You might think that a self-proclaimed climate advocate would be thrilled to see an announcement of more clean, reliable energy on the grid. But, you’d be wrong.
Last month, Constellation Energy announced a deal with Microsoft to reopen a reactor at Three Mile Island, now called the Crane Clean Energy Center. Expected to open by 2028 and operate for at least 20 years, the reactor is a promise of not only energy security amidst exploding energy demand, but an economic boon for Pennsylvania as well. According to a report completed by the Brattle Group, reopening the reactor is expected to create more than 3,000 jobs and add $16 billion to Pennsylvania’s GDP.
Yet, actor and activist Jane Fonda took to the pages of The Philadelphia Inquirer to proclaim that “Nuclear power at Three Mile Island is no climate solution.” Fueled by her decades-long hatred of the energy source, Fonda makes a bizarre and convoluted argument that America’s single largest source of clean energy is not what we need to tackle climate change.
Even worse, she misleads readers by conflating the two reactors at TMI. Unit 2, owned by Energy Solutions, was the site of the partial meltdown in 1979 and has not operated since. Unit 1 is owned by Constellation and was one of the most reliable nuclear power plants in the country until it closed in 2019 for economic reasons. Having grown up just an hour south of the facility in southern York County, I remember hearing about the ramifications of the accident. Nuclear power was seen as “scary” and “dangerous” by Pennsylvanians who simply cared about their family’s health and safety. Unlearning this perspective has been no easy feat, but it was necessary.
After all, nuclear energy is one of the safest sources of energy we have at our disposal. The “radiation” argument is incoherent, as the average radiation exposure from simply living in Denver, Colorado is higher than for those working at nuclear plants. Running up to 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, reactors are “baseload” energy, which means we can rely on them to power our lives no matter the weather conditions.
While Ms. Fonda is right that nuclear energy does have high upfront costs and long timelines, these costs and time delays are due to, in no small part, overregulation of the industry that prevents us from fully unleashing nuclear energy. The more nuclear energy projects we pursue, though, the faster the construction process will be. For instance, Georgia Power decreased costs by 30% between Plant Vogtle Units 3 and 4 through lessons learned in real-time earlier this year.
As a young person who cares about climate change, I know that nuclear power absolutely is part of the solution. Contrary to Ms. Fonda’s assertion, “Like two people trying to get through a narrow doorway at the same time, there isn’t room for both nuclear and renewables in our energy future,” I believe that we need an all-of-the-above energy approach with an emphasis on clean, reliable nuclear power. For those of us who actually believe climate is an urgent issue in need of solutions, this isn’t an either-or conversation. Those, like Ms. Fonda, who refuse to embrace nuclear energy as part of the energy mix simply aren’t serious.
Importantly, my generation and Pennsylvanians agree with me. A recent Pew Research Center poll shows that 56% of Americans support new nuclear power, and an August poll of Pennsylvania voters found that 70% support nuclear power and 56% support reopening TMI Unit 1, more than double those who oppose. The consensus is clear: nuclear energy will be a key part of reducing emissions, increasing energy security, and creating American jobs for years to come.
Branding nuclear energy as dangerous and unrealistic for our climate goals is an outdated, out-of-touch argument. The choice is obvious, Ms. Fonda, but somehow, you’ve made the wrong one.
Karly Matthews is the vice president of communications at the American Conservation Coalition (ACC). She was born and raised in central Pennsylvania, and she graduated from Temple University in 2020. Follow her on X @Karlymatthews_.
This article was originally published by RealClearEnergy and made available via RealClearWire.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Jane Fonda.. is that the Barbarella chick ??
Just the person to instruct us on science.
Not a chick anymore. Now a stewing hen.
she’s 86
Yeah, I always take my advice from an octogenarian Hollywood actor 🙂
When highly respected scientists turned “rogue” for questioning the mainstream told us that the COVID was not such a huge deal, they were shamed and attacked.
Look at what France did to Prof. Didier Raoult and his institute “IHU Méditerranée Infection” (“IHU” = “Institut hospitalo-universitaire“, an idea of President Sarkozy, for which he is rarely credited). The IHU and Pr. Raoult were basically Donald Trump-ed with the rage expected from the know nothing karens of the health department, with the approval of the controlled opposition “free press”, the almost always inept “Canard enchainé” (we say “cafard acharné”) et “Mediapart” (we say “merdiapart”).
