#MarchForScience open thread

[Dand]

Changing the chemical composition of the Earth's atmosphere is probably a really bad idea no matter how you cut it.

So we should invest heavily in nuclear power plants, right? If minimizing our effect on the atmosphere were the goal then nuclear is the best solution.

But the Climatists don't want that either because it's not about the atmosphere; it's about $$$ for the Al Gores, control for the elites, and feelings for the believers.

[Montegriffo]

The problem with nuclear power is that it is so expensive and takes a long time to bring online. It's not the danger of accidents which is holding back atomic energy it's the cost of building, running and decommissioning power stations. Renewable energy on the other hand is getting cheaper and more efficient all the time.

[Dand]

The problem with nuclear power is that it is so expensive and takes a long time to bring online. It's not the danger of accidents which is holding back atomic energy it's the cost of building, running and decommissioning power stations. Renewable energy on the other hand is getting cheaper and more efficient all the time.

That's a lie. Government subsidies do not equate to "cheaper and more efficient".

[Martin Hash]

Dand's got this.

The basic premise of the Climate Change is that only "Climate Scientists" understand the very complex field of Climate Science, and you know, there's "Climate Change," which is bad, and well, since only Climate Scientists can understand Climate Change, all us non-Climate Scientists will need to take our instruction from them.

p.s. Apparently hipsters, feminists, and SJWs can also understand the very complex field of Climate Science.
p.p.s. I wish I was smart enough to understand the very complex field of Climate Science.
p.p.p.s. If the very complex field of Climate Science was real, it wouldn't be all about who gets the money America is supposed to provide.

[Speaker to Animals]

Changing the chemical composition of the Earth's atmosphere is probably a really bad idea no matter how you cut it.

So we should invest heavily in nuclear power plants, right? If minimizing our effect on the atmosphere were the goal then nuclear is the best solution.

But the Climatists don't want that either because it's not about the atmosphere; it's about $$$ for the Al Gores, control for the elites, and feelings for the believers.

Exactly.

[Montegriffo]

The problem with nuclear power is that it is so expensive and takes a long time to bring online. It's not the danger of accidents which is holding back atomic energy it's the cost of building, running and decommissioning power stations. Renewable energy on the other hand is getting cheaper and more efficient all the time.

That's a lie. Government subsidies do not equate to "cheaper and more efficient".

You think nuclear energy is not subsidised?
https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... ear-bunker

That little footnote, tucked away at the end of the announcement of Wednesday’s French-Chinese deal to build a new nuclear power station at Hinkley point, detonates an atomic bomb under the UK government’s already bewildering energy policy and leaves ministers hunkered down in a nuclear bunker.

Just the day before, energy minister Andrea Leadsom said: “It is vital that industries over time stand on their own two feet. I don’t think anyone here would advocate an industry that only survives because of a subsidy paid by the billpayer.” She was justifying 87% cuts to subsidies for solar power, just as they are on the verge of becoming cheaper than gas.

The contradiction does not need spelling out. Nuclear power has had 60 years to stand on its own two feet. The admission it still needs subsidy (after five years of ministers denying precisely that) shows that traditional nuclear power can barely crawl. Whether this admission strengthens the challenge brought by Austria at EU level against the UK that it is providing illegal state aid remains to be seen.

https://www.ft.com/content/b8e24306-48e ... e9211e86ab

Consumers will pay a £30bn subsidy for electricity from the proposed Hinkley Point nuclear power station — almost five times the original estimate — according to the latest projections from the National Audit Office.



The increase reflects a reduction in long-term forecasts for the wholesale cost of electricity — widening the gap between market prices and the amount promised by the UK government to EDF, the French company planning to build the plant.

Under a deal agreed in 2013, EDF will be guaranteed a price of £92.50 per megawatt hour of electricity — rising in line with inflation — as an incentive to shoulder the £18bn construction cost.

This represents a premium over the current wholesale price of about £45 per MWh and forecasts for the future size of these “top-up payments” has increased as falling fossil fuel prices has lowered long-term expectations for the cost of electricity.

In a report on nuclear power published on Wednesday, the UK public spending watchdog said the estimated value of the premium due to EDF over the 35-year duration of the contract had increased from £6.1bn when the deal was struck to £29.7bn.

[apeman]

turbo cuck

[Martin Hash]

The problem with nuclear power is that it is so expensive and takes a long time to bring online. It's not the danger of accidents which is holding back atomic energy it's the cost of building, running and decommissioning power stations.

Climate Scientists (and hipsters, feminists & SJWs) have determined that N*U*C*L*E*A*R is worse than Climate Change because "too expensive," "takes too long to come online," "decommissioning," yadda, yadda, yadda. THOSE ARE NOT TECHNICAL REASONS. THOSE ARE POLITICAL REASONS. CLIMATE CHANGE IS OBVIOUSLY POLITICAL NOT TECHNICAL.

[TheReal_ND]

Huh

[Speaker to Animals]

So how long before the helicopter rides?