Of course it is. That isn’t lost on anyone. Not sure why you even mentioned it. It’s the natural result of getting rid of a clean, green (once it was built) energy source when there wasn’t any alternative but some sort of fossil fuel replacement.
No, it won’t be the end of the world in this one case. But…10 little, 9 little, 8 little reactors…then there was one. Then there was none. And what will replace them and on what time frame. Why, it will be natural gas. Which is better than coal, but not exactly good…and a bad trade off.
I read the link. It’s a projection. That’s the part you think I’m missing…I have seen tons of similar claims and projections. If they all come true, then we don’t need to worry. Many country’s and many states and cities are claiming they will be CO2 emission free in X number of years, or 90% green on a similar time table. If they are, in this case, then you will have a point. I’m just skeptical they will be across not just one power company (which is what your cite is showing) but across the entire state, and across more than one state. And, you already said it’s going to be hard without nuclear. Yet, we are going to have to do it pretty much without nuclear. So…‘hard’ is making me skeptical that we won’t just see more natural gas plants as the only practical means in the next 10 or so years to replace nuclear and also to provide any sort of growth (though that doesn’t seem to be an issue in the US…we seem pretty static wrt new power needs at this point, and there seems to be quite a bit of scale on the back end for more efficiency). Oh, I expect an increase in solar and wind as costs come down (more so with solar than wind, as I think most of the best tier 1 sites are either in use or NIMBY), but for the foreseeable future I think it will be natural gas, and any prediction that it’s ‘on the losing end soon’ at this point is at least a decade too soon to call. Maybe you are right, in which case we don’t need no stinkin’ nuclear…but I’m skeptical.
As the largest utility in Vermont shows, that is not really the case.
Well, it is easy to be skeptical when one dismisses that the largest energy provider in the state of Vermont that is already 90 percent carbon free is a projection.
Again, you declared that a “projection” when it is taking place already, hence the reason why I think your point here is very underwhelming.
“Things move along so rapidly nowadays that people saying: “It can’t be done,” are always being interrupted by somebody doing it.”—Puck magazine, 1903.
Yes, it is related to fossil fuel emissions. Therefore, if we don’t want to increase, we need a source of energy that will [list=A][li]Meet the demand for energy, and [*]Not emit GHG.[/list]Can you think of an energy source that meets those criteria? And what is Bernie Sanders’ position on that source, and on what science does he base that position?[/li]
Regards,
Shodan
I think you still need to realize that I’m in favor of nuclear power, again, IMHO (and that I also said before) Bernie is not correct on it, but ***why ***he is incorrect is not just because fear of waste, but also because of economics (and on that he is not quite correct too, but he is not alone on that as you are not seeing).
From his site on his stand on the issues:
Again what you miss by pointing at the misleading Forbes article:
Hence my reply that you are grossly missing that the current market was the main reason why the nuclear plant was closed, and hence the point I made that to prevent moves like that one items like an emissions tax or removal of subsidies to the fossil fuel industry should had been there, and also that an intervention to deploy standardized new nuclear power by the government should be considered; so as to avoid that misguided economical position that not only Bernie has, but the private energy industry.
Sanders is wrong both on the science and the economics of nuclear energy vs. wind/solar/geothermal/efficiency.
I don’t care that he is not alone on it. He’s wrong. The Forbes article is not misleading me or anyone else (who cares to read it objectively). What he claimed was false.
Sanders is wrong. His approach to combating AGW is based on misconceptions and false science. If AGW is as real and serious as claimed, his approach is not the one we should take, because it won’t work.
Trump is wrong to deny AGW, but right in his support of nuclear power. Sanders is right to condemn AGW, but wrong in the economic and scientific realities of nuclear energy.
There was some nonsense above about how the GOP is bad because they will abandon science to fight against socialism. The Bernie supporters seem equally willing to abandon science in order to bring it about. That seems a pity.
Well, we can disregard the rest because it is clear that you are avoiding the fact that I do not agree with Bernie on nuclear power, also: that the cite you used can not do basic math or misleads with the timelines, the Forbes contributor also avoided why it was that the nuclear plant closed and clearly you are avoiding that you where wrong about getting more nuclear if the “regulatory burden were reduced”.
As it turns out, the energy producers are beginning to look at nuclear power as a burden and are acting on that, leading to the point that you miss still that besides Bernie, private industry is becoming a failure regarding Nuclear power and that is more worrisome than what Bernie would do.