This is not a joke. There are no wild cards. There’s no “yeah, but”. This is by
Joshua S. Goldstein, professor emeritus of international relations at American University, and Staffan A. Qvist, a Swedish energy engineer, are the authors of “A Bright Future: How Some Countries Have Solved Climate Change and the Rest Can Follow.â€Â Steven Pinker is a professor of psychology at Harvard University and is the author of “Enlightenment Now.â€
This is not something one would expect the NY Times to allow on the opinion pages
Nuclear Power Can Save the World
As young people rightly demand real solutions to climate change, the question is not what to do — eliminate fossil fuels by 2050 — but how. Beyond decarbonizing today’s electric grid, we must use clean electricity to replace fossil fuels in transportation, industry and heating. We must provide for the fast-growing energy needs of poorer countries and extend the grid to a billion people who now lack electricity. And still more electricity will be needed to remove excess carbon dioxide from the atmosphere by midcentury.
Where will this gargantuan amount of carbon-free energy come from? The popular answer is renewables alone, but this is a fantasy. Wind and solar power are becoming cheaper, but they are not available around the clock, rain or shine, and batteries that could power entire cities for days or weeks show no sign of materializing any time soon. Today, renewables work only with fossil-fuel backup.
Germany, which went all-in for renewables, has seen little reduction in carbon emissions, and, according to our calculations, at Germany’s rate of adding clean energy relative to gross domestic product, it would take the world more than a century to decarbonize, even if the country wasn’t also retiring nuclear plants early. A few lucky countries with abundant hydroelectricity, like Norway and New Zealand, have decarbonized their electric grids, but their success cannot be scaled up elsewhere: The world’s best hydro sites are already dammed.
OK, so they’re pushing this because of ‘climate change’, but, regardless, there’s nothing wrong with pushing more clean power. I’ve noted numerous times I am not a fan of coal. Solar and wind would be best off for small building use, rather than these giant “farms” which despoil wild spaces. Hydro is great, but it is only available in certain areas, and hardcore enviroweenies not only block new construction, but want to tear down existing power generations sites. But, if the Cult of Climastrology really wants to Do Something, here
But we actually have proven models for rapid decarbonization with economic and energy growth: France and Sweden. They decarbonized their grids decades ago and now emit less than a tenth of the world average of carbon dioxide per kilowatt-hour. They remain among the world’s most pleasant places to live and enjoy much cheaper electricity than Germany to boot.
They did this with nuclear power. And they did it fast, taking advantage of nuclear power’s intense concentration of energy per pound of fuel. France replaced almost all of its fossil-fueled electricity with nuclear power nationwide in just 15 years; Sweden, in about 20 years. In fact, most of the fastest additions of clean electricity historically are countries rolling out nuclear power.
If Warmists really want to lower “carbon pollution”, nuclear is the way to go. Wouldn’t it be better to recharge their Tesla’s and such with nuclear rather than coal/oil? Regardless of some Warmists wanting nuclear to reduce CO2 output, Skeptics can agree on using way more nuclear. Let’s make this happen.
Would it really save the world from a slight increase in temperature? Not really. But, it would make Warmists feel better and provide a lot of affordable power.
“This is not something one would expect the NY Times to allow on the opinion pages”
Why not? Unlike Fox News (and this website), The New York Times is not dedicated to pushing propaganda for just one end of the political spectrum, regardless of the facts.
Furthermore, this is hardly the first time an opinion favoring nuclear power has appeared in the New York Times — which Porter Good would know, had he taken the thirty seconds required to perform a quick search on the topic.
Funny how not bothering to get the facts can come back to bite you, huh?
The New York Times is not dedicated to pushing propaganda for just one end of the political spectrum, regardless of the facts.
I have to reach for my oxygen, I’m laughing so hard, I can’t breathe.
The Gray Lady that couldn’t even call AQ in Iraq by the name they used themselves because their editorial position was AQ wasn’t there, so they called it AQ in Mesopotamia is not dedicated to pushing propaganda?
In the immortal words of Daffy Duck, “That’s rich. I’ll say. Oh! It is to laugh”.
Good Lord, where’s Ronald Storrs and Gertrude Bell when you need them?
You’ve said some absolutely idiotic things on this bandwidth, but that’s the best. The last time the Gray Lady tripped over the truth that hard, the Brandenburgers had bluffed their way all the way to Kharkov.
Edward S. Dutcher,
Conservatives always consider anything to the left of FOX or Rush to be biased.
So what?
Name the last time the Gray Lady said something remotely Conservative.
Your alter ego just said something so ridiculous, it makes both of you look silly.
