cont. A year ago, the US installed about 200 miles of electrified train track. China installed 10,000....
10,000. The world's largest producer of electric cars? China. Solar panels?
If I'm wrong, the worst we've done is not only developed an independence from Russian dictators, Venezuelan dictators, Jared Kushner's boss, sorry Saudi dictators who chop journalists up into little pieces (by accident, of course, these things happen) - but also independence from folks like Exxon.
And infrastructure such as solar and wind are much less susceptible to terrorism or being military targets than power plants or pipelines, and especially nuclear power plants. Not much bang for the buck in sending a million dollar cruise missile against a 50k solar array as compared to a power plant. Ask Ukraine, as they keep the lights on in hospitals and water pumping stations.
Finally, nuclear. Bless your heart.
Something that has a half-life of 10000 years. Recorded human history is around 2500 years. Learning it, does it seem particularly stable to you? The present doesn't seem that stable. Wars in Africa, Asia, Europe, possible civil war here. And nothing bad will happen for 10000 years to the nuclear material produced? Man, I want some of what he's having...
Nuclear power has been around for 80 years.
In that time, we've had Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Bikini Atoll, Nevada testing, Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Fukushima, and now we're on tinterhooks as we await the fate of Zaporizhzhia as yet another unstable dicatator debates weaponizing it. And those are the ones we know about. Think the US military, Russian, Chinese, N Korean, Indian, etc. governments advertise their close calls when they don't have to?
Again. Bless your heart.
No. Marketize decarbonization, invest in our future and get out of the way and let innovation and a capitalist society do its magic. Or cling to fear and ignorance as we slowly sink into irrelevance.
I read letters such as this, often times, and used to wonder if it was something you would expect to find in the Onion. Deliberately written satire hiding as opinion -waiting to evoke a reaction. Sometimes I was right. But many, many times, enough that I no longer wonder, I've learned what I was reading was exactly how it was intended.
I've also learned how pointless it is to hope to convince someone who has written such a letter that they are wrong. Might as well convince them that a draft dodging, grifting, fraudulent, narcissist sexual pervert with authoritarian envy isn't the American ideal, nor a demigod sent to save us. But at one time, I did think it was possible. If it is, they've hidden it well.
Still, just for reality's sake, I will make a few comments in general. Not for debate, so much as equal representation, in case there happens to be anyone on here reading that is open to considering a different viewpoint. Fool that I am, I do believe that people such as that do occasionally exist.
So generally - here we go. The idea that scientists could be wrong? It's real. The general consensus at the end of the 19th century was that man could never accomplish flight. 5 years later, they did. 14 years later, they were using it to kill each other.
But think how many times that science has been right. It really is a bad idea to take your drinking water immediately downstream from where you defecate. Lead in water lines and paint doesn't work out too well for children. Malaria doesn't come from "bad air", smoking tobacco isn't an overall health benefit (cocaine usage in the soda pop may make you smile, but there are concerns with it as well).
Further, whether right or wrong, science approaches issues methodically. With studies, data, debate. Where are Mr. Stewart's citations for all of the conclusions given? What is his area of expertise to give them?
Or, if you choose to, rather than becoming a scientist yourself to read this data and make your own decisions, why not do what you do with hedge funds, stock indices, lab results. Listen to the experts that your society has trained to study these events. Because the vast consensus of scientists, government officials, militaries - is that not only will these concerns matter, they already do.
Or, follow the money. The reason insurance companies are either pulling out of places like Florida, or raising their rates, or asking for us taxpayers who don't own a second home down there to pick up the costs for all of the hurricane damages is not because they don't want to do business there. It's because the damages they are already paying for those policies is already losing money, and projected to worsen due to climate change. Desertification in Africa leading to instability, sea level rise, sea level warming, acidification - all measurable things which are having an impact now. Not in the future, now.
And markets are reacting with their pocketbook accordingly. The problem is real.
Further, by having a "head in the sand" attitude, as capitalists - we are losing opportunity. cont.
In reply to Mr. Watkins two rants, I do have a BSEE and know how systems of electricity generation, transmission and generation work--and you can't do them with wind and solar. And though I am not a scientist, I do know how science is done, and know lots of it, but letters to the editor are restricted to 500 words, so things like studies, data, graphs and citations are out of the question.
