Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

NNadir

(38,091 posts)
33. Well, we have to concede that anti-nuke ignorance, fear, and superstition HAVE
Sun Feb 10, 2013, 09:03 PM
Feb 2013

won the day.

Although commercial electricity in France, according to the EU, is the lowest in Europe, about half that of the gas and coal hellhole in Germany, the liars in the fig-leaf-for-the-gas-and-coal so called "renewable energy industry" keep insisting that the world's largest, by far, source of climate change gas free energy is "too expensive."

Why?

Because fig-leaf-for-the-gas-and-coal so called "renewable energy industry" membership requires that none of its members be able to do math.

Last year, 2012, was the second worst year ever recorded in human history for increases in the dangerous fossil fuel waste concentrations in the atmosphere, second only to 1998, when the shit-for-brains anti-nuke Joe Romm was running the climate office.

We are now into our 60th year of hearing from the shit-for-brains anti-nukes about how so called renewables will save us.

The failed effort, which has sucked hundreds of billions of dollars, euros, yen, yuan, etc out of government programs that might have provided for the educations of future engineers, decent sanitation for the 3 billion people who don't have it, real environmental protection and productive nuclear energy, can't even power the servers dedicated to telling us how wonderful solar energy, for example is.

After 60 years of hearing about how great solar energy is, the EIA figures show that the entire solar industry on the entire planet, despite having released some of the most potent climate forcing gases known, can't even produce a third of an exajoule of energy on a planet - again with 3 billion people living in squalor - that consumes 510 exajoules a year.

And of course, to repeat, 2012 was the second worst year for climate change gas increases ever recorded, not only for carbon dioxide, but also for the real fuel being pushed by the "renewables will save us" liars, methane, dangerous natural gas.

But let's face it: The anti-nukes are winning. One should never underestimate the power of ignorance.

Heckuva job anti-nuke:

You must be very...



...very...



...very...



...very...



proud.

Congratulations on your Pyrrhic - literally - victory.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Exit economics: The relatively low cost of Germany's nuclear phase-out kristopher Jan 2013 #1
And part of the economics is that German lignite is cheap muriel_volestrangler Jan 2013 #5
Implication vs reality kristopher Jan 2013 #6
German carbon emissions from electricity generation went up in 2011 muriel_volestrangler Jan 2013 #7
"greenhouse gas emissions should be of primary interest" kristopher Jan 2013 #9
Uh, no, the German electricity sector is becoming ever more dependent on coal Yo_Mama Feb 2013 #37
Your characterization of that information is untrue. kristopher Feb 2013 #40
My "characterization" comes directly from the sources Yo_Mama Feb 2013 #41
"the German electricity sector is becoming ever more dependent on coal" kristopher Feb 2013 #42
Sup Kris XemaSab Jan 2013 #2
du rec. nt xchrom Jan 2013 #3
Welcome back, n/t CRH Jan 2013 #4
Thank you. nt kristopher Feb 2013 #36
Coal is economical. joshcryer Jan 2013 #8
Unfortunately it is. kristopher Jan 2013 #10
A tax. joshcryer Feb 2013 #11
"Externalize the cost of coal"?? kristopher Feb 2013 #12
I should have said "address the external costs of coal." joshcryer Feb 2013 #13
Think about your "belief" kristopher Feb 2013 #14
You've been saying that for years. joshcryer Feb 2013 #15
Why would people burn coal when it will cost less to use renewables? kristopher Feb 2013 #17
Well, sure, they wouldn't, if it did. joshcryer Feb 2013 #22
Price trends are unequivocal. kristopher Feb 2013 #25
This message was self-deleted by its author GliderGuider Feb 2013 #16
"all the energy that is economical to use" kristopher Feb 2013 #18
This message was self-deleted by its author GliderGuider Feb 2013 #19
re: Harris kristopher Feb 2013 #20
This message was self-deleted by its author GliderGuider Feb 2013 #21
Your second clause is specifically rejected by Harris kristopher Feb 2013 #23
This message was self-deleted by its author GliderGuider Feb 2013 #27
I didn't think you were being critical kristopher Feb 2013 #28
This message was self-deleted by its author GliderGuider Feb 2013 #30
This message was self-deleted by its author GliderGuider Feb 2013 #24
"Increase efficiency when energy sources are limiting" kristopher Feb 2013 #26
This message was self-deleted by its author GliderGuider Feb 2013 #29
That's odd, GG. kristopher Feb 2013 #31
I realized I wasn't ready to start discussing this yet, for a variety of reasons. GliderGuider Feb 2013 #32
Well, we have to concede that anti-nuke ignorance, fear, and superstition HAVE NNadir Feb 2013 #33
"anti-nuke ignorance, fear, and superstition HAVE"... kristopher Feb 2013 #34
You can't admit that anti-nuke ignorance/fear/superstition EXIST FBaggins Feb 2013 #35
Even after Fukushima, twice as many French support nuclear power as are against wtmusic Feb 2013 #38
How many want to transition away from nuclear? kristopher Feb 2013 #39
I always thought the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists was written by scientists wtmusic Feb 2013 #43
You ARE the person who was promoting the fictional... kristopher Feb 2013 #44
You have distinct memories of that, do you? wtmusic Feb 2013 #45
That's a very convenient memory lapse kristopher Feb 2013 #46
And a scathing critique it is. wtmusic Feb 2013 #47
You have to admit your standards of what constitute "science" are very subjective kristopher Feb 2013 #48
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»Nuclear power and the Fre...»Reply #33