PS Shows how behind the times you are. Fox has drifted since the Murdoch brothers took over.
Edward Dutcher,
Do you consider the NYT to be factual? How about the Daily Caller or Breitbart?
The AP? UPI? Wall Street Journal?
Most publications have a left or right bias. The important point is whether or not they are factual.
Here’s an interesting website: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/
They find the NYT to have a left-center bias but rated high on factual content.
Daily Caller: right bias but rated ‘mixed’ on factual content.
Occupy Democrats: Extreme Left, Propaganda, Conspiracies, Some Fake News
Winning Democrats: Extreme Left, Propaganda, Fake News
We should all take the time to look up our favorite websites!!
Sorry, dear child, we consider biased things to be biased. I realize that thinking outside identity politics and thinking for one’s self are foreign to you, but please try.
Sorry, dear child, but most sources have some level of bias. You prefer right-wing bias and avoid factual reporting that doesn’t confirm your biases.
I realize that thinking outside identity politics and thinking for one’s self are foreign to you, but please try.
The New York Times had dutifully and religiously pushed “propaganda for just one end of the political spectrum, regardless of the facts” ever since Walter Durante wrote about the greatness and abundance of communism for the Times in 1932 when millions of people were being systematically starved to death and murdered in Gulags. The NYT has been a tool of left wing propaganda all my life and I’m 68 so I know you must know better.
Teach didn’t pose this was the ONLY time the Times put a positive spin on nuclear power, just one of the few. You would have got that if you took the thirty seconds required to actually engage the logic side of your brain rather than the hate side.
Bill Bear, you have a hostility problem that is consuming you. Seek help.
“Teach didn’t pose this was the ONLY time the Times put a positive spin on nuclear power, just one of the few.”
That’s a lie. Porter Good’s exact words were:
“This is not something one would expect the NY Times to allow on the opinion pages”
Trunpkins see their Dear Leader get away with lie after lie after lie, so, like any child exposed to bad behavior, they mimic it.
You have reading comprehension problems, where you see everything from your hardcore leftist POV.
Now, do you think that nuclear power should be expanded or not? That is the central point of the post and the opinion piece, but, you want to get bogged down in minutia.
“You have reading comprehension problems”
False. Porter Good clearly stated that he did not expect the NYT to publish an opinion piece favoring nuclear power.
Why? Because he sees everything from a hardcore regressive POV that demands that he remain ignorant of inconvenient facts.
“do you think that nuclear power should be expanded or not?”
I believe that the expanding energy needs of the planet demands that we examine all potential energy sources, including new nuclear reactor designs. Those expanding energy needs also demand that we look carefully at other sources of energy, including renewables, and that we work diligently to conserve energy where possible.
No, it’s merely because the Gray Lady is as crooked as a dog’s hind leg.
You have reading comprehension issues. The two sentences you quote are not mutually exclusive nor contradictory.
Only an idiot liberal (BIRM) would claim that they are.
alan,
You may have missed the memo but Teach is trying to limit personal attacks, e.g., calling another commenter an “idiot liberal”.
How’s that working out so far nignorant?
Not so well. Teach only seems to care about those that disagree with him, of which there appear to be only 3.
Although, he did specifically tell you to knock off the “nignorant” (nigger + ignorant = nignorant). He might not value a reputation of running a white nationalist site. Just wondering, have you ever called a Black man “nignorant” in real life? LOL.
Let’s see if he was serious or if you still get a pass. Your only value here is that you personally attack those that criticize Teach.
And your value here, nignorant?
Playing the innocent victim?
LOL
Drowning, please stop that.
Sorry, Elwood, I did not make a personal attack. I stated that only an idiot and/or a liberal would argue that:
“Teach didn’t pose this was the ONLY time the Times put a positive spin on nuclear power, just one of the few.â€
and:
“This is not something one would expect the NY Times to allow on the opinion pagesâ€
are mutually exclusive and/or contradictory. The two statements are not. As to liberals and idiots being identical or interchangeable, please submit any evidence to the contrary. If you can find any. I will not be holding my breath.
And it’s not. The Gray Lady has been in lockstep with the Left on anything nucular since 8/7/45.
And Trump tells the truth. That’s why you hate him. He speaks truly and people get him. They had their fill of Lefty lies and they respect a man who gives it to them straight from the shoulder.
A refreshing change from, “If you like your plan, you can keep your plan”, or, “Those jobs are never coming back”, or “If I had a son, he would look like Trayvon”.
And you really sound like an ass, sticking with that Trumpkins stuff. Sooo 2016.
Edward typed: The Gray Lady has been in lockstep with the Left on anything nucular
Except for all those stories and editorials that Bill Bear linked…
You typed: Trump tells the truth.