As far as nuclear power is concerned, you need to get up to speed, and the best book to read is "The Case for Nukes, How We can beat Global Warming and Create a Free, Open, and Magnificent Future" , 2023, by Robert Zubrin, who has a PhD in Nuclear Engineering (read his bio on Wikipedia). Unfortunately, though I have requested it, the Rappahannock library still doesn't carry it, but it is only $19.95 on amazon.com and is a must. And, yes, once incompetent government gets out of the way, capitalism will roll it out, but it will take at least to the end of this century.
Meantime wind and solar simply don't work. Here in Virginia, Dominion's experience over decades is that solar produces electricity only 21.5% of the time (capacity factor), and they tell us, but won't reveal the data, that wind will be 40% of the time. Wow, 61.5 % total! Storage is a pipe dream; Tesla is the only credible manufacturer of utility scale battery storage, and its production is a drop in the bucket of what would be needed. The only way that renewables appear to work is that nuclear (33% in Virginia) and fossil fuels (mainly gas) do all the heavy lifting. And renewables are heavily subsidized, both their capital costs and operating costs; otherwise nobody would build them. So government has to stop subsidizing them and stop interfering with the new Small Modular Reactors coming on the scene.
You mention debate. I'll be able to round up PhD (real) scientists with hundreds of peer reviewed papers published in major journals, and tens of thousands of citations. They will make the case that, contra the global warming hysteria, to date man-made CO2 has only been beneficial; the additional plant food and slight warming have been good, not bad.
You round up credentialed scientists on the alarmist side and let's have a debate.
Contact me at stewartpoli@gmail.com and if you can't find scientists willing to debate, at least we can get together to talk.
Thank you for your thoughtful reply. You cover a lot of ground. Books for the library? Yes please. What I do with mine, once I'm finished is donate them so that others may have them as well.
CO2 (and methane), effects real or imagined? Rather than deny it, if I believed that to be true, would be to gather up as many of those rebels as you can, create an insurance company - and then jump into markets such as Florida where others are fleeing. If you're right, you'll make a mint. Best wishes if you are, lo ciento if you're not. But either way, I would much rather it be your money than mine thru things like the National Flood Insurance program.
RE the impact of renewables - I would bring the following factors into consideration - you focus on merely VA, as if it exists in a vacuum. The impact of renewables when you widen your view beyond is much more impressive where folks have chosen to invest. China is on track to produce over 1200 GW by next year. The technology to overcome the limitations currently existing in storage will happen through investment in innovation. You see limits, I see opportunity. Rail, auto, generation, manufacturing - we're getting left behind because we're trying to prop up old technologies which have these special interest groups with their power and influence, rather than investing in the future. Personally, I think green hydrogen has the most potential for storage/use - but we'll see. Shipping giant Maersk agrees, as they have invested millions into research. As has, again, China. As we stand by watching.
Again, if I'm wrong - the worst we've done is make ourselves less dependent upon the vagaries of folks who have their own agendas. Whether they be in Russia, or ExxonMobil's corporate office. I like that.
Your plan brings us 10000 years worth of responsibility, when we've shown ourselves not capable of handling a 100. And no, the risk is not only in far off lands like Ukraine, Japan, or Pennsylvania. 12 years ago, a 5.8 magnitude earthquake hit a previously unknown fault line in Mineral, VA. 5 miles away from the Lake Anna Nuclear plant. Now it has been my experience that often times the wind blows from the SW to NE. If that happens, the greater FXBG area is less than 20 miles away. Might want to stock up on potassium iodide for the grandkids.
And your solution is to have more of the same, with less control? Reminds me of our nation's gun policy writ large. We may very well have to use nuclear to achieve our goals short term, though it is weird to see it proposed from someone who doesn't believe the problem either exists, or is a problem. But if we do, it should be our last resort, not the 1st.
As I said, read the book. The French recycle 95% (I think) of their nuclear waste. And a British company, Moltex, that is building a molten salt reactor in Canada will also be building a version that burns existing waste as its fuel. The nuclear waste problem is one that is easily dealt with. The French vitrify and bury residues left after recycling. Just not a problem.
I hope you're right, and I may take you up on the book. But again, with the inherent risks not only due to the technology, but human nature - I'm afraid your faith in human nature is much greater than my own. Good day. Taxes to do.
cont. A year ago, the US installed about 200 miles of electrified train track. China installed 10,000....
