As Masri and Taylor pointed out COVID19 and climate change have a lot in common. They are both frighteningly destructive. They both must be confronted intelligently and without delay, led by scientists.

In a recent experiment, one group of subjects is placed in a warm room. The other is placed in a cold one. Both groups are asked, “Do you believe in climate change?” Those in the warm room said ‘yes’. In the cold room? No.

We have been mislead. We are reassured by ‘plausible solutions’ e.g. ‘direct air capture’ (DAC). DAC ($100/ton) would cost about $1.6 trillion to remove last year’s carbon emissions, let alone climb down from 415 ppm.

Masri and Taylor’s remedy, ‘carbon fee and dividend’ is backed up, however, by numerous studies (National Academy of Sciences, MIT, and others) to get to clean energy ASAP..

Let Earth day be the day we vote.

If the situation is so dire, then there appears to be only one solution and that is nuclear. Zero carbon emissions. Incredibly safe, proven. If you are truly into protecting Mother Gaia, then nuclear would seem to be in the answer.

I would refrain from using Fauci as an example, as he has been wrong with every estimate, prediction and model he has used so far. Got any one else in mind? Can’t really go back to the original Earth Day folks either as they were completely wrong in their predictions (cooling, wide-spread famine, gross overpopulation leading to wars and inability of mankind to feed itself, maybe not surviving until the year 2000...).AOC and Thunberg (great scientists that they are) have said we all die in 10-12 years. Unlikely, if not completely without any scientific basis. But it makes for a great headline.

> that is nuclear... then nuclear would seem to be in the answer.

Nah. You "seem" to be in error.

Far, far, far, too expensive. When's the last time a nuke was built in the US for under ten billion? (maybe thirty years? longer?) What's the typical shutdown costs? another 5-10 billion?

San Onofre: "The $4.7 billion in early shutdown costs are in *addition* to what it will cost to “decommission,” or tear down, San Onfore. Decommissioning costs are pegged at $4.4 billion.

Put that money into renewables.

Yes, San Onofre is the one where Bechtel installed the reactor BACKWARDS.

Oops. Golly. What could go wrong?

BACKWARDS.

///

The rest of your tripe doesn't merit discussion. If you disagree - substantiate with a link to Thunberg (a mere teenager) saying we will all die in 10 years.

Web Link

There’s your quote. Granted, it’s from AOC, a supposed adult.

Quick on the answer, though it wasn't for what you claimed: Thunberg (a mere teenager) saying we will all die in 10 years. Perhaps you should strive for accuracy rather than make stuff up.

I'll save you the time on the other request: When's the last time a nuke was built in the US for under ten billion?

Probably a third of our population wasn't even BORN the last time nukes were that cheap.

example: Three Mile Island construction (1970's) cost was 'only' a couple billion in today's dollars.

Ya get what ya pay for, eh?

There's someone who lives nearby that makes her living pushing nukes - she'll try to sell you on it; lots of claims about unproven concepts, etc.. Maybe she'll weigh in.

You are correct. Genius Thunberg (or her dad) said that we had only 10-12 years before global warming is irreversible—-then we are all doomed.

Seems like many other countries can build nuclear power plants far cheaper than the US, for a lot of different reasons.
Source: Web Link

BTW, where is your source for San Onofre info you spout??

And, for every carbon-free San Onofre you decommission, coal, gas or oil plants need to be built which exacerbated the problem you seem to want to solve. Wind or solar don’t do much for me on cloudy days with little to no wind or at night. What about wind power killing raptors, and solar harming mother Gaia through the mining of precious metals used in manufacture, not to mention the disaster of recycling decommissioned units, both wind and solar. Seems like the Sierra Club has you both coming and going in this one!!!

No easy answers, are there?

Oh, good lord, did you even read your link?

"In 2017, two South Carolina utilities * *abandoned* * two unfinished Westinghouse AP1000 reactors due to difficulties in equipment manufacturing, significant construction delays, and cost overruns—leaving just two other AP1000 reactors under construction, in the state of Georgia. These reactors have also faced delays and cost overruns.

The original cost estimate of $14 billion has risen to $23 billion..."

Add in another 10 billion to decommission, plus annual operating costs, SECURITY, etc..

Then a nuke supporter brings up MINING and "recycling decommissioned units"? Are you kidding? Nukes? Not only do we mine for that crap, then we have to stick it back in the ground and guard it for a gazillion years. Mining?!?

If nuke was cost efficient (let alone safe for our backyard) I'd be the first to say let's build a hundred of them.

I'd prefer to take that couple trillion and invest in renewables. Green power would be producing energy in a year while we wait 20 years for the nukes to finish the schematics (hyperbole alert? but....)

20 years? Again, see your link about Watts Bar 2.

They started Watts Bar 2 in the 70's (!), and finished a couple years ago (~ 40 years?!?!?!)

Omigawd. Every time I soften on nuke benefits, you guys force to look at the ultra-ugly reality. So, we're done here, right?

Thank you for your service.

The emotional argument on behalf of nuclear falls apart pretty fast when one looks at actual history.