French carbon intensity is 32 g CO2/kwh as of this hour.

[NNadir]

Electricity Map, France, accessed 7:41 US (EST) 04/01/23, 1h41m Paris 04/02/23.

In antinuke heaven, Germany, the carbon intensity is 277 g CO2/kWh, a little more than half of its normal carbon intensity as the wind is blowing there and it's just after midnight on a Sunday morning. In percent talk, this is 866% higher than the carbon intensity of France.



This won't matter to people who think that nuclear energy is "too dangerous," but climate change isn't.

It also won't matter to people who think that nuclear energy is "too expensive," but climate change isn't.

Nor will it matter who think that Fukushima is the worst energy disaster of all time but climate change isn't.

It also won't matter to people who are obsessed that someone may die from exposure to radiation because of the Fukushima event 12 years ago, but couldn't care less about the 18,000 people who will die today from air pollution.

Have a pleasant Sunday.

[EarnestPutz]

1. Mr. NN - Please keep up the good fight, even though it must seem like....

.....you are a prophet in the wilderness. I believe that you are making converts.

[ret5hd]

2. My ONLY issue with NN is he doesn't go far enough:

I still believe the only hope for long term human survival is a return to a pre-industrial lifestyle. Yeah, that WOULD lead to a mass die-off of humans...but that's kinda what's needed also.

[hunter]

6. Returning to a "pre-industrial lifestyle" isn't really an option.

Sure, a total collapse of civilization might lead to that, but it's not an ethical position. We have to figure out how to support every human who currently lives on this planet, and we should also figure out how to stabilize our population. Technically, we have all the tools we need to accomplish that. The problems are political. Certain religions and ideologies, especially the anti-intellectual traditions, are maladaptive in the modern world.

I figure a fully "renewable energy" powered utopia could at best support about 4 billion people, and that would come with a huge per capita environmental footprint. No, Mother Earth News country living is not the answer.

So, if you were a cruel and capricious god or all powerful Emperor of Earth, which people would you do away with? Maybe you would start with the people who have the largest environmental footprints? That would, of course, be the billionaires with their private jets, but it would also include most of the people who post here on DU.

If civilization collapses and a few billion people perish then that will be on us, not nature the science, not Nature as the wrathful goddess (for those who believe in such.)

One of my favorite books is Ursula K. Le Guin's Always Coming Home but, same as I feel about the industrial Star Trek future, I'd like to skip the part where this civilization collapses.

[NNadir]

7. Well stated. I had planned to make essentially a highly similar response. n/t.

[Haggard Celine]

3. I agree. We need a lot more nuclear power in this country.

We’ve got to kick the oil habit, and nuclear seems like the way to go, if we’re going to keep on in the lifestyle to which we’ve become accustomed.

[Delphinus]

4. There was

an interesting interview this past week with Jen White of 1A talking about nuclear energy, nuclear waste, etc. Even though I didn't get to hear all of it, perhaps that is a sign that more are open to using it.

[NNadir]

5. I've been advocating for nuclear energy ever since the outcome of the Chernobyl event became...

...clear to me, as it represents, unambiguously, the "worst case" of a reactor failure.

In 2023, with the reality of the planetary scale consequences of climate change clearly before us, the world is clearly redefining what "dangerous" and "expensive" means.

We still have dunderheads who don't get it at all. I've heard, for example, morons carry on, for example, about the "cost" of the Vogtle reactors, a case of arsonists complaining about forest fires, since these same morons have worked throughout their far less than useful lives to destroy nuclear manufacturing infrastructure.

Nevertheless, that infrastructure is being rebuilt under "build back better," and in some cases, being built for a new set of flexible mission reactors.

Probably it comes under the heading of "too little, too late," but it still remains the best shot, really the only shot, we have to save what can be saved, and restore what can be restored.

It is definitely true that all over the world, opposition to nuclear energy, which I interpret as enthusiasm for climate change, is declining, rapidly so.