10,000. The world's largest producer of electric cars? China. Solar panels?
If I'm wrong, the worst we've done is not only developed an independence from Russian dictators, Venezuelan dictators, Jared Kushner's boss, sorry Saudi dictators who chop journalists up into little pieces (by accident, of course, these things happen) - but also independence from folks like Exxon.
And infrastructure such as solar and wind are much less susceptible to terrorism or being military targets than power plants or pipelines, and especially nuclear power plants. Not much bang for the buck in sending a million dollar cruise missile against a 50k solar array as compared to a power plant. Ask Ukraine, as they keep the lights on in hospitals and water pumping stations.
Finally, nuclear. Bless your heart.
Something that has a half-life of 10000 years. Recorded human history is around 2500 years. Learning it, does it seem particularly stable to you? The present doesn't seem that stable. Wars in Africa, Asia, Europe, possible civil war here. And nothing bad will happen for 10000 years to the nuclear material produced? Man, I want some of what he's having...
Nuclear power has been around for 80 years.
In that time, we've had Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Bikini Atoll, Nevada testing, Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Fukushima, and now we're on tinterhooks as we await the fate of Zaporizhzhia as yet another unstable dicatator debates weaponizing it. And those are the ones we know about. Think the US military, Russian, Chinese, N Korean, Indian, etc. governments advertise their close calls when they don't have to?
Again. Bless your heart.
No. Marketize decarbonization, invest in our future and get out of the way and let innovation and a capitalist society do its magic. Or cling to fear and ignorance as we slowly sink into irrelevance.
Choice seems pretty clear to me.
God, I hope this was meant for the Onion.......
Interesting, if true.
I read letters such as this, often times, and used to wonder if it was something you would expect to find in the Onion. Deliberately written satire hiding as opinion -waiting to evoke a reaction. Sometimes I was right. But many, many times, enough that I no longer wonder, I've learned what I was reading was exactly how it was intended.
I've also learned how pointless it is to hope to convince someone who has written such a letter that they are wrong. Might as well convince them that a draft dodging, grifting, fraudulent, narcissist sexual pervert with authoritarian envy isn't the American ideal, nor a demigod sent to save us. But at one time, I did think it was possible. If it is, they've hidden it well.
Still, just for reality's sake, I will make a few comments in general. Not for debate, so much as equal representation, in case there happens to be anyone on here reading that is open to considering a different viewpoint. Fool that I am, I do believe that people such as that do occasionally exist.
So generally - here we go. The idea that scientists could be wrong? It's real. The general consensus at the end of the 19th century was that man could never accomplish flight. 5 years later, they did. 14 years later, they were using it to kill each other.
But think how many times that science has been right. It really is a bad idea to take your drinking water immediately downstream from where you defecate. Lead in water lines and paint doesn't work out too well for children. Malaria doesn't come from "bad air", smoking tobacco isn't an overall health benefit (cocaine usage in the soda pop may make you smile, but there are concerns with it as well).
Further, whether right or wrong, science approaches issues methodically. With studies, data, debate. Where are Mr. Stewart's citations for all of the conclusions given? What is his area of expertise to give them?
Or, if you choose to, rather than becoming a scientist yourself to read this data and make your own decisions, why not do what you do with hedge funds, stock indices, lab results. Listen to the experts that your society has trained to study these events. Because the vast consensus of scientists, government officials, militaries - is that not only will these concerns matter, they already do.
Or, follow the money. The reason insurance companies are either pulling out of places like Florida, or raising their rates, or asking for us taxpayers who don't own a second home down there to pick up the costs for all of the hurricane damages is not because they don't want to do business there. It's because the damages they are already paying for those policies is already losing money, and projected to worsen due to climate change. Desertification in Africa leading to instability, sea level rise, sea level warming, acidification - all measurable things which are having an impact now. Not in the future, now.
And markets are reacting with their pocketbook accordingly. The problem is real.
Further, by having a "head in the sand" attitude, as capitalists - we are losing opportunity. cont.
In reply to Mr. Watkins two rants, I do have a BSEE and know how systems of electricity generation, transmission and generation work--and you can't do them with wind and solar. And though I am not a scientist, I do know how science is done, and know lots of it, but letters to the editor are restricted to 500 words, so things like studies, data, graphs and citations are out of the question.
