021 11:41 pm

The nuclear industry has been devastated by the fear of meltdowns because of Chernobyl and Fukushima and the fear of silent radiation (brilliantly played on by the movie On The Beach). The truth is modern designs do not melt down and there is an article in GWPF I read last year which unpicks how the fear of radiation was concocted by fake “scientific” research, a pattern which eerily parallels the AGW junk science.

Armin
Reply to  Vincent Causey
June 22, 2021 4:59 pm

Nuclear is the right-wing windmill. If you are left you seem to have to love windmills and hate nuclear and on the right the reverse. Reality is that nuclear is very expensive if you take all cost and guarantees into account. This includes storage of the waste for centuries, and government cost guarantees for dismantling the plants. Nuclear just as wind doesn’t exist without the government guaranteeing and investing. The argument, but windmills are also expensive, doesn’t count as nuclear is a proposed replacement for natural gas. I don’t adhere to the CO2 is a doom world, so also that argument fails.

I used to be a proponent of nuclear, until I calculated how many plants my country The Netherlands would need, and hence would need to distribute in the country. Bayesian logic applies here, and does not look only at the chance, but also the consequences. For densely populated areas the risk of even minor incidents are just not acceptable.

Just look at the following map, and apply it to any densely and/or high-value area. A small chance is true, but still with unacceptable consequences.

Map-exclusion-zone-areas-evacuation-nuclear-power.jpg (1600×1250) (britannica.com)

I’d prefer to stick to natural gas util we have fusion. Probably won’t happen soon, but we won’t run out of gas soon either.

MarkW
Reply to  Armin
June 23, 2021 1:02 pm

I love how the left actually believes they can by with their various lies.
The only reason why nuclear is so expensive is because they are massively over regulated, and the regulations are constantly being changed.
There never was a problem with the waste. We could do what France has been doing from the beginning and re-process the waste. But the left through a fit and had re-processing banned.
Plants have to post a bond to cover de-commissioning.

There is no risk from properly built and operated nuclear plants.

Steve Case
June 22, 2021 12:22 am

“… an increase in CO2 emissions of 36.3 megatons a year – with the increased air pollution potentially killing 1,100 people annually.”

Who comes up with these numbers? Not 1,000 and not 1,200 but 1,100 annual deaths.

Coeur de Lion
Reply to  Steve Case
June 22, 2021 5:38 am

Yes, Steve, I was struck by the precision! It’s like the 350ppm ‘safe level’ for atmospheric CO2 that you will find daily on the grauniad weather page.

Barry Sheridan
June 22, 2021 12:37 am

Egged on by ignorant so called greens our politicians have made impossible promises. As reality bites over the real costs and impacts of a green way of life more and more people will finally have to face their delusions. Unfortunately we have further to go down the green road before enough people feel the consequences that will drive a change in public opinion.

griff
Reply to  Barry Sheridan
June 22, 2021 12:49 am

Well look: Germany and the UK and others are a long, long way down the close coal or build renewables roads – and we don’t have blackouts or basically anything adversely affecting our lives.

Teddy Lee
Reply to  griff
June 22, 2021 5:21 am

YET!!!!

griff
Reply to  Teddy Lee
June 22, 2021 7:21 am

And Watts readers have been saying ‘yet’ for the decade I’ve been reading it…

MarkW
Reply to  griff
June 22, 2021 8:22 am

There have been multiple instances in the past couple of years where blackouts were only narrowly avoided. The number of such instances has grown dramatically.

steve
Reply to  griff
June 22, 2021 5:36 am

Apart from the large blackout last year which was triggered by the failure of the offshore Hornsea Wind farm. !!!! A taste of things to come.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/topics/cgemkklp29nt/uk-power-cut#:~:text=A%20huge%20power%20cut%20brought%20much%20of%20the,generators%20caused%20power%20cuts%20in%20England%20and%20Wales.

griff
Reply to  steve
June 22, 2021 7:27 am

a short blackout, triggered by a lightning strike and a fossil fuel plant going offline.

There is no evidence renewables caused this… since 2019 additional grid storage make any ill effects even less likely

9_august_2019_power_outage_report.pdf (ofgem.gov.uk)

Graemethecat
Reply to  griff
June 22, 2021 12:33 pm

Blackouts were unknown in the UK until the advent of Wind and Solar, unless they were caused by strikes.

MarkW
Reply to  griff
June 22, 2021 8:21 am

In griff’s world, narrowly avoiding a blackout is proof that blackouts simply can’t happen.

