Hope it's not a gas guzzler ;).. Just a drive by to check up on ya :) but much appreciated.. Too late for where that 50 years of research is today and going forward but fo sho it's complex but Worthwhile - alternative sucks. I'll watch the vid later but get the gist and like I said in the previous post - it will take will and a combination of all of the tools in the chest. G,nite 🙂
B402, Guess you would have researched Shellenberger before posting his Ted talk, so you would be well aware of stuff like the observations in these links:
Guessing that, i am surprised you would post his talk without a mention of his past transgressions. Seems he is not exactly a super reliable character. Also, in your video about 10:52 in his one mention of solar panel waste he says some experts see us ending up saddling poor countries with it as we do with so much of our waste already. He could be right in that but still he also could have tossed in the fact that many good people were working on that. See
And guess you know he is far from the first anti-nuclear guy to switch to 'well maybe nuclear is a necessary ingredient after all.' Some on that point here:
LOL how many times have we said something like this: “I am certain there is too much certainty in the world.” ? Michael Crichton Dr Moore mentions the quote at 11:17 of the video, love it. Then 12:22 "we are in an ice age, that's why both poles are covered in ice. ...Generally a cold time in terms of earth's history." How many of your friends would say, yeah, we know that. 2015 - https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=115834018
OOPS: Patrick Moore: a Review of 'Fake Invisible Catastrophes and Threats of Doom' Analyzing the initial five chapters of Patrick Moore's recent climate-change denial book, Notes from the Road delivers a scathing critique, systematically debunking each chapter as a compilation of misinformation and pseudoscience. Updated March 9, 2024
Why is everyone so angry about generating energy? [...]He was opposed to nuclear power for years but was then suddenly converted. Mr Lynas says: "People are against everything these days - the only acceptable form of energy is magic. People are 'Nimby-istic', if that's a word, but if I had to have power generation close to me I'd prefer nuclear to coal or gas." 2014 - https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=95816050
A perfect storm of stupid [...]Not far from Oslo, in Bonn, Germany, more than 3,000 participants from some 180 countries are gathered to plan for this December's UN climate talks in Durban, South Africa. Addressing the meeting, Tove Ryding of Greenpeace said: P - "What we are talking about here is actually millions of green jobs, to transform our societies to energy systems that are safe, that are stable and that are based on renewable energy and energy efficiency." P - That move, away from fossil fuels and nuclear towards renewable energy, is being embraced now by more and more countries, especially after the Fukushima disaster. 2011 - https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=64091342
[...]The nuclear energy debate has been reopened here recently days by two members of Gillard's Labor government. The party is split on the question, as the Liberal's are split on Industrial relations policy. P - It's virtually a certainty though that nuclear is off the agenda as long as Gillard needs the Greens to stay in government. P - Labor MPs want nuclear debate on the agenda 2010 - https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=57375038
Then again maybe you didn't research Shellenberger much at all, it wouldn't be the first time i'd guessed incorrectly.
B402, The four types of climate denier, and why you should ignore them all
Damian Carrington
The shill, the grifter, the egomaniac and the ideological fool: each distorts the urgent global debate in their own way
Thu 30 Jul 2020 21.10 AEST
‘Serious debates about what to do about the climate crisis are turning into action. The deniers have nothing to contribute to this.’ Signs of global warming on the Mer de Glace glacier in the French Alps. Photograph: Konrad K/SIPA/REX/Shutterstock
A new book, described as “deeply and fatally flawed” by an expert reviewer, recently reached the top of Amazon’s bestseller list for environmental science and made it into a weekly top 10 list for all nonfiction titles.
The article was widely republished, even after being removed from its first home, Forbes, for violating the title’s editorial guidelines on self-promotion, adding further heat to the storm. And this is why all those who deny the reality or danger of the climate emergency should be ignored. Obviously, I have broken my own rule here, but only to make this vital point once and for all.
The science is clear, the severity understood at the highest levels everywhere, and serious debates about what to do are turning into action. The deniers have nothing to contribute to this.
However infuriating they are, arguing with them or debunking their theories is likely only to generate publicity or money for them. It also helps to generate a fake air of controversy over climate action that provides cover for the vested interests seeking to delay the end of the fossil fuel age.
But the deniers are not all the same. They tend to fit into one of four different categories: the shill, the grifter, the egomaniac and the ideological fool.
