but to me ,lying in a court filing should carry the same penalty as giving false testimony while under oath in a courtroom (i.e. perjury.)

..."renewable energy." It needs copper they said, and in that case, they weren't lying.

There isn't enough copper on the planet to get solar and wind to 40 Exajoules per year, but hell, that doesn't stop people from hyping that useless shit.

But again, don't worry, be happy.

Little Benny Sovacool says we can tear the shit out of the ocean floor to be "green."

What are nuclear reactors and their containment buildings made of? Wood? Recycled plastic?

It's cute when an antinuke expresses complete ignorance of nuclear engineering.

If one knows something about nuclear energy other than that one hates it, one recognizes that it that, the energy density that makes nuclear energy superior to all other forms of energy, that, and the long life time of the infrastructure.

For the record, if one looks, the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant on 12 acres produced nearly as much energy energy than all of the wind turbines in California, spread over vast areas, in the neighborhood of more than thousand of square miles wilderness converted into industrial plants for wind junk, which is not counting the currently rotting wind plants being replaced with "repowering."

Instead of pretending to give a shit about what Hansen and Kharecha say, one could open the data provided by the California Energy Commission to see this 2024 data:

Diablo Canyon, a 12 acre footprint: 27,613 GWh.

All the wind turbines in that benighted state, spread hundreds upon hundreds upon hundreds: 33,102 GWh.

Really, was it worth it, mining all that copper to connect all that unreliable garbage?

2024 generation of power in California

Many of the fires that start in California, including the Eaton fire, are started by sparking of powerlines, which lace the State to connect all that wind and solar junk.

The largest source of power in California was dangerous natural gas, about which antinukes couldn't care less, at 94,255 GW.

I have never met an antinuke who understands the environmental cost of their redundant shit. California, by the way, has some of the highest priced electricity in the United States. Requirements for redundancy are not only environmentally odious; they are economically odious as well. it's not safe to be poor in California.

If one looks at the table, one can see, that California could provide all of its electricity with 10 or 11 Diablo Canyon sized plants, restoring all the wilderness destroyed by the fossil fuel dependent wind and solar junk, and burn no gas. The land use would be way less than a single square mile of direct footprint.

It's pretty funny when antinukes run around trying to pretend to be environmentalists. In my experience, they have not a hint of what an environmentalist might be.

If they'd built, the ten or eleven nuclear plants in California, it would have released huge vast of copper for better use, and minimized the risk of fires caused by transmission lines.

Have a nice day.

You like to remind people that renewable energy requires the use of materials, which must be mined, while pretending that a construction like this has no environmental impacts:



(Those plumes are not smoke they are steam/water vapor. As you pointed out, thermal power plants heat water drawn from lakes and rivers converting a great deal of it into water vapor.)

...comprehension skills, that nuclear energy need not be without impact nor does it need to be perfect in any other way, for instance risk, to be vastly superior to everything else.

It only needs to be vastly superior to everything else, which it is.

Now, can we be clear on something as this increasingly bizarre conversation continues: Antinukes and "I'm not an antinuke" antinukes, routinely hold nuclear to standards they apply to nothing else.

Nuclear energy has, not only the lowest carbon impact of any form of primary energy, it also has the lowest material, e.g.mining, costs, the lowest land use costs, the highest infrastructure lifetimes, the highest capacity utilization, the smallest waste profile of any form of primary energy.

None of these mentioned factors need to be zero for land use, mining, waste or risk, or 100% for reliability to be superior to all other options.

I remind any intellectually, morally, educationally deficient antinuke who wishes to challenge me on this point that I am an antinuke apostate, that I was a member of their cult until Chornobyl blew up demonstrating for all time what the worst case possible is. That case is trivial compared to the collapse of the planetary atmosphere, the theft of all the world's best ores from future generations, the ravaging of wilderness, the daily unarrested death toll from air pollution, rising seas, the collapse of agricultural productivity, and deaths from extreme weather.

If one can't grasp my apostate's passion and the moral points that drive it, that's not my problem. I am satisfied that I will die on the right side of history and I am proud of the sons I raised to fight the appalling ignorance that has come to flow, like burning gasoline, that characterizes these awful times in energy issues and beyond. I worked hard, very hard, to develop my ideas, and as a result, have little respect for intellectual and moral laziness. I may not be proud of everything I've done in my life, but I am proud of developing my understanding of energy and it's impact on the environment, humanity, and indeed all living things.

Got it?

No?

I couldn't care less.

Have a nice day..

I went to a screening of it in Princeton, attended by the producers.

Unearth.

Guess what the mining company was trying to claim? I'll tell you, their mine would be "green" because so called "renewable energy" needs copper.

It's a lot more than 27 salmon; since the guys featured in the film who fought the first attempt to open the mine, defeated during the Biden Presidency, made their living as salmon fishermen.

Trust me, this will be sold as a victory for so called "renewable energy."

As you know, here in NYS we have a “fracking ban” some company claimed they wanted to do “carbon capture” they would pump CO₂ into the Marcellus shale. As a side-effect of this “carbon capture" natural gas would be forced out of the shale, which (naturally) they would capture and sell, to help defray the costs of their “carbon capture” scheme.

"It’s not fracking!” (arguably true) “It’s ‘carbon capture!’” (It wasn’t.)