The Growth Rate of the Danish Wind Industry As Compared to the New Finnish EPR Nuclear Reactor.

[NNadir]

7. Oh, I see...burning wood and destroying rives included. The three trillion dollars were spent on...

...solar and wind for no result was the focus of my point in the OP: The OP was primarily about wind energy, but I did refer to the tragedy of the Drax "biofuels" plant. Are there people here who think that's wonderful?

It's not a scientific journal, but in a world with most journalists being clueless about real environmental issues, a New Yorker reporter actually stepped out of the fold of nonsense spreading to write thoughtfully on the topic of "modern" biofuels:

The Millions of Tons of Carbon Emissions That Don’t Officially Exist

Subtitle: How a blind spot in the Kyoto Protocol helped create the biomass industry.

(Sarah Miller, The New Yorker, December 8, 2021.)

We were burning wood in the 15th century, with the result that Europe, among other places, was deforested. (It never really recovered.) Biomass burning is, for the record, responsible for a little less than half of the 7 million air pollution deaths that occur each year while "I'm not an anti-nuke" anti-nukes whine about minor radiation leaks.

Where, is all this wood going to come from now that so called set the forests around the world afire, precisely because so called "renewable energy" failed to address climate change?

Again, at the risk of oblivious nitpicking calling 19th century style forest clear cutting "green?" The third rate right wing nut case Bolsonaro in Brazil likes it, of course, and even before he was at it, the world's largest wetland, the Pantanal, was being rototilled and filled in to make sugar cane fields to make ethanol for cars.

And of course, the palm oil boom for the German "Renewable energy" portfolio and the clear cutting fires to make palm oil plantations led to the 1998 South Asian fires that destroyed vast stretches of Indonesian and Malaysian rain forests, but it's "renewable."

Our anti-nukes, including "I'm not an anti-nuke" antinukes can cheer all they want for that shit. It's not like they care all that much about reality. I won't join in the cheer. I'm educated: For the record, it is estimated that about 10 billion tons of the 45 billion tons of carbon dioxide added to the planetary atmosphere results from land use changes. In my view, it's horrible, destructive.

I rather thought that Orangutans deserved a habitat. No ethical or aware person could possibly applaud destroying that habitat for monoculture biofuels from my perspective.

For that matter, I sort of thought that salmon deserved a habitat.

But apparently the possibility of a radiation leak somewhere at sometime is too scary for any of that to be a concern.

I was however, again, in the post talking primarily about wind, only to have the subject changed to something even worse. (I did obliquely refer to this nonsense in the OP, but apparently it went right over the head of some of our weaker readers. I didn't however refer to the death of the Mississippi Delta ecosystem as a result of phosphorous and nitrate run off from the corn fields planted to make so called "renewable" ethanol. "Renewable ethanol was recently discussed here:
Environmental outcomes of the US Renewable Fuel Standard (Tyler J. Lark, Nathan P. Hendricks, Aaron Smith, Nicholas Pates, Seth A. Spawn-Lee, Matthew Bougie, Eric G. Booth, Christopher J. Kucharik, Holly K. Gibbs, PNAS, Vol. 119 | No. 9 March 1, 2022)

From the "significance" summary:

The US Renewable Fuel Standard is the world’s largest existing biofuel program, yet despite its prominence, there has been limited empirical assessment of the program’s environmental outcomes. Even without considering likely international land use effects, we find that the production of corn-based ethanol in the United States has failed to meet the policy’s own greenhouse gas emissions targets and negatively affected water quality, the area of land used for conservation, and other ecosystem processes. Our findings suggest that profound advances in technology and policy are still needed to achieve the intended environmental benefits of biofuel production and use.

Proud of that one, are we?

Good luck to all our "I'm not an anti-nuke" antinukes with continuing to get power at the damn Glen Canyon dam, by the way. Just out of curiosity, how many more major rivers not depending on glaciers are left to destroy? What's the plan for 500 exajoules per year from rivers and forests for 8 billion people? That should work out really well as we blow toward 450 ppm concentrations of carbon dioxide in the planetary atmosphere.

Congrats to all "I'm not an anti-nuke" anti-nukes on that 419.68 ppm carbon dioxide concentration recorded in the planetary atmosphere yesterday. I'm sure they're all very, very, very proud.

There isn't a single fucking antinuke or "I'm not an anti-nuke" anti-nuke on this planet who can think clearly. Every time I encounter one, I come away with that same impression. What's annoying is that they have the unmitigated gall to call themselves "environmentalists" even though they're cheering for destroyed ecosystems in a collapsing world. It's intellectually appalling to listen to them raise insipid minor points to denigrate the world's last, best chance at saving itself, nuclear energy.

Mining...mining...mining, indeed.

I'd rather avoid the next weaselly nitpicking exercise of this nature that I've been hearing, but I'm sure I'll get many more of them. I always do. This, of course, is the age of the celebration of the lie.

Frankly this kind of thinking disgusts me, but it's not like its going away. The results of it not going away are written in the planetary atmosphere, as tragic as that is. Maybe the next generation will do better. They couldn't do worse.

History will not forgive us, nor should it.

Enjoy a pleasant work week.