As far as nuclear power is concerned, you need to get up to speed, and the best book to read is "The Case for Nukes, How We can beat Global Warming and Create a Free, Open, and Magnificent Future" , 2023, by Robert Zubrin, who has a PhD in Nuclear Engineering (read his bio on Wikipedia). Unfortunately, though I have requested it, the Rappahannock library still doesn't carry it, but it is only $19.95 on amazon.com and is a must. And, yes, once incompetent government gets out of the way, capitalism will roll it out, but it will take at least to the end of this century.
Meantime wind and solar simply don't work. Here in Virginia, Dominion's experience over decades is that solar produces electricity only 21.5% of the time (capacity factor), and they tell us, but won't reveal the data, that wind will be 40% of the time. Wow, 61.5 % total! Storage is a pipe dream; Tesla is the only credible manufacturer of utility scale battery storage, and its production is a drop in the bucket of what would be needed. The only way that renewables appear to work is that nuclear (33% in Virginia) and fossil fuels (mainly gas) do all the heavy lifting. And renewables are heavily subsidized, both their capital costs and operating costs; otherwise nobody would build them. So government has to stop subsidizing them and stop interfering with the new Small Modular Reactors coming on the scene.
You mention debate. I'll be able to round up PhD (real) scientists with hundreds of peer reviewed papers published in major journals, and tens of thousands of citations. They will make the case that, contra the global warming hysteria, to date man-made CO2 has only been beneficial; the additional plant food and slight warming have been good, not bad.
You round up credentialed scientists on the alarmist side and let's have a debate.
Contact me at stewartpoli@gmail.com and if you can't find scientists willing to debate, at least we can get together to talk.
Thank you for your thoughtful reply. You cover a lot of ground. Books for the library? Yes please. What I do with mine, once I'm finished is donate them so that others may have them as well.
CO2 (and methane), effects real or imagined? Rather than deny it, if I believed that to be true, would be to gather up as many of those rebels as you can, create an insurance company - and then jump into markets such as Florida where others are fleeing. If you're right, you'll make a mint. Best wishes if you are, lo ciento if you're not. But either way, I would much rather it be your money than mine thru things like the National Flood Insurance program.
RE the impact of renewables - I would bring the following factors into consideration - you focus on merely VA, as if it exists in a vacuum. The impact of renewables when you widen your view beyond is much more impressive where folks have chosen to invest. China is on track to produce over 1200 GW by next year. The technology to overcome the limitations currently existing in storage will happen through investment in innovation. You see limits, I see opportunity. Rail, auto, generation, manufacturing - we're getting left behind because we're trying to prop up old technologies which have these special interest groups with their power and influence, rather than investing in the future. Personally, I think green hydrogen has the most potential for storage/use - but we'll see. Shipping giant Maersk agrees, as they have invested millions into research. As has, again, China. As we stand by watching.
Again, if I'm wrong - the worst we've done is make ourselves less dependent upon the vagaries of folks who have their own agendas. Whether they be in Russia, or ExxonMobil's corporate office. I like that.
Your plan brings us 10000 years worth of responsibility, when we've shown ourselves not capable of handling a 100. And no, the risk is not only in far off lands like Ukraine, Japan, or Pennsylvania. 12 years ago, a 5.8 magnitude earthquake hit a previously unknown fault line in Mineral, VA. 5 miles away from the Lake Anna Nuclear plant. Now it has been my experience that often times the wind blows from the SW to NE. If that happens, the greater FXBG area is less than 20 miles away. Might want to stock up on potassium iodide for the grandkids.
And your solution is to have more of the same, with less control? Reminds me of our nation's gun policy writ large. We may very well have to use nuclear to achieve our goals short term, though it is weird to see it proposed from someone who doesn't believe the problem either exists, or is a problem. But if we do, it should be our last resort, not the 1st.
As I said, read the book. The French recycle 95% (I think) of their nuclear waste. And a British company, Moltex, that is building a molten salt reactor in Canada will also be building a version that burns existing waste as its fuel. The nuclear waste problem is one that is easily dealt with. The French vitrify and bury residues left after recycling. Just not a problem.
I hope you're right, and I may take you up on the book. But again, with the inherent risks not only due to the technology, but human nature - I'm afraid your faith in human nature is much greater than my own. Good day. Taxes to do.