The shill is the easiest to understand. He, and it almost always is he, is paid by vested interests to emit clouds of confusion about the science or economics of climate action. This uncertainty creates a smokescreen behind which polluters can lobby against measures that cut their profits.
A sadder case is that of the grifters. They have found themselves earning a living by grinding out contrarian articles for rightwing media outlets. Do they actually believe the guff they write? It doesn’t matter: they just warm their hands on the outrage, count the clicks and wait for the pay cheque.
The egomaniacs are also tragic figures. They are disappointed, frustrated people whose careers have stalled and who can’t understand why the world refuses to give full reverence to their brilliance. They are desperate for recognition, and, when it stubbornly refuses to arrive, they are drawn to make increasingly extreme pronouncements, in the hope of finally being proved a dogma-busting, 21st-century Galileo.
The ideological fool is the fourth type of climate denier, and they can be intelligent. But they are utterly blinded by their inane, no-limits version of the free-market creed. The climate emergency requires coordinated global action, they observe, and that looks horribly like communism in disguise.
They could explore the many credible climate action plans being pursued, including by those on the political right. But their cognitive dissonance forces them to the conclusion that because state intervention is wrong, acting to avert climate danger cannot be right. Intellectual gymnastics to “expose” climate alarmism then follow naturally.
But why do I say ignore them all? The climate crisis is urgent, and we need debate to drive action. However, vigorous debates over action are already taking place in good faith all over the world, from the tops of governments to the smallest local action groups.
Every nation in the world signed up to the 2015 Paris climate deal, pledging to keep global heating below 2C and ideally to 1.5C. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change involves thousands of international scientists and is arguably the greatest scientific endeavour in history. It has spent three decades spelling out in painstaking detail how humanity is causing global heating, how catastrophic that threatens to be – and how drastic action is required to avert the worst.
The world of finance and business is catching up fast with the science, and almost all the technology needed already exists. In short, no sane or serious actor can countenance denial of climate danger. Bad-faith arguments motivated by greed, egomania or ideology have nothing to add.
In the US, coal is dying, because green energy is cheaper and cleaner, however great Trump claims he will make the miners. Even if Trump, and Brazil’s president, Jair Bolsonaro, persist, other nations will begin to ostracise them via trade sanctions and border taxes.
As for the shill, grifter, egomaniac and ideological fool, the reality of increasing climate impacts and successful action is fast exposing them as well. Those willing to employ the shills and the grifters are dwindling.
B402, As for the nuclear question this, i think, puts the position much better than Shellenberger's now pro-nuclear position did:
Nuclear power: Why the divide in expert views?
By Joan Blades, John Harte | October 6, 2023
Part of the bridge to zero emissions?
Within the large community of scientists who share deep concern over climate change and accept the urgent need to greatly reduce carbon emissions, there is a sharp divide over the future role of nuclear power in the global energy mix. Among these scientists, arguments for nuclear power’s necessity, desirability, dangers, and impracticality abound.
The case for nuclear power as a necessary component of the fight against climate change typically assumes that sun, wind, and increased efficiency cannot meet future energy needs, particularly baseload demand. Those making the case for the desirability of nuclear power emphasize the relatively small amount of land needed to obtain nuclear fuel and site reactors, and the near absence of the pollutants associated with fossil fuel burning during operation.
Those warning of unacceptable dangers associated with nuclear power generation point to accidents at Fukushima and Chernobyl, to increasing threat of nuclear war among nations if more and more nations have the capability to produce weapons-grade isotopes, to stages in the fuel cycle that could be vulnerable to diversion of radioactive material by terrorists, and to potential leakage from spent fuel storage sites. Those arguing that increased use of nuclear power is impractical mainly emphasize its relatively high cost, its lengthy deployment time, and the absence of widespread public acceptance.
To try to determine whether these viewpoints reflect factual disagreements, one of us (Blades) organized an expert “Living Room Conversation.” The objective was to bring knowledgeable people with diverging views together, in a private setting, to talk with each other, learn whether there is common ground on the future role of nuclear power in reducing carbon emissions, and if not, to try to identify the kind of information needed to achieve agreement on key facts. Such small, structured Living Room Conversations .. https://livingroomconversations.org/ .. are designed to encourage curiosity and listening across political and other differences.