Didier Raoult was basically told to stay in his lane by one senator who false-praised him (what you did on Rickettsioses was brilliant) to then shame him on his attempt to cure COVID patients.
(That Senate audition was so pathetic that it turned me from supporting the Senate to asking its abolition.)
From the last paragraph of the above article:
“Branding nuclear energy as dangerous and unrealistic for our climate goals is an outdated, out-of-touch argument.”
Methinks the same adjectives—dangerous, unrealistic, outdated, out-of-touch—apply to Jane Fonda herself.
I’m still laughing at a columnist’s remark about Hanoi Jane flying over part of the massive Athabasca oil sands area.
Said she felt like skin had been peeled off her face.
Tom Fletcher opined that aging Jane obviously had much skin work done.
:-o)
The bleep only flew over active open-pit mines, ignoring restored areas.
(Some oil extraction is done by steam injection into wells, choice is based on depth of the oil-bearing strata.
A suggestion of building a nuclear power plant to provide the steam got people flapping. 😉
“The bleep only flew over active open-pit mines, ignoring restored areas.”
Probably not noticeable at all from the air.
Jane Fonda has never realized her opposition to nuclear power was in part dezinformatsiya spread by the KGB.Part was a continuation of anti nuclear weapons agitprop moving on to a general desire to weaken the West. Ms Fonda is notable for never actually examining her beliefs.
Fonda’s beliefs were formed in the early 1960s and she’s never had any reason to change them.
“and she’s never had any reason”
Just leave it at that. 😉
😉
Like the Bourbons (according to Talleyrand) ‘she has learned nothing, and forgotten nothing’.
Why isn’t she trying to help the whales nowadays.
Jane has changed some of her beliefs, just not for the better.
There is The View that she supports.
Yes, she is a subjectivist – decides on emotions. Politicians at least change their views, repeatedly. :-o)
She may not be aware of what communists used for lighting before candles.
Plus she believed her movie, “China Syndrome“. It was only a movie, Ms Fonda.
kellydr,
The main theme of “The China Syndrome” was radioactive heating of a mass of rock to so hot and molten that it went fair through the Earth and came out the other side, in China. I have been 5 times to Kunming China. In a scenario, if Kunming was the end point, then the start point was out in the Pacific Ocean, a hundred miles west from Antofogasta, Chile. Why would anyone be fiddling with nuclear material there?
Besides, this fictional journey through the earth would (in theory) encounter a core that is already molten, but not coming out at China. Dense materials penetrating any spherical globe-like body (of uniform but lower density in this scenario) are attracted by gravity towards the center, but once at the center, gravity acts to keep them from ascending.
It is sad to have to be so serious about physics so laughably wrong on so many counts. Yet a pop film seen by many? Gawd help us all. Escapism rules, OK?
Geoff S
“came out the other side, “
Is that possible even in a film?
Yes.
A reacting molten mass from one power plant descending into a hugely larger reacting molten mass (earth’s core) would have an infinitesimal, undetectable effect.
“Besides, this fictional journey through the earth would (in theory) encounter a core that is already molten”
Molten rock meets molten iron core thousands of miles deep, molten rock loses and seeks another path.
I tend not to watch anything with Jane Fonda, including golden pond. I’ve never watched any part of China Syndrome. Barbarella is very hard to sit and watch for more than a few minutes.
That said, I couldn’t get past the molten rock falling towards China concept, instead of squeezing out the closest surface crack forming a volcano.
Just another idiot script written by fools with short deadlines, zero science knowledge and refuses access to encyclopedias.
There’s also gravity. It would be difficult to rise 4,000 miles from the core against gravity.
Ironically, in the movie when the suspect pipe fails, the safety systems shut the reactor down and no disaster ensues (other than the loss of Jack Lemmon’s character’s life).
Jane Fonda is an actress, which sums it up nicely.
She is miserable leftist moron who never improves.
Moron is a complement to leftists.
Old Leftist ghouls like Fonda are’t capable of learning. Try to tell her nuclear energy is the safest cleanest source available and she’ll deny it. They’re afraid of what they don’t understand. They think nuclear and the see Hiroshima.
Even Hiroshima is on the “safe” side of war. No long term contamination. No unexploded stuff. No side effect for people who were not there under the bombing.
Also, both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military targets. Hiroshima housed the de-facto headquarters of the Japanese army–essentially the pentagon of Japan. Nagasaki housed submarine pits. According to Geneva Conventions, you are not to have military targets placed among civilian areas. So even though these attacks killed many civilians, they are justified under Geneva Conventions. The violations were on the Japanese. Of course, the winners in a war can write their own version of history.
niceguy,
In 1994 my wife and I stood at ground zero of the Nagasaki blast, a mere 50 years after it. We were surrounded by a what seemed to be a normal Japanese city, no different to many others that we have visited. We saw no frightened people running around with radiation counters, we saw no fenced-off “no-go” areas from residual radiation. We saw corner stores and people buying food. Locals said that it had been this way for at least the last 20 years.
Geoff S
When I was about 10 years old I read a book titled “Hiroshima”. It described the effects of the nuclear blast on the population. It was pretty horrifying.
Even so, some people managed to survive in very close proximity to ground zero.
And without nuking Japan, it was estimated that America would suffer a million casualties invading that nation- and probably far more Japanese casualties. So, it saved lives!
Yes, invading would have been a nightmare. But the other alternative was not invading and not nuking either. Which would have meant abandoning the aim of unconditional surrender, or at least a speedy one.
I don’t know whether it was right or wrong. What would we all have done? Don’t know. Probably not done the first use on a city, even one with significant military presence. But would anything else have ended the war?
Whatever your judgment of the justification and necessity or lack of, its very disappointing to see people here minimizing the scale and nature of the result. Estimates vary of the death toll at Hiroshima – somewhere between 129,000 to 226,000 killed, mostly civilians. And you then have Nagasaki also.
Very difficult to find any moral justification of that. Consider the reaction to 9/11 by way of comparison. It rightly led to outrage. The toll there was about 3,000.
And to Geoff’s remark that he saw nothing untoward on a visit to Ground Zero in Nagasaki, consider the reaction if someone said he had visited the site of 9/11 recently and noticed nothing untoward, so what is all the fuss about. The Japanese rebuilt, as the Germans rebuilt, and as London rebuilt, and as New York rebuilt. As indeed did Guernica. But that’s irrelevant to the assessment of the horror they had to rebuild from.
Go to Omagh, and find a rebuilt high street. Does that mean the bombing there was no big deal? Of course not!
Post says:”Very difficult to find any moral justification of that.”
You totally skipped the part it SAVED LIVES. If a million Americans would be saved that is 5 times your incorrect casualty numbers. The link below gives more accurate figures.
As for the rebuilding of cities it was the US that aided all those places.
I am unaware of how much the Taliban aided in rebuilding New York.
https://www.atomicarchive.com/resources/documents/med/med_chp10.html
Oh, my good LORD! Equating an action taken against the AGGRESSOR while in a state of war on VALID military targets – an action that prevented millions of more deaths – with an unprovoked terrorist attack.
What a sick, sick individual you are!
Not doing any of the things you accuse me of. Pointing out two things.
One, it was not necessarily saving a million more lives. It was only doing that if you assume there was no alternative to invasion. But there certainly was, (although probably not one that would have got a speedy unconditional surrender). So its not quite true to just say that it prevented millions more deaths. Only on some questionable further assumptions.
You can argue that unconditional surrender was a necessary war aim. And you can argue that nothing but the incineration of a couple of cities would have brought about surrender. Both are arguable, the second perhaps more than the first.
In addition, the real effect of the bombings was not their direct effects on the target. It was to persuade Japan that further resistance would lead to catastrophe. It is possible that this effect could have been secured by bombing something other than a well populated city.
I’m not sure what I would have decided. Probably to use it but not as first use on a well populated city. I would not have ordered an invasion of Japan, that’s for sure, the costs of that would have been unjustifiable.
It is certain that the Japanese, German or Russian regimes of the day would have used nukes, and used them on cities, had they had them available. But neither that nor anything else detracts from the horror of the effects of the bombing, and it should not affect our judgment of its justification or lack of.
I think we need to keep clear in our minds the true horror of the use of nuclear weapons. The arguments minimizing that in this thread are both wrong and dangerous. The recent Russian threats to use them are frightening, not just because of the real world consequences of doing it, but also because they start down the path of normalizing by minimalizing. You can be sure that if Iran gets them, they will one day be used in the Middle East, and probably by people who have wrongly minimized the consequences in their own thinking.
Imagine a nuke is detonated by some fanatics in some Western city. Some decades later, someone visits ground zero in London, Paris or Washington, and remarks how there is nothing to see, its all rebuilt and looks perfectly normal. That is the kind of thinking that is going on here. See how different it is when its one of our cities? Done by one of our enemies?
Remarks like, visited Ground Zero and found nothing remarkable are an example of lllogical and dangerous ideas if they creep into decision making.
Something I am dismayed to find elements of in this thread.
Post says:”Only on some questionable further assumptions.”
Please enlighten us on what these “questionable assumptions” were that Truman was given to help him make the decision to use Little Boy.
At no time did anyone say that there were not horrors from the effects of the A- bombs only that it was necessary and the 50-70 year later looks of the rebuild looked normal.
Your hands must bleed after all the wringing you do with them.
The purpose of stating that a few years later that the area looked normal was to refute the common notion that once a nuke has detonated in the area, that area will be dangerously radioactive for a gazillion years.
It just ain’t so.
For an uranium based weapon, this is true.
Tokyo was fire bombed but it did not end the war.
I do not know the casualties from that attack or whether there is a comparable level of casualties.
The point is we tried to end it with conventional weapons. It did not work.
There is a massive difference between the atomic bombs in WWII and the nuclear bombs of today.
Same in Gaza although Israel is dropping warnings for the people to stand clear. Hamas is not letting them move out of harms way.
Michel,
My remarks about Nagasaki were factual and accurate. They were offered in the sense that people who fear nuclear radiation with comments like used fuel rods needing management for 250,000 years might lessen their fears by thinking about the actual case of Nagasaki. I made no inferences about the morality of nuclear wars, nor will I.
Geoff S
Japan was developing an atomic bomb at the same time. The successfully detonated it in N. Korea very shortly before Hiroshima.
The point being, there’s was not yet ready for deployment and had we not dropped when we did, it could have been a much more serious world war than it already was.
typo correction: theirs
While I agree, the million lives were an estimate, equivalent to a model projection.
Let’s not forget that Hanoi Jane starred as a journalist in the movie “The China Syndrome”, a pathetic effort to spread fear of a nuclear meltdown shortly after the Three Mile Island incident.
I can still vaguely remember the hoopla she generated when she went to North Vietnam during the war in 1971. She went on North Vietnamese radio and spoke quite disapprovingly about the U.S. troops in the South. The audio recording of it is on YouTube. It is not easy to listen to for those who are strong supporters of our military forces today (including me.)
Don’t recall if she ever apologized to Vietnam war vets for her trip over there. At any rate, it resulted in her nickname, Hanoi Jane.
With no background in nuclear science or engineering (or climate science for that matter), she and the media make it apparent that the issue of nuclear power is less about the actual science of it and much more about anti-nuclear activism and the fear and ignorance that drives it.
“Don’t recall if she ever apologized to Vietnam war vets for her trip over there.”
Jane Fonda did apologize for her actions in Vietnam. She said she was wrong.
As a Vietnam veteran myself, I was not very happy with Jane Fonda. But, people can change. People can learn. So I accept her apology.
I’ll stick to criticizing her climate change positions now.
Jane, one of these days, you may find yourself apologizing to CO2, for all the bad things you said about it.
First of all Tom, thank you for your service to our country. I served for 12 years in the Navy myself starting in 1976.
Second, I am glad to hear that Fonda did actually apologize to Vietnam vets like yourself. It shows that she has indeed changed and was willing to take responsibility for the consequences of her trip to Hanoi. Things like that are not easily forgotten.
Third, If she ever comes around to realizing her faulty mindset over the climate issue and nuclear power, she will have come a long way. As an octogenarian now, I don’t know how much longer she will be around. She is a very talented actress however, and I do respect her for at least that much.
“I’m sorry that I helped to kill your children.” How well does that go over in a court of law when you are in the docket for first degree homicide?
Fonda should have been moldering in an unmarked grave LONG before that “apology.” Which was undoubtedly not heartfelt in the least.
Here is a partial quote of what she said,
“In 1988 she apologized to American veterans of the Vietnam War in a televised interview with Barbara Walters, saying that some of her behaviour in Hanoi was “thoughtless and careless.”
This is not an apology in my opinion.
Well it’s like this Jane with getting rid of fossil fuels-
There’s a problem with incendiary lithium batteries for transportation nowhere better demonstrated than QED unless you believe in net-zero fire stations-
(191) Oops! Lithium battery BURNS DOWN a FIRE STATION…! | MGUY Australia – YouTube
Ipso facto it’s a bit cart before horse to think about that now-
The U.S. Plans To Combat EV Fires With Groundbreaking Technology (msn.com)
Not to mention with the Great Transition you need to make sure you don’t go off half cocked say stepping on the gas to back up fickles for all that extra electricity instead of keeping on rolling with coal perhaps-
Gas industry in damage control as landmark study finds LNG ‘worse than coal’ for the climate (msn.com)
Lots of tradeoffs and lots of complexity dearie and you need to be mighty careful with such big picture stuff you don’t let your emotions run away with your head.
Forget all those movie lights, theatre projectors….. 😉
“the actor and activist writes.”
I absolutely value freedom of speech. Activist can voice their opinions even if they don’t have academic qualifications.
BUT – there is a big “but“. You know who does not value freedom of speech? Journos. The journalist congregation always hates it when people they dislike express a position or opinion, but esp. when it’s a position over a technical or scientific question.
When conservatives promote gun rights over the voices of unqualified on the technical aspects of guns (but medically qualified people who had to handle gun wounds), the pseudo intellectualism sphere of the media community implied the pro gun rights conservatives were incompetent.
It peaked during the “pandemic” (or PCR-demic) when only the authorized authorities were allowed a voice and boring Nobel Prize free liberals were citing the ultimate Nobel Prize free person, Umberto Eco (most overhyped Italian ever?):
Umberto Eco is usually cited in the context of COVID, the one context where anti COVID hysteria people actually cited two Nobel prize winners (that the know nothing fact checkers dismissed – yes Kary Mullis died before the COVID pandemic scam, but what Kary Mullis did say about the one thing he invented that was worthy of the Nobel Prize applied evidently as much to SARS-COV-2 as to other viruses, it takes a special kind of dènîers mindset to claim otherwise).
So which one is it? Only Umberto Eco approved people can voice their opinions, or people with zero academic qualification and strictly zero relevant technical expertise can, too?
Here is the Brave search engine IA going full DIN-iar on “Kary Mullis unreliable as a diagnostic tool”
https://search.brave.com/search?q=Kary+Mullis+unreliable+as+a+diagnostic+tool&source=web&summary=1&summary_og=b8108bce1e70c1523f93b7
IA is the future of disinformation! It reads like a Madcow rant!!!
Rod Adams is the perfect progressive liberal. I wonder if Fonda ever heard of him or is willing to even look at his blog.
https://atomicinsights.com/the-impossibility-of-the-china-syndrome-a-melted-reactor-core-cannot-penetrate-its-container/
My brother was a POW while Fonda was committing treason with the North Vietnamese. I don’t care anything about her or her beliefs. I’d like to have all of her movies destroyed.
Even the best bits of Barbarella?
There are best bits?
There were when I last watched it as a teenage boy!
“There were when I last watched it as a teenage boy!”
I think that says it all.. 😉
All that plastic came from petroleum. Ironic, yes?
A couple of takeaways on this piece.
The author Karly Matthews has an interesting X-twitter page.
The piece on the Sierra Club embracing nuclear power after
50yrs of anti-nuclear is a total 180* shift. Not much from the
Biden/Harris on that bit.
This as the Biden/Harris adm is currently trying to get
billions into renewables according to the press this morning.
Lastly CEG Constellation Energy’s common stock run this year
compared to say off shore wind say’s follow the money.
Sierra Club embracing nuclear power? Where is the evidence of that?
I googled the author Karly Matthews and looked on her twitter page==>
https://x.com/karlymatthews_?lang=en
https://x.com/energybants/status/1846504087900004653
Nuclear power will make all of the wind and solar investments worthless. I expect the resistance will be fierce but ultimately doomed. We need to have massive amounts of cheap, ubiquitous and easy to use energy if we are to advance as a world leader in human endeavour. Nuclear energy will provide that safely and with minimal ecological harm.
Every nuclear accident was due to poor planning. In Chernobyl, they didn’t follow simple safety rules. In Three Mile Island, they didn’t follow simple safety rules. In Fukushima, they didn’t follow simple safety rules.
You need competent planners, competent plant controllers, and competent government regulators. We have none of the above.
That’s exactly what nuclear will not provide. Renewables on the other hand…
ah, yes- the beauty of solar farms- from sea to shining sea
And still need the coal and gas plants as well.
It is a plot to get us all to live in 15 minute hive cities.
…can never provide the energy needed. Let us know when wind and solar power is constructed using ONLY wind and solar energy.
Yes but bear in mind that can be provided by coal and gas. There is not, never was and never will be a need for grid connected wind or solar.
Jane Fonda is heard because she is a rather good actress and female film star. She shows little understanding about the economics, safety and physics of nuclear power, properties that matter. Her skill is to act out the words of others and make them seem credible.
Far more dangerous than Jane Fonda is the Rockefeller Foundation that grows on the favored taxation treatment of charity status. A year ago, WUWT kindly published my article about the Rockefeller money and power feeding corruption. They corruptly favored the questionable LNT theory (Linear No Threshold) of the dose/harm relationship, falsely implying great harm from nuclear radiation at very low doses. This corruption-induced technical matter has survived for decades, but it is emphatically scientifically wrong. (I am a scientist who has actually worked in the global nuclear fuel cycle).
Corruption Of Science By Money And Power – Watts Up With That?
Read the following Rockefeller reports of their current activities. They are not just repeating woke, they are inventing woke and pushing it onto a public that often sees them as angelic. Not so, they are the clever enemy of those who deal with data and measurement and realistic views of the scientific future. This list of Rockefeller activities might scare the pants of many readers (but maybe not off Jane Fonda, for reasons that no gentleman would disclose). Geoff S
Impact Report 2023 (rockefellerfoundation.org)
mediocre actress- cute when young- I doubt she ever won any awards for her acting
She won two Academy awards for best actress, Klute and Coming Home.
She won three SAG awards and seven Golden Globe awards.
The members of the Academy loved her acting. I never thought she or her brother were that good. But Nepotism in Hollywood is strong.
She is scheduled to win another SAG “Lifetime Achievement Award” in 2025, which is an award for receiving awards.
Hanoi Jane has made many bad choices in her life. This is just the latest.
She never grew up and change away from the leftist democrat party it has become; I left it back in the early 1990’s when I recognized their descent into the seditious treasonous anti America party they are today.
Treason is the correct term.
She is so right about one thing: once you have nuclear there is no reason to ever build another wind or solar farm, ever.
I think Artificial Intelligence development is going to create a new nuclear industry.
The AI industry needs lots of electricity and the only way to get it without using coal and natural gas is to build nuclear powerplants. Not one of them is proposing to build thousands more windmills.
Which should tell any thinking person something.
Same can be said for once we had coal, oil and gas plants.
There was never a reason to build ANY wind farm or solar farm, ever. The need was manufactured with junk science.
Jane was an actress.An actor or actress is a person who acts out a script written by someone else.
Knowledge of the subject is not required, just the ability to produce a convincing rendition of the lines.
Jane knows nothing. Both Jane and the scriptwriters of China Syndrome knew nothing about gravity in particular. The plot was ridiculous.
Ignore.
The control room was nice though.
I’m assume you’re referring to a scene in the movie. I never watched the crap movie.
You might enjoy it, since in truly ironic fashion when the failure of the suspect piping that wasn’t being properly inspected fails, the plant’s safety systems kick in and shut down the plant without any “catastrophe” whatsoever.
So as anti-nuclear as the tone of the film might be, it ends up showing how safe nuclear power is.
What could be more dangerous than technologies that are unreliable, untested under severe pressure, and unable to generate electricity if the weather fails to oblige? Our core generators need to be long term reliable and capable of meeting base load plus a safe margin of energy at all times. Nuclear fits the bill, as does natural gas generation, but wind and solar never will be there as and if required.
