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

(37,952 posts)
24. Joe Romm is yet another arsonist complaining about forest fires.
Tue Jan 12, 2016, 01:41 AM
Jan 2016

His claim that "nuclear power has priced itself out of the market," completely ignores the fact that the nearly two trillion bucks squandered on his favorite "alternative" which, um, doesn't work, squandered nearly two trillion bucks in the last decade without producing significant energy.

Two...Trillion...Bucks...

He has spent his entire career trashing the world's largest, by far, source of climate change gas free energy, and is still at it.

The result has been very, very, very, very, very, very clear: 401.85 ppm, CO2, December 2015

A fool like Romm ought not to have the audacity to complain about "learning curves." He has spent a long and essentially worthless career not learning a damned thing.

Hansen's paper has something called "numbers," including lives saved, a subject about which the bourgeois gasbags in the anti-nuke industry couldn't care less.

Prevented Mortality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Historical and Projected Nuclear Power The numbers are irrefutable.

As for economics, a subject of which Romm and every other rote anti-nuke is completely ignorant, it behooves him to explain why electricity rates in Germany are more than double those in the neighboring country of France. Until he, or any other dumb anti-nuke can do so while opening their insipid slogan chanting mouths, they ought to avoid the word "economics.

The tiresome fool Romm, who like most rote anti-nukes has no idea how a nuclear power plant works, and is indifferent to the fact that the nuclear industry built more than 400 reactors in less than 20 years that produce more than 25 exajoules of primary energy per year, is simply repeated the same cant of every other very, very, very, very stupid anti-nuke on the planet. The United States built almost 1/4 of those reactors, and it enjoys some of the lowest electricity rates on the planet. Like every other stupid anti-nuke, Romm wishes to declare that what has already happened is impossible.

What an ass!

Romm however, like a clock that's accidentally right twice a day, has made one true statement in this tiresome rehash of balderdash: Nuclear energy is not being held back by "envirnomentalists."

Neither he, nor any other anti-nuke is, in fact, an environmentalist. They are all, 100% of anti-nukes, not in fact "environmentalists." They don't know anything about the environment. They don't care a whit about the environment. They are tiresome cultists who keep repeating the same stupid lies to themselves and to anyone else who will listen. If they knew something about the environment, or if they cared something about humanity, th wouldn't be creating an "economic" incentive for Chinese people to dig massive amounts of cadmium and wild cat lanthanides to build that useless so called "renewable energy" crap they on which they are squandering the future.

That cadmium is never, ever, going to be sequestered again.

Have a nice week.

Recommendations

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

I really appreciate this article. Gregorian Jan 2016 #1
Happy it helps. kristopher Jan 2016 #5
Nuclear is not going to 'solve it's nagging problems' bloom Jan 2016 #2
So much mental horsepower being wasted on the wrong problem. GliderGuider Jan 2016 #3
As if you'd know what the right problems are... kristopher Jan 2016 #4
Bless the witless minions of the so-called "natural" gas industry. hunter Jan 2016 #6
Yep, a baseload system around nuclear would lock in heavy natgas consumption kristopher Jan 2016 #7
Fuck this shit: hunter Jan 2016 #22
The world is what it is kristopher Jan 2016 #23
I'm not a "self loathing human..." hunter Jan 2016 #26
You may be right... kristopher Jan 2016 #27
What is it about this consumer economy you can't do without? hunter Jan 2016 #28
Any time there is trade there is a "consumer economy". kristopher Jan 2016 #33
Then we pass like every other "innovative" exponentially growing population that has gone before us. hunter Jan 2016 #34
"Special"? kristopher Jan 2016 #35
Biology. It's been around a long time. hunter Jan 2016 #36
That's your core argument? kristopher Jan 2016 #39
Is that all you got? hunter Jan 2016 #40
When you keep rephrasing the same point... kristopher Jan 2016 #42
KerTWANG! Nihil Jan 2016 #46
I believe the chief problem is one of perceived absolutes OKIsItJustMe Jan 2016 #8
Yes, I've heard your 'belief' on this before, and you still kristopher Jan 2016 #9
Romm’s stance appears to be similar to mine OKIsItJustMe Jan 2016 #10
No it isn't. kristopher Jan 2016 #11
Then you misrepresent my stance OKIsItJustMe Jan 2016 #12
Your stance is clearly stated in the thread linked above kristopher Jan 2016 #13
A clearer statement from Romm OKIsItJustMe Jan 2016 #14
Not true. You are reading very selectively (again). kristopher Jan 2016 #15
You must be mistaking me with a straw man OKIsItJustMe Jan 2016 #16
That isn't relevant to the topic. kristopher Jan 2016 #17
You claim I “have been an unambiguous promoter of nuclear power for years.” OKIsItJustMe Jan 2016 #18
It's a flat fact. kristopher Jan 2016 #19
Then prove it or apologize OKIsItJustMe Jan 2016 #20
Riiiiight... kristopher Jan 2016 #21
The long list of links given says its not (nt) LouisvilleDem Jan 2016 #52
Joe Romm is yet another arsonist complaining about forest fires. NNadir Jan 2016 #24
Riiiight.... " Regulators question CO2 plan for $19.3 billion Virginia nuclear reactor" kristopher Jan 2016 #25
As some kind of Luddite I disagree with you about many things... hunter Jan 2016 #29
The implication being that he is the true environmentalist cprise Jan 2016 #31
? hunter Jan 2016 #32
Here in this forum, about a decade ago... cprise Jan 2016 #30
Since, at 440 reactors nuclear only supplied about 2% of global final energy supply... kristopher Jan 2016 #37
2% ? progressoid Jan 2016 #47
Check the titles to the charts kristopher Jan 2016 #48
I get that. But who made that chart? progressoid Jan 2016 #49
Perhaps that's the question you should have asked then. kristopher Jan 2016 #50
Essentially, they look at opposite ends of this type of chart kristopher Jan 2016 #51
Has anyone produced an updated (e.g., 2015) version of that 2010 diagram yet? Nihil Jan 2016 #53
No. We can choose a high energy industrial society or not. hunter Jan 2016 #38
There you go again with meaningless metrics kristopher Jan 2016 #41
I've maybe slept with, but not quite fucked, some of your heroes. hunter Jan 2016 #43
I have no idea what you are talking about. kristopher Jan 2016 #44
Lucky you. It was just a dream. hunter Jan 2016 #45
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»Joe Romm: Why James Hanse...»Reply #24