Graemethecat
Reply to  griff
June 22, 2021 12:31 pm

You still haven’t explained why Germany and Denmark, with the highest proportion of “Renewables”, have the highest electricity prices. A year or so ago the UK came perilously close to a nationwide blackout.

griff
June 22, 2021 12:47 am

The Guardian didn’t ‘demand’ anything. It simply published one of a range of arguments… notice how it covers several opinions, reporting, not authoring…

griff
Reply to  Eric Worrall
June 22, 2021 7:21 am

As someone pointed out above, this is an ‘Opinion’ piece, not an editorial.

MarkW
Reply to  griff
June 22, 2021 8:23 am

As if there was a difference.

Boff Doff
June 22, 2021 2:43 am

From this it can only be concluded that the Guardian editor actually believes the CO2/Global Warming crap. Hilarious.

The Greens know it is a crock, they just use it in their fight to rid the earth of the pestilence known as humanity.

Sara
June 22, 2021 4:02 am

I thought that headline was a joke. Then I read further and…. what in the blue-eyed world????

Is this what used to be called a sea change?

Is it possible that Peak Stupidity has finally been reached, and we may/might now see some rational behavior in the “woke”??

Just askin’. I’m not quite prepared for it just yet.

Glen
Reply to  Sara
June 22, 2021 6:14 am

No. I wouldn’t call this a sea change. I think of it more as a “broken clock is right twice a day” thing.

Graemethecat
Reply to  Sara
June 22, 2021 12:36 pm

Perhaps the Guardian journos have finally twigged that no electricity => no Guardian => no jobs.

2hotel9
June 22, 2021 4:43 am

The Guardian? The same The Guardian that has been screaming at the top of their lungs for decades that nuclear is evil and must be eliminated? That The Guardian?

Patrick MJD
June 22, 2021 4:45 am

This idea “we” have to “fight climate change” is like fighting “foo fighters”.

griff
Reply to  Patrick MJD
June 22, 2021 7:20 am

Isn’t that what the UFO report in the USA is going to say? That the US needs to fight the ‘foo fighters’?

Bruce Cobb
June 22, 2021 4:56 am

Closing any perfectly good power plant is just stoopid on steroids. There is no reason to “embrace” nuclear power other than to provide competitively priced, reliable energy. None.

Alba
June 22, 2021 6:59 am

The Guardian published this in its Opinion section. That’s not quite the same as being published in The Guardian. It may just be a case of the Guardian allowing people to give their opinion. I know that wouldn’t stretch to them giving space to the likes of Lord Monckton but it doesn’t mean that they endorse the view put forward in the article.

griff
Reply to  Alba
June 22, 2021 7:19 am

Exactly.

MarkW
Reply to  Alba
June 22, 2021 8:24 am

Being published at all is a big change for The Guardian.
They routinely block any information that doesn’t go with the party line, from all sections.

Hysteria
June 22, 2021 7:19 am

Said it before , will say it again.

the green renewable power lonny will fall apart when the population at large run head first into the laws of physics and thermodynamics…..and the lights start going out

Walter Sobchak
June 22, 2021 9:38 am

It is incorect to say that the Guardian is advocating nuclear power. The article is an op-ed by a man who is: “the founding editor of Jacobin magazine and a Guardian US columnist.” His opinion is not an official opinion of the institution.

observa
Reply to  Walter Sobchak
June 22, 2021 9:59 pm

Elementary Watson but you might show us the last op-ed in the same vein from The Guardian. Personally I’d start out with something less demanding like a needle in a haystack or perhaps a promo for Mike Moore’s last film. LOL.

Robert of Texas
June 22, 2021 11:20 am

This was written by New York based media???

<Passing out in shock>

Rod Evans
June 22, 2021 12:59 pm

Well, perhaps even the Guardian has noticed how damn cold it is. Maybe they realise if we don’t have clean reliable nuclear we will be heading towards cold related deaths this winter.
Or maybe the Guardian have realised, they are drinking in the last chance saloon, at the woke bar, and they need a change of position if they are going to exist past 2025.

June 22, 2021 1:36 pm

Good to see the Grauniad coming out pro nuclear ☢️. Being an anti-nuclear environmentalist or climate activist makes as much sense as being a vegetarian cattle rancher.

Rich Lentz
June 22, 2021 2:03 pm

The FACT that year after year the Western World is shutting down Nuclear power plant, while China continues to built NPPs is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Climate Change is caused primarily because of CO2 is a Trojan Horse for some ulterior motive.

spock
June 25, 2021 2:56 am

What the world needs is the cow fart stopper…works with humans, too! If it will save just one polar bear it will be worth it.

%d bloggers like this: