- SNIP -
. That is a valid point but ignores the reality of the last 50 years. Conversely, he argues that solar and wind will never be cheap / consistent enough and thus are not viable alternatives to fossil fuels. He discounts any future technological advances would be sufficient to overcome these logistics. However, he tends to engage in name-calling and unreferenced conspiracy theories (Greenpece being funded by fossil fuel companies? The US NRC somehow caused the deaths of Japanese civilians evacuating from Fukishima?). Most annoyingly, he self-references way too much. I mean, look at his website.
Link to interview: https://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2019/02/15/green-new-deal-climate-change-nuclear-power
I will say I didn't read the article. The reality over the last 50-60 years is that nuclear grew from nothing to a significant power source. Wind and solar are also growing to be significant power sources. Vacuum tubes have been replaced by transistors. Cell phones have taken over the minds of most teenagers. I would not have had a personal computer in front of me 50 years ago.
George Santayana - "Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
To deny that technology can and will change for the better if it is not stifled is to not remember the past and how technology can transform our lives for the better. Thinking that traps nuclear power into the designs of the 1950s and 1960s would have us running around with horses.
Nereo:
"Unlike nuclear, LNG plants can be built much more quickly and can be throttled back more rapidly when grid-demand is low than either coal or nuclear. Ultimately more mechanical storage capacity is needed, but is costly."
True - Hard to argue with the reality of what is before your eyes. The municipal plant in the town I live in has been replaced by two cogeneration plants. The trend has been to either close coal plants or modify their heat source to be natural gas for a number of years now. It will continue. I worked a t a nuke plant that had a 1000 employees. A friend of mine worked at a natural gas plant with similar output. There were 34 employees. Fuel is very cheap for nuclear plants, but the availability of cheap natural gas is forcing them to close.
Nuke plants can be built to throttle back.
Just as subsidies have driven the construction of wind farms, cheap natural gas will drive the construction of more gas plants.
Greenpeace funded by Natural Gas? Could be. I didn't look very hard and found this article with the Sierra Club receiving similar type funding:
https://canadafreepress.com/article/questionable-funding-for-environmental-groups-and-what-they-do-with-itIf I was running a gas company, I'd have layers shielding me from our donations to environmental groups. It would be like the Koch boys.
From the article:
"But then something happened. Natural gas reserves boomed and electric utilities began converting some coal-fired plants to natural gas, prompting the Sierra Club to launch a sister campaign called “Beyond Natural Gas.” Just two years removed from accepting millions from a natural gas company, the group was opposed to natural gas as an energy source in principle. It wasn’t a change of heart, but a re-evaluation of strategy."
Natural gas will warm your home, produce your electricity and melt a few glaciers.