LOL. You’re destroying your “credibility”. Trump tells people like you what you wish to hear. Here’s several hundred lies for your perusal. http://trumplies.us/
If you look, most of those are Letters to the Editor, not opinion pieces written for the Gray Lady.
and let’s hear a lie Trump has told. You and the rest of the trolls tell us what a liar he is.
give us one.
“and let’s hear a lie Trump has told. You and the rest of the trolls tell us what a liar he is. give us one.”
Only too happy to oblige…
More where that came from…
Bill,
Sorry but those statements are true. You are consistently wrong, are you lying?
Teach appears to favor decarbonizing as long as no one says it’s to slow global warming.
That’s a cop out, but appreciated. Even deniers are beginning to recognize the error of their ways. Nuclear has its own set of problems (cost, insurance, waste, terrorism) but the specter of global warming is changing some minds and resetting risk vs reward.
Teach – You keep repeating “a slight increase in temperature”, but that conclusion is not exactly consistent with reality. A nearly 1C increase over a century is a significant increase, making the current average surface temperature likely the warmest of the Holocene, especially significant since the starting temperature (“little ice age”) may have been the coldest in the Holocene. We understand denier complaints regarding the “fraudulent hockey stick”, Climategate, the Roman WP, the MWP, even the Conan WP… but these denier arguments are not supported by evidence. On top of all this, there’s no physical reason to think the warming will stop soon.
“Teach appears to favor decarbonizing as long as no one says it’s to slow global warming.”
I could care less if it happens or not. But, if getting nuclear power will make you Warmists happy at the same time, so be it.
“A nearly 1C increase over a century is a significant increase”
Except, it isn’t 1C yet, and it is actually over a period of almost 170 years, making it pretty much standard for a Holocene warm period.
“there’s no physical reason to think the warming will stop soon.”
Except it has stopped multiple times during the Modern Warm Period.
Would you agree to nuclear power if it would help with “decarbonization”, Jeff?
Teach –
You mention the other typical Holocene warm periods that warmed at the same rate as today’s. Evidence?
It stops for a short time then starts up again… it keeps warming. I’m sure you’ve seen the data.
I have no problems with nuclear power.
If it stops for a short time, then, what caused the pauses?
I’m glad we can agree on nuclear. We should have been looking at 5th and 6th gen for decades now.
The pauses are in the mean global surface temperature which is impacted by many physical factors that we’ve discussed including volcanoes, El Nino, La Nina… the heat content of the planet continues to increase steadily.
Agreed, nuclear should play a role. Will we commit to a Manhattan Project on nuclear? It would take a decade and hundreds of new reactors and cost over a $trillion but would be an incredible economic boost. All energy sources have risks and benefits that are constantly being balanced and rebalanced and compared to other sources.
Of course he has a problem with bnucualr power.
The Left has since we ended WWII. It was rrrraaaacccciiiissssttttt. It was krool.
It threatened Communism with annihilation, is what they really meant.
Tomorrow Jeffery will deny he ever said it, once his trollmassas find out.
1C is 1.38 F.
Yeah, that’s slight.
And keep avoiding rebutting the hockey stick. It makes you sound so authoritative.
Edward typed: 1C is 1.38F. Yeah, that’s slight.
Yeah, but that’s wrong on both counts.
((212-32)/100-0)) x 1C = 1.8F
A 1.8F (1C) increase in the global mean surface temperature is significant, not slight.
Where you’re confused is that you likely believe that a global 1.8F increase is similar to one day in your back yard being 70F and the next day 71.8F, and most humans couldn’t tell the difference. But that’s not the same as the global temperature.
Try again 1C translates to 33.38F, 1.38 degrees, since the freezing of water is absolute, regardless the scale .
In any case, it’s still slight.
that’s not the same as the global temperature.
God, do you need help.
No disrespect. It took you 24 hrs to come up with that?
We all need some help at times.
In this case you could just admit your mistake and move on.
Here, try this. If each degree C = 1.38 F then when the temp goes from 0C to 100C the Fahrenheit temp would increase by 100 x 1.38 or 138F. Add the 32F offset…does water boil at 170F?
By my math where 1C = 1.8F… going from 0 to 100C gives us 180F + 32F = 212F
Regardless, the warming has been significant.
“We understand the dinner complaints about the hockey stick, climategate, Roman WP, MWP, But these denier arguments aren’t supported by evidence.†Really? So if you want some, I’ll be happy to show you. Again.
I’ve seen your links to the Hockey Schtick blog run by Gosselin.
Yes, and they’re links to peer-reviewed papers from many sources. Problem?