This conversation was held in July. The six conversants included two environmental scientists whose research emphasizes climate change; one has argued that nuclear power is key to an emissions-free future (argument from necessity), and one has argued that the costs will remain prohibitive while alternatives to nuclear power are adequate (argument from impracticality and lack of necessity). The other four participants included one who had expertise on the US electric grid, one who was a radiation protection specialist, and two who were progressive climate action organizers concerned because the trusted experts they have relied on were telling them conflicting stories about the best path forward with regard to nuclear energy.
There were substantial areas of agreement in the conversation beyond consensus about the need to reduce emissions as much as we can, as quickly as we can, and as cheaply as we can, without causing unacceptable impacts on human welfare. There was consensus about the need for reliable baseload power, and for modernizing the electric grid in the United States. There was general enthusiasm for future improvements in energy efficiency to reduce overall demand. And of course there was support for continuing research, particularly on safety issues at all stages of the nuclear fuel cycle, and in the design and performance of small modular reactors.
More interesting, not a single factual disagreement arose during the two-hour conversation. Nobody claimed that waste storage demonstrably poses large and inevitable risks to the public, or that the waste problem has been solved. Nobody claimed that future Fukushimas and Chernobyls are practically unavoidable or that they are virtually impossible with current safeguards. There was really nothing to argue about … except what the future will look like!
Those arguing from nuclear’s necessity or desirability were fairly confident that future costs will drop substantially, that construction can be expedited, and that safeguards can be developed and put in place to insure public safety. Those arguing from the perspective of nuclear power’s dangers or impracticalities believe future costs will remain prohibitive, risks will remain unacceptably high, and baseload requirements can be met without nuclear power. These diverging views of the future reflected, primarily, different wishes, not possession of, or belief in, different facts. A fact checker cannot mend these differences.
The main take-home message from the conversation was the extent to which only unabashed speculation separated the two viewpoints on nuclear: One side speculates that the price will come down, that terrorists can be prevented from intercepting nuclear fuel supply chains, and that expanded nuclear power will not dangerously increase the likelihood of nuclear war; the other side speculates that the price will remain non-competitive, diversion of nuclear materials will remain a serious threat, and public opinion will continue to resist this solution. One side speculates that solar and wind cannot meet future baseload power needs, while the other hopes that a modernized grid that coordinates solar and wind power across regions, new developments in storage technology, and future development of deep, dry-rock geothermal for baseload power will be sufficient.
The issue of baseload supply emerged as particularly in need of further analysis. There is a need for more discussion of possible ways in which greater temporal flexibility in electricity use can be promoted and achieved, thereby lessening the need for a large baseload supply. The future role of baseload geothermal energy looks promising, but far more analysis and discussion of that option are needed. And finally, the vulnerability of nuclear power’s cooling needs to prolonged and intensive heat waves that could make nuclear power unreliable as a baseload electricity supply also deserves more thought.
Six conversants is not very many; we expect that if many such conversations were held today, some areas of factual disagreement could arise. But the conversation left us confident that the major divide over nuclear power stems from differing speculations about two questions: Can the cost of nuclear power and its risks be reduced substantially, and can essential baseload needs be met without it?
Given that differing hopes and fears are what mainly separates the two sides of the nuclear power debate, what should today’s energy policy look like? The following is our view, not the consensus from the conversation.
Under uncertainty, some seek to minimize the chance of a worst-case outcome, while others favor policy that promotes a best-case outcome. To minimize the likelihood of a worst-case outcome, we might compare a future in which nuclear power has contributed to the outbreak of nuclear war with a future in which the economy is at times severely disrupted by a lack of sufficient base load power. That unhappy choice would compel most people to plan for a non-nuclear future. To maximize the likelihood of best-case outcomes (safe and affordable nuclear power; solar, wind and enhanced efficiency, with sufficient baseload supply), the much lower land requirement for nuclear power should be compared with the inherent advantages of decentralized energy systems—systems less vulnerable to human error. In this light, a nuclear future is not the clear choice today in either worst or best cases.
Moreover, solar and wind power are rapidly expanding today, but around the world their output is generally far below the level at which inadequate baseload is limiting their use. Thus in the interests of reducing the climate threat, it makes sense now to greatly and rapidly increase investment in the deployment of those technologies, while investing in a modern grid and improved storage technologies.
Further research and development may provide persuasive evidence that baseload power needs can be met in a carbon-free, non-nuclear future. It might also show that both the cost of nuclear power and its hazards can be greatly reduced. Research and development are the only way to replace, with facts, the hopes and fears that currently dominate the debate.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
