The Answer to Climate Change Is Renewable Energy, Not Nuclear Power

[ljm2002]

17. I can't help it...

...for some reason, I see a vision of Rumpelstiltskin jumping up and down getting ready to tear himself in half because he's just SO ANGRY that anyone knows his name. In your case, you're just SO ANGRY that anyone disagrees with ANYTHING you say because you think you know it all.

Here's a clue for you: you don't know it all. You are typical of a certain sort of scientific thinker: very good (perhaps) at analytical thinking and solving difficult equations -- but with a narrow, reductionist viewpoint that does not allow for systems-level thinking -- and truly devoid of creative imagination. At least that is my observation from reading your comments in this group.

BTW, I can't help but notice you declined to supply us with details of your own illustrious career so we can compare it against that of Mr. Lovins.

Also you misquoted me:

"ljm2002 states
But whatever traditional eneljmrgy source they are leaning on at present for the remainder of their power -- and for 24/7 capability -- it is still the case that relative to the US, the countries I mentioned have a large part of their demand being addressed RIGHT NOW by renewables -- and all the ones I noted are ABOVE the 20% that the NAS claims is the MOST we can hope to do. These are real, already-existing counterexamples to the NAS claim."

BWAHAHA, I can practically see the spittle flying out of your mouth -- you get so emotional, it even interferes with your ability to cut and paste on a message board, while arguing with someone you believe to be your inferior -- because of course, anyone who would DARE to question you is one of those soft-headed, intellectually inferior "environmentalists". It is amusing to watch.

And of course you did not refute what I said about energy percentage, you just jumped up and down and claimed it cannot be so. You claim the NAS says we can only get 20% of our energy from renewables, yet other countries have already passed that. Again: it's hard to refute REALITY. You don't seem to even grasp the concept of a distributed grid, nor of load balancing between different sources. And you seem to think we won't ever be able to store the energy produced by renewables; I say we've done it before with other energy sources, and we'll do it again for renewables. There have already been advances in this area. Also we can use natural gas and biomass to even out power sources -- not carbon free, but still, achievable now as we go forward into a cleaner future.

Of course nuclear is in a class by itself -- when running, it's clean all right, as long as you ignore nuclear waste and the danger of radioactive contamination, that is -- effects that can last hundreds and thousands of years. By the way, how many civilizations have lasted over 1000 years? Because if we seriously expect to be able to handle nuclear waste, we need a civilization that is guaranteed to last that long and much longer.

The very first thing we must do is increase efficiency -- unless you believe, like Dick Cheney, that conservation, "while a personal virtue", cannot be part of a realistic energy policy. Yet with advances in materials science and other efficiencies, we could cut our power usage in half while maintaining the standard of living we have right now.

Didn't you say you work at Livermore? I guess it's true what Upton Sinclair said: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!"