Thanks, I like your fresh angle on the whole Climate Scam. It would be a good way to impoverish the West while the BRICS countries - which are evidently where the money will go now - keep on using oil, gas and coal.
I might translate this into French for my readers (with your permission) but there's still one issue I need your opinion about. What about Germany? They recently dumped their last operating nuclear power plant. Would it have something to do with replacing their whole nuclear energy production facilities with the next generation ones?
Also, as you might already know, Macron sold off that particular technology to the US and France - which has the best civil engineers on the planet - has now to pay in order to build and use it in the future, which kind of fits your theory.
There's another aspect to fission (nuclear) plants that people never seem to discuss, and for some reason your comment put the idea in my head to discuss it here. The real danger of fission plants is that they're huge "dirty" bombs waiting to be detonated. Anyone who can send a conventional missile into a fission plant will decimate the hundreds of square miles around it. The restricted area around Chernobyl is 2600 sq km, which is the size of a square whose sides are 51km (32 miles) long, and Chernobyl was just an accident not involving a missile explosion. A country dotted with non-hardened fission plants can be turned into a nuclear wasteland overnight.
Sorry, your reply slipped under my radar, sort of. Yeah, I had given a thought to that particular "misuse" of a nuclear plant, I have one only 23 km away from my place.
There are no "non-hardened" nuclear power plants in the US, and I doubt that you can find one in any country these days. The reactors in modern nuclear power plants live inside thick containment buildings, and the spent fuel elements do too. So a missile impact would never cause the kind of environmental disaster that you envision.
Please feel free to translate to French. The nuclear industry wants new contracts for new plants, so their own old plants are just competition, like fossil fuels.
I don't think this is particularly likely. Mostly because I think the folks running the game don't want the benefits that a nuclear power system would provide, primarily in the form of enough energy for society to continue. And essentially none of the people who are part of the Climate Cult find nuclear an acceptable source.
Hell, I *wish* this were true, because if there were going to be a massive push for nuclear power plants, that means we don't *have* to give up fossil fuels for vehicular transport. I don't give a rat's ass if the electricity comes from coal or uranium, I just want there to be enough of it. And if the major CO2 "pollution" sources of power plants go glow-in-the-dark, that means there's even less reason to interfere with cars and airplanes.
Yes, I realize it would end up screwing a lot of coal miners very, very hard, and I would feel a little bad about that. But only a little. Nuclear really *is* the way to go. And I'm definitely no Climate Cuckoo.
I'm guessing you didn't read the article. My evidence is circumstantial, but the circumstances are just too perfect. For example, tell me, if you were a nuclear industry exec who had built almost no new plants since the 1970s due to the public's fears of nuclear accidents, how would you go about convincing people that our current fuels are actually more dangerous than nuclear fuels?
I absolutely read the article. I just find the evidence excessively circumstantial. Yes, the Climate Cultists might have set up a situation in which nuclear power is the answer, unfortunately, *they still don't want that answer*. Nuclear is not gaining in popularity. The goal of the people in charge is not to save us with clean, safe nuclear power. The goal is to drive everyone into serfdom with the complete *absence* of power.
> "[I]f you were a nuclear industry exec who had built almost no new plants since the 1970s due to the public's fears of nuclear accidents, how would you go about convincing people that our current fuels are actually more dangerous than nuclear fuels?"
Given that our current fuels actually *are* more dangerous than nuclear, that's easy. That can be done with the truth. Nuclear just isn't that dangerous unless it's the Soviets intentionally running one of their terrible designs incorrectly in order to do "an experiment". The Three Mile Island "accident" didn't release any significant radiation. Heck, Three Mile Island *continued operating* until 2019. The average coal fired power plant releases more radiation due to particulate inclusions in the coal, and certainly releases a lot more ash particulates, though I'll grant that natural gas plants are obviously very, very good on that front. Still, I'd rather keep the natural gas available to run my stove. Best of all, nuclear power doesn't require absolutely *littering* the landscape with acres and acres of fugly-assed solar panels or windmills.
The biggest problem would be convincing world governments to rework the stupid treaties that make recycling nuclear fuel illegal. Which, again, they have no interest in doing because the people running those governments don't actually *want* us to have sufficient and reliable electricity.
"Nuclear is not gaining in popularity". No, not yet. These things take time. The public will demand nuclear when the folks on their TVs tell them to demand nuclear. The folks on their TVs will justifiy this when we're having constant rolling blackouts. We'll have rolling blackouts after the Democrats have forced us to decommission enough fossil fuel plants. One step at a time.