I could also mention that wind and solar are environmentally destructive even if that does upset the virtue signalers who just pretend these things really don’t matter if and when it suits them.
Fonda may have served a useful purpose in the past but her retirement is long overdue.
“Fonda may have served a useful purpose in the past”
Not when it comes to politics. Jane Fonda was a cleuless, radical leftist.
She is still a clueless, radical leftist. She and Kamala Harris have a lot in common.
From the article: “While Ms. Fonda is right that nuclear energy does have high upfront costs and long timelines, these costs and time delays are due to, in no small part, overregulation of the industry that prevents us from fully unleashing nuclear energy.”
And the overregulation is due to, in no small part, the scaremongering of ignorant people like Jane Fonda.
Actually, Jane Fonda is right in saying there is not room for accelerating the development of both nuclear energy and so-call “renewable” energy. If one accepts the reality of current and emerging nuclear power technology with its fail-safe reactors, reduced costs and complexity, and the utterly dependable and reliable generation of dispatchable power, then why the heck would anyone bother with the unreal claims of wind and solar energy advocates with all of its unreliability and non-dispatchability?
Really?
Jane finally made a truthful statement – even if her conclusions are utterly boneheaded.
It’s still not economical viable. And people who haven’t gotten this yet live in a 70s tomorrowland dreamworld.
According to the World Nuclear Association in the last 2 years China, UAE and US have all connected 2 nuclear power stations to the grid whilst India, S. Korea, Belarus and Slovakia have added 1 each
Over the same period China began construction of 8 nuclear stations, Russia 1 and Egypt 1.
Seems China in particular believes nuclear power is very economically viable.
So does Canada, in particular Ontario Hydro. (in Canada Hydro is synonymous with electricity whether it comes from hydro generation or not)
Define “economically viable”.
That does not mean what you think it means.
So economically not viable that the largest utility in the US, FPL, generates 20% of its total energy from nuclear power, the second largest of its sources (the largest being natural gas) .. and FPL provides some of the lowest electricity costs in the USA. Far lower than in any of the states that are heavily dependent upon so-called “renewable energy” like California, New York, Massachusetts, etc.
The higher cost is mostly due to irrational leftists ecoloony assholes who continually fight nuclear power in courts slowing down the construction process and to demand design changes that drives up cost, I saw this crap firsthand back in the 1970’s80’s at Hanford site.
You are as usual profoundly ignorant.
Gentlemen, don’t feed the troll. Whatever MUN writes is certain to be complete garbage.It has a perfect record of uttering complete stupidity on the topic of nuclear power. That should tell you what it is and why it has to hide behind anonymity.
These stupid nuclear regulators are concerned about bolt length, but approved a redundant system in Tennessee where backup cables went through a single conduit. Alas–it’s a single point of failure!
Yet HUGE subsidies are needed for the totally unviable, totally uneconomic and total non-renewable scams that are wind and solar.
Wind and solar are COST, COST, COST and return nothing but an unsustainable erratic supply..
Wind and solar are not economically viable. Absent government mandates, subsidies and tax credits, not one would ever have been built.
“Branding nuclear energy as dangerous and unrealistic for our climate goals is an outdated, out-of-touch argument.”
I appreciate the support for nuclear energy in this piece, but the author needs to step back and realize that having “climate” “goals” is a delusion to begin with.
“Branding
nuclear energyemissions of CO2 as dangerousand unrealisticfor our climategoalsis an outdated, out-of-touch argument.” There.Perfect!
Isn’t she famous for exercise videos? Why does anyone care what she says about anything other than workout routines?
And vagina videos. I don’t think penis videos would be very popular.
I suppose she’s right in a way. The climate doesn’t need a solution and the nuclear power station will not make a scap of difference to the climate. I just wish these celebrities would keep their mouths shut and stop displaying their ignorance.
Well Google canned fickle power quite some time ago and now it’s going nukes-
Google set to power its AI data centers with mini nuclear reactors (msn.com)
Surprised anyone is still listening to her and quoting her.
Article says:”Those, like Ms. Fonda, who refuse to embrace nuclear energy as part of the energy mix simply aren’t serious.”
While this is a true statement it does not go far enough. All people who use the benefits of hydrocarbons to enjoy and enrich their lives but advocate for eliminating CO2 because it is causing climate change are not serious.