Why renewable energy can't save the planet

Here’s a smart and long time environmentalist leader explaining why renewable energy can’t save the planet. They take too much energy to make and use land to much land to be Eco friendly. He says nuclear has the lowest pollution foot print and saves more lives.

Don’t shoot the messenger…

I agree with him.

The 70’s green movement’s rejection of nuclear was wrongheaded… just like the rejection of GMO foods.

That is changing… but not fast enough in my opinion.

What I think we will see in the future of energy porduction is a mixture of technologies… not just one thing.


Help me ease my fears then…

I used to be much more cavalier about nuclear power, since I live near San Onofre. I figured I was one of the people who was receiving safe nuclear power, and everyone should!

But it’s been over 10 years now that the plant has been shuttered, indefinitely, due to cooling system issues…

… should I be happy San Onofre exists, on the coast, a fault zone, with my home in its shadow?

That is why I have said that it will be a mixture of technology… probably including natural gas.

Gets tricky unless you hide them in the middle of nowhere, do you want to be in a blue circle?

Natural gas will be used for a long time, it’s about as clean as it gets for hydrocarbons.

Yes… all because of a movie. China syndrome. In Cal they are shutting down diablo canyon. Crazy!

If you would listen to the guy, he explains why Nuclear actually kills a lot less than other forms of energy. Like an order of magnitude less.

In S. Cal the wind almost always blows from the N. west. Except in the fall when we get Santana winds that blow out to the ocean. (off shore winds). Radiation follows the wind. It does now make a giant circle.

I grew up near Norfolk VA.

At all times there were a few Nuclear reactors in port.

My brother even built a few of them.

It is actually a very safe form of energy production.

And I think brine reactors are much safer than current nukes, which are in fact remarkably safe. It’s Frances main source of energy.

Today, France has 59 nuclear reactors providing about 78% of its electricity. It is also the leading exporter of nuclear energy in the EU… wiki!

Yes, but nuclear can uniquely wipe out geographic areas for the foreseeable future.

Japan had a terrible design. Their safety cooling water was not gravity supplied.

I think this is part of the problem, the perception that living next to something for 20 years is significant in relation to nuclear power generation. As I said, I used to feel the same way; now I live next to a plant that is a full time nuclear waste managment/cooling facility with NO power generation. It’s just a problem being managed with no benefit… and will be forever.

When there is a problem, it’s a forever problem.

If you listen to the guy he explain one of the reason they did not want to build nuke plants like France did was they were worried about “over consumption”… It was the era of the Erlicks silly book called “the population bomb”. “Over consumption” is code for too high of a standard of living. May produce too many children, etc…so, silly!

And Onofre has a terrible cooling design as well.

Want to start looking at other existing plants?

Yeah… Yucca Mountain shutting down put a crimp in a broad plan to deal with the problem.

Maybe things will change in the coming years.

Then fix it… But I doubt LA times is fair on the issue. I doubt they have staff who could even understand the issue…

When you live in a bubble of doubt, anything is possible!

If I lived in a bubble of doubt. I’d think the govt is the only way people could make in this horrible world. But, it’s never been so easy to live,and people can make it easily.

1 Like

A doubt you have no basis for other than an ignorance on the capabilities of the LA Times.