Climateviewer.com real science everyday of the year no crisis isis science
Also keep watching Tony Heller's YouTube channel; he's been debunking this for almost 20 years: https://www.youtube.com/@TonyHeller
Thanks, I like your fresh angle on the whole Climate Scam. It would be a good way to impoverish the West while the BRICS countries - which are evidently where the money will go now - keep on using oil, gas and coal.
I might translate this into French for my readers (with your permission) but there's still one issue I need your opinion about. What about Germany? They recently dumped their last operating nuclear power plant. Would it have something to do with replacing their whole nuclear energy production facilities with the next generation ones?
Also, as you might already know, Macron sold off that particular technology to the US and France - which has the best civil engineers on the planet - has now to pay in order to build and use it in the future, which kind of fits your theory.
There's another aspect to fission (nuclear) plants that people never seem to discuss, and for some reason your comment put the idea in my head to discuss it here. The real danger of fission plants is that they're huge "dirty" bombs waiting to be detonated. Anyone who can send a conventional missile into a fission plant will decimate the hundreds of square miles around it. The restricted area around Chernobyl is 2600 sq km, which is the size of a square whose sides are 51km (32 miles) long, and Chernobyl was just an accident not involving a missile explosion. A country dotted with non-hardened fission plants can be turned into a nuclear wasteland overnight.
Sorry, your reply slipped under my radar, sort of. Yeah, I had given a thought to that particular "misuse" of a nuclear plant, I have one only 23 km away from my place.
Ah, well.
There are no "non-hardened" nuclear power plants in the US, and I doubt that you can find one in any country these days. The reactors in modern nuclear power plants live inside thick containment buildings, and the spent fuel elements do too. So a missile impact would never cause the kind of environmental disaster that you envision.
Please feel free to translate to French. The nuclear industry wants new contracts for new plants, so their own old plants are just competition, like fossil fuels.
Yup, good thought.
I'm between translations, you're on the list. Thanks.
All the technics want to run powerplants under the guise of they'll do the right thing
I don't think this is particularly likely. Mostly because I think the folks running the game don't want the benefits that a nuclear power system would provide, primarily in the form of enough energy for society to continue. And essentially none of the people who are part of the Climate Cult find nuclear an acceptable source.
Hell, I *wish* this were true, because if there were going to be a massive push for nuclear power plants, that means we don't *have* to give up fossil fuels for vehicular transport. I don't give a rat's ass if the electricity comes from coal or uranium, I just want there to be enough of it. And if the major CO2 "pollution" sources of power plants go glow-in-the-dark, that means there's even less reason to interfere with cars and airplanes.
Yes, I realize it would end up screwing a lot of coal miners very, very hard, and I would feel a little bad about that. But only a little. Nuclear really *is* the way to go. And I'm definitely no Climate Cuckoo.
I'm guessing you didn't read the article. My evidence is circumstantial, but the circumstances are just too perfect. For example, tell me, if you were a nuclear industry exec who had built almost no new plants since the 1970s due to the public's fears of nuclear accidents, how would you go about convincing people that our current fuels are actually more dangerous than nuclear fuels?
I absolutely read the article. I just find the evidence excessively circumstantial. Yes, the Climate Cultists might have set up a situation in which nuclear power is the answer, unfortunately, *they still don't want that answer*. Nuclear is not gaining in popularity. The goal of the people in charge is not to save us with clean, safe nuclear power. The goal is to drive everyone into serfdom with the complete *absence* of power.
> "[I]f you were a nuclear industry exec who had built almost no new plants since the 1970s due to the public's fears of nuclear accidents, how would you go about convincing people that our current fuels are actually more dangerous than nuclear fuels?"
Given that our current fuels actually *are* more dangerous than nuclear, that's easy. That can be done with the truth. Nuclear just isn't that dangerous unless it's the Soviets intentionally running one of their terrible designs incorrectly in order to do "an experiment". The Three Mile Island "accident" didn't release any significant radiation. Heck, Three Mile Island *continued operating* until 2019. The average coal fired power plant releases more radiation due to particulate inclusions in the coal, and certainly releases a lot more ash particulates, though I'll grant that natural gas plants are obviously very, very good on that front. Still, I'd rather keep the natural gas available to run my stove. Best of all, nuclear power doesn't require absolutely *littering* the landscape with acres and acres of fugly-assed solar panels or windmills.
The biggest problem would be convincing world governments to rework the stupid treaties that make recycling nuclear fuel illegal. Which, again, they have no interest in doing because the people running those governments don't actually *want* us to have sufficient and reliable electricity.
"Nuclear is not gaining in popularity". No, not yet. These things take time. The public will demand nuclear when the folks on their TVs tell them to demand nuclear. The folks on their TVs will justifiy this when we're having constant rolling blackouts. We'll have rolling blackouts after the Democrats have forced us to decommission enough fossil fuel plants. One step at a time.