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

PamW

(1,825 posts)
12. Then you misunderstand my position...
Tue Nov 12, 2013, 06:56 PM
Nov 2013

caraher states
As I understand your position, it is that fossil fuel alternatives other than nuclear are essentially pointless distractions.

Then you misunderstand my position.

I'm not saying that non-nuclear fossil fuel alternatives are pointless distractions.

I'm saying what the National Academy of Sciences is saying; which is that those alternatives can't do it all.

The NAS has derived a number of limits on what can be done with those alternatives. That's also what the 4 pro-nuclear climate scientists are saying.

There has been this "credo" that wind / solar can do it all; we just have to go "do it".

The NAS, other scientists and I say that there are limits on what wind / solar can do.

That means there is a big chunk of our electric demand that can't be met by those technologies; and we need a low-carbon energy source to fill that need.

Nuclear should be that low-carbon energy source.

I'm not saying that our energy portfolio should be all nuclear with regard to electricity. I'm part of the "all the above" crowd.

It's the wind / solar crowd that wants to eliminate one of the alternatives a priori and for no good reason.

PamW

Recommendations

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

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»Pandora's Atomic Box Scor...»Reply #12