Yeah, having the truth smacked in your face is a real bummer.
“Denierâ€
I don’t believe there’s anyone who posts here including our illustrious leader, Teach who does not believe the climate has changed, is changing and will change in the future. What we don’t buy into is the “timetable” hysteria of AGW. Man in interacting with the ecology must by his mere existence have an impact upon it. Whether that impact is detrimental in the short or long is the rub. Whether nature itself can adjust to these changes or whether mankind through his technological advancements can or if they both can together is really the question.
But hysteria and “the sky is falling” type of hype delivered by climate cultists is definitely not the answer. You guys have taken a climate science problem and expanded it to become a social, class, religious, political and economic leviathan. That’s where we part company.
After fifty years of false, wrong and silly predictions and prognostications by “experts” all of which have thus fare proved wrong we, being rational people, are no longer taking your word for it. And a 97% “consensus” of bought and paid for non scientists is not convincing. Neither is calling us names at every discussion.
Fact is, until such time arrives that we have enough nuclear power generation capabilities to replace fossil fuels for our electric grid we will continue to need fossil fuels. Fact is until all modes of transportation can run safely, efficiently and far on electric we will be burning gas. Fact is unless we come up with ways to replace the millions of products currently made from petroleum and petroleum byproducts we will need oil.
“If Warmists really want to lower “carbon pollutionâ€, nuclear is the way to go.”
That tells us quite a bit about what their agenda is NOT.
“A Bright Future: How Some Countries Have Solved Climate Change and the Rest Can Follow.â€Â
Solved? SOLVED? LOL.
Would that be “global warming” or “manmade global warming” or “CAGW” or …?
And what “problem”?
Some computer generated “problem”?
Sweden and France have not solved any so called “problem”.
They’ve invested in a reliable source of electricity. Good for them.
Sorry, dear child, but most sources have some level of bias. You prefer right-wing bias and avoid factual reporting that doesn’t confirm your biases.
I realize that thinking outside identity politics and thinking for one’s self are foreign to you, but please try.
The day Jeffery thinks outside identity politics and thinks for his self will be the day he waves to Satan as he skates past on a foot-thick sheen of ice.
You may have missed the memo but Teach is trying to limit personal attacks, e.g., calling another commenter an “idiot liberalâ€.
So what’s your excuse?
Do you consider the NYT to be factual? How about the Daily Caller or Breitbart?
The AP? UPI? Wall Street Journal?
Most publications have a left or right bias. The important point is whether or not they are factual.
Here’s an interesting website: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/
They find the NYT to have a left-center bias but rated high on factual content.
Daily Caller: right bias but rated ‘mixed’ on factual content.
Occupy Democrats: Extreme Left, Propaganda, Conspiracies, Some Fake News
Winning Democrats: Extreme Left, Propaganda, Fake News
We should all take the time to look up our favorite websites!!
Oh, wow, you found another “fact checker”. To bad it has a rep for going after anybody who doesn’t like the site and, while it claims to be “The most comprehensive media bias resourceâ€, it consists of one guy and 5 volunteers.
Bannon turned Breit into a clown car and I don’t do paywalls.
As for the Fake News, it’s just that. And I’m talking from 50 years ago when I saw they were lying.
The pauses are in the mean global surface temperature which is impacted by many physical factors that we’ve discussed including volcanoes, El Nino, La Nina… the heat content of the planet continues to increase steadily.
Agreed, nuclear should play a role. Will we commit to a Manhattan Project on nuclear? It would take a decade and hundreds of new reactors and cost over a $trillion but would be an incredible economic boost. All energy sources have risks and benefits that are constantly being balanced and rebalanced and compared to other sources.
Sounds like Jeffery is fudging his stand on nukes.
Wow, I’m surprised.
Not so well. Teach only seems to care about those that disagree with him, of which there appear to be only 3.
Although, he did specifically tell you to knock off the “nignorant†(nigger + ignorant = nignorant). He might not value a reputation of running a white nationalist site. Just wondering, have you ever called a Black man “nignorant†in real life? LOL.
Let’s see if he was serious or if you still get a pass. Your only value here is that you personally attack those that criticize Teach.
Only 1. Cartoon characters don’t count.
Oh, cute, poor little Jeffery whines about epithets and then threatens Teach with being tagged with running a white nationalist blog.
Yiou just can’t wait for the day the Commies take over, can ya?
Edward Dutcher,
Poor little Eddie. Reduced to whining about nonexistent commies.
“Sorry but those statements are true.”
Hilarious. david7134 didn’t even read the information — he just reflexively contradicted what was said, because he finds that so much easier than thinking.