1. I’m not in the energy industry, and I am not a scientist. All I know about this topic I know by browsing the Internet sifting through endless piles of bull provided by people such as Mr Green here. I wonder how many hours of people’s lives will be wasted responding to Mr Green’s intellectual dishonesty. Perhaps I should estimate it based of assumption I pull out of my ass, divide that number by the average life expectancy and then write a junk science paper accusing Mr Green of that many deaths.

    Seriously, what is so good about renewable energy? I just don’t see it anymore. I used to be pro renewable energy, but then I met someone passionate about renewable energy and it got me interested enough to actually start learning about renewable energy myself. The more I’ve learned the less pro renewable I’ve became and the more pro nuclear. I can accept some renewable energy if it makes sense, and if it is paired with nuclear, but 100 percent renewable energy (except in a few places that have special circumstances) and renewable energy mixed with fossil fuels doesn’t make sense. At least not when we have a much better option available to us.

    I’ve been reading the 100 Percent Renewables Study – Draft Modeling Outcome which was written for Australia.


    I haven’t gotten through it yet, but I’ve noticed a considerable amount of “Biomass” being used for base load. If this is what Mr Green wants then I guess he really does want green energy. At least in a very literal sense.

    1. EZ,

      I wanted to reflect on that from my POV.

      As someone with an over-riding concern relating to climate change, I maintain a very sincere support of any an all means to reduced dependence on fossil fuels. Lousy arguments against renewables annoy me just like lousy arguments against nuclear.

      However, like you, the more I learn about the whole portfolio of solutions, nuclear power just seems to keep pushing out in front in terms of overall desirability when you look at many criteria. For your interest, we addressed this in a comparative study called Zero Carbon Options. Search those terms for a free download.

      When you detatch from obtuse, social revolution type goals based on ripping up and decentralising energy supplies, the appeal of renewables compared to nuclear plummets.

      There will be plenty more growth for renewables, and plenty of examples where they will make a fine solution. But in the big picture, the task of displacing fossil fuels will fall to nuclear.

  2. Great post and a great response, but good luck trying to convince Green. He sings from the same sheet of music as Peter Karamoskos and Mark Diesendorf who will repeat the same emotional nonsense about the alleged nuclear apocalypse, even when the obvious mistakes in their arguments are drawn to their attention. These kind of people even stoop to the same level as that annoying troll Bas, who cite the IPPNW as a credible source regarding the Chernobyl accident.

    1. Re: “that the historic deployment of nuclear power had likely prevented 1.84 million air-pollution related deaths, and by mid-century would prevent a further 420,000 – 7.04 million such deaths.”

      Maybe it’s street sense over science, but that figure’s WAY too low. Trying to tell me that if you banished all nuclear plants from the face of the planet that only 7.04 million out of four+ billion would come down with respiratory, air/water pollution, and acid-rain induced health/environmental aliments from the planetwide fossils taking their place??

      Re: “He sings from the same sheet of music as Peter Karamoskos and Mark Diesendorf who will repeat the same emotional nonsense about the alleged nuclear apocalypse, even when the obvious mistakes in their arguments are drawn to their attention.”

      Worst, while one has to use a fine-toothed comb to hunt for any evidence of nuclear plant/radiation traceable afflictions and symptoms in populations and the environment, it’s known with LONG historical fact and proof that fossil fuel consequences HAS and IS effecting and maligning the health of real-live humans wholesale in the ranges of tens of millions. No deep studies needed for that. Just pull up any hospital records since the dawn of time. Yet anti-nukers get ansy just looking for a couple of folks who somehow come down with radiation maladies? Don’t even get started whose maxed industrial accident in real-life — not lame speculations — shown the least effect on health, lives and property! Can you spell an anti’s warped sense of proportion and priorities and perils?

      James Greenidge
      Queens NY

  3. Respect for Science seems to be on the decline on both sides of the political spectrum in the US (climate-change deniers, and anti-nukes). Although I have more hope for the environmental anti-nukes, since more and more of them seem to be arriving at some rational conclusions on nuclear power (Pandora’s Promise).

    I appreciate people like Ben Heard that take a lot of their own time to go through an exercise like this. I know it is painful … I start to read something, quickly realize it is garbage and then want to toss it and avoid wasting any more of my time. But, it is not a waste of time … it’s useful and necessary, but I doubt it is much fun.

    1. I didn’t mean to imply that the efforts of people like Ben Heard aren’t useful and necessary. I appreciate the effort he, and other people like him, take to help keep people such as myself informed.

      What I was trying to say is this. It’s like if someone hide you car keys. Finding your car keys is a necessary and useful task, but that doesn’t mean that the person who hide your car keys didn’t waste your time.

      People who carry out bad science, and engage in intellectual dishonesty, waste the time of the people who try to counter them. That doesn’t mean that countering them isn’t necessary. It’s very necessary and I thank them for it. The world is a better place when people have accurate information.

      My word choice was ambiguous so I’m sorry if I conveyed the wrong message.

  4. I told the anti GG/anti pollution crowd the Greens would eventually turn on them. Didn’t think it would so literal a prediction

Comments are closed.

Recent Comments from our Readers

  1. Avatar
  2. Avatar
  3. Avatar
  4. Avatar
  5. Avatar

Similar Posts