Environment & Energy

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.