The article below was written by one of the hotshots of environmental policy who got Obama to invest $150 billion into his initiative.

Im sure we have all heard the argument about needing nuclear to bridge the gap until renewables technology advances and costs decrease. The reality for renewables may be far worse than that. And that is assuming that we can even figure out the battery problem this century. So far, despite all of the efforts, there are no concrete gains on the industrial side. Scientists have exhausted all of the avenues with any real hope of capturing energy for large population centers. And while Germany was holding itself up as a beacon of renewables adoption, they were quietly importing biomass to burn in order to keep the skyrocketing energy costs down. France was leading the world in nuclear energy production and research until Germany, a fellow EU member, bullied them into renewables. Their energy costs also rose significantly and played a part in people rioting.


https://quillette.com/2019/02/27/why-re ... he-planet/

It was actually written by a pro-nuclear lobbyist. He conveniently omits that from his bio and intentionally misleadingly named propaganda organization “Environmental Progress”. Otherwise it was very unbiased.

It was actually written by a pro-nuclear lobbyist. He conveniently omits that from his bio and intentionally misleadingly named propaganda organization “Environmental Progress”. Otherwise it was very unbiased.

We have 90k miles of shoreline in the United States, we should have wave farms all over the place.

Now tell me where he is wrong... Oh wait, you can't.

For the record I am not anti-nuclear. I am an engineer and believe in technology and science. I certainly believe nuclear technology can advance like any other area of design. That said, I also believe it is important to read what is a clearly slanted article with a skeptical eye.

The technologies behind solar, wind and other renewables such as geothermal and hydroelectric have progressed greatly over the last 2 decades. To act as if they’ve reached their peak and have been proven to be economically unfeasible is both short-sighted and misleading. For instance, the lobbyist downplays battery technology with a single dismissive statement. I’d simply point to the advancement in electric cars...they went from an 80 mile range to 280 in the blink of an eye. The lobbyist cites an example of California dams being a costly retrofit but doesn’t even touch on alternatives (such as compressed air). Why? Because they don’t fit his narrative. He tosses in heart tugging anecdotes about condors and tortoises that in any other context would make leash puke. He minimizes the extraordinary cost of a new plant (google plants currently under construction if you want to feel better about Chicago budget overruns) and downplays safety concerns as if they were practically nonexistent. He doesn’t mention that high quality uranium is not an unending resource nor the fact that we import almost all of it - nearly half from countries that are not exactly trusted partners. He cherrypicked economic data on Germany and other EU countries without context. He certainly doesn’t want to bring up oil rich and highly conservative Texas where they are up to 18% renewable and have seen their electricity rates go down. That’s what lobbyists do. But on this board if you choose to question their propaganda you are accused of ad hominem attacks.

It would be one thing if this guy hasn't been on the far-left of environmentalism for most of his life. He got out of that bubble after devoting years to finding concrete answers to the problem of actually deploying renewables. The guy was doing the work. He was on the absolute frontline and he didn't find the answers. I think that should be praised, not demonized. Nuclear is obviously a large part of the solution so he has embraced it. And he's not the only one. There are now significant leaders leaving the far-left of environmentalism and social progress. This is how we eventually solve our problems. People leaving their belief bubbles and joining in the middle.

The US has managed to keep energy costs stable while having a reasonable renewable adoption rate of 10%. That's largely because of the natural gas revolution. And that is exactly why Texas has been able to see lower energy costs while also embracing wind and solar. That's a good thing. Britain likely could be majority renewable and energy independant right now had they also chosen to ramp up shale natural gas quicker. So could a lot of Europe and imagine Putin not being able to hold that over them. But the EU is still scared of GMOs let alone shale gas. It's amazing the level of praise the EU gets for being progressive when they are often anything but. They oversee the most economically protective economy outside of China.

Certainly too slow for some people but the general consensus is for a country the size of the US, 20% of our energy from wind and solar is doable by 2050 without many years of litigation and significant disruption to endangered species. That is far from the 80% minimum that hardcore activists are calling for. And even 20% would require a significant amount of new transmission line. Like with high speed rail, there are some areas of the country too densely populated for it to be economically feasible. We are not China that can bulldoze a 1000 year old village in the name of progress. The US has to build around what we already have. There are five major urban centers in the North East on a straight line from Washington DC to NYC. It's absolutely perfect for a true high speed rail line but it's economically unfeasible (by a long shot) due to the need to relocate so many people. Even if large amounts of people would agree to be relocated and prevent decades of litigation in cases like this, it adds many billions of dollars to the cost of high speed rail and energy transmission line projects for solar and wind farms. Wireless energy transmission could be an answer but there is already evidence that it could have even more of a negative impact on animals, and even humans.

People have to be reasonable and hear the other side of the argument. People who wear the 'embracing of science' on their sleeve, rarely embrace all of it. That happens far more on the left at this point. There have been several good studies that show people on the left only listen to people on the left while people on the right hear both. Some of that is likely down to the fact the left dominates media but regardless, even on Twitter where you choose who to follow, people on the right follow both. For what it is worth, Im not on the right and Im certainly not on the left anymore. When I left my political bubble 3 years ago it was the most liberating and also confusing period of my life. Id never go back.

The safety of nuclear has been exhaustively studied. If we hadn't incorrectly demonized it there would be very few coal plants left. People charging their cars might actually have a reason to be proud they bought an EV.

He is a paid lobbyist. Even if you’ve never heard of him before it should have been obvious by the one-sided nature of the “article”. The fact that he starts off by telling you how he was once on the other side but now has seen the light is one of the most common ploys and immediately calls into question the veracity of his claims.
Again, I am not against nuclear energy. I just don’t feel an article written by a guy who is paid to promote his side and bash the others is as informative as you seem to feel.

Attacking someone's motive or their credentials is weak. It's very simple - no matter who makes an argument, refute their points, not their credentials or motive. That way, it doesn't matter who is making the argument. If you want to point out that the guy is biased, show us where he is biased.

If the most ignorant man on Earth had the solution to our energy problems, would we just brush him aside because he's generally ignorant?

Attacking someone's motive or their credentials is weak. It's very simple - no matter who makes an argument, refute their points, not their credentials or motive. That way, it doesn't matter who is making the argument. If you want to point out that the guy is biased, show us where he is biased.

If the most ignorant man on Earth had the solution to our energy problems, would we just brush him aside because he's generally ignorant?

No but he'll face more scrutiny than others would.

But a good idea is a good idea. Even if it comes from a twat.

He is a paid lobbyist. Even if you’ve never heard of him before it should have been obvious by the one-sided nature of the “article”. The fact that he starts off by telling you how he was once on the other side but now has seen the light is one of the most common ploys and immediately calls into question the veracity of his claims.
Again, I am not against nuclear energy. I just don’t feel an article written by a guy who is paid to promote his side and bash the others is as informative as you seem to feel.