U. of Chi. Professor and "Scientist" Wants to Block Sunlight to Cool Earth

The Chinese Communist Party builds coal and nuclear power stations and sells wind turbines, solar panels, and EV’s to the western democracies. Follow the money.

 

Crap! I will speak against nuclear power to everybody and anybody. Sadly, it will probably take another disaster to wake up the world.

 

You are sadly misinformed. Japa has also recommitted to nuclear.

 

Now if we could only get you to care about coal powered cars in China as much as nuclear powered cars….or hydroelectric power disasters…

 

Yes. Only you know the truth.

 

And do more people listen to you on that issue than they do with EVs?

Or do they also walk away shaking their heads and saying, "Whatever"?

 

The US has its challenges as well. We are still the highest major country in BTUs per capita, and over double China and Europe.

Very simply, China produces a lot of electricity, about 30% of the world’s electricity. I would rather see them delay their transition from coal than to build more nuclear. The world is on a collision course with disaster, and nuclear can summit that disaster well before climate change - like tomorrow! And all that freaking radioactive waste!

Much more of China’s power comes from wind and solar than nuclear. Even with the planned plants, nuclear won’t even be up to current levels of wind and solar.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_China

As of February 2023, 376 GW from wind power and 425 GW from solar power. China has 55 nuclear plants with 57 GW of power in operation, 22 under construction with 24 GW and more than 70 planned with 88 GW. About 5% of electricity in the country comes from nuclear energy.

Also, China has a backlog of 100 GWatts of wind turbine orders, with much of that being local. Capacity- wise that’s the equivalent of 100 nuclear power plants.

They also have 70 GWatts of Utility scale battery storage. This is a fast growing field, and vital to the world of electrification, and China expects to be at 170 GWatts by 2025.

Bottom line - China is investing a lot more in wind, solar, and utility scale battery storage than any other energy source. They have a long way to go, as does every other country.

 

Well, I’m glad the wind and solar mitigates the particulate pollution and CO2 emissions from increased coal usage as well as the “danger” from increased nuclear. Too bad it doesn’t mitigate the disasters from hydroelectric projects too.

I’m always amused at the argument increased coal usage is OK because there are windmills and solar panels somewhere as well. Now I’m finding out coal is better than nuclear and that climate change is less of a threat than nuclear power. It must be exhausting trying to keep up with which thing you should be most terrified of. Especially when science shows exposure to below optimal temperatures is many times more likely to whack you than either warming or nuclear power.

I just don’t get that kind of fear. It’s like the guy who will tell you he’s riding his motorcycle across the country without a helmet because it’s too dangerous to fly commercial.

I guess it’s a good demonstration of the old adage “fear sells”. It can get folks to believe about anything. It’s a shame we can’t direct all this passion at actual problems we have.

 

Bottom line:

And here is the scam:

https://www.climatechangenews.com/2...-out/#:~:text=In his speech,to climate change.

 

You’re wearing blinders, and your posts are the worst when it comes to broad misleading statements. The other day you stated that climate change was reversible. Where’s your scientific evidence for that? Is it based on quibbling about the definition of “irreversible”? That’s misleading!!! Most of the climate change heat is stored in the oceans, and with atmospheric CO2 still rising, ocean heat content is rising along with land heat. Either you consider 1000-2000 years “reversible” (quibbling on language) or your comment was BS. Which is it - quibbling or BS?

All the denier posters, yourself included, love to characterize every transitional challenge as failure. It’s akin to somebody having a $500,000 loan, with a $100K income. Would they be a failure if they didn’t pay it off immediately? Would they be a failure if they paid off 50%, but had an emergency, and had to take out an additional equity loan?

The US, China, Germany, and most other nations ( not Russia) are all working towards their climate change goals, and trying to get there in different ways. Whether they’re making regular payments or early principal payments, they’re working towards the goal.

 

That goal is unachievable and unnecessary. It’s a a scam perpetrated by the governments of developing nations to benefit from wealth transfers from developed countries.

 

Should China NOT be allowed to express their opinions? I’m sure there’s seme truth in his statements, and it certainly won’t hurt to discuss feasibility and funding for this unprecedented worldwide effort. The biggest obstacle is not any one nation, but instead, fossil fuel industry propaganda.

 

« Unnecessary » and « scam » claims are False conspiracy theory nonsense, based on non- science propaganda.

 

The biggest obstacle is that there is no possibility -- ever -- of achieving what the alarmists want. And the attempt will cause enormous damage.

 

The biggest obstacle to ending global poverty is global warming propaganda.

 

Actually they are logical, science and math-based conclusions.

 

Those are based on reality.

 

From the non-science educated social media poster.

 

Ah, but I read and learn. And I don't make palpably false claims about my background and education.

 

We cannot lose sight that what the alarmists really want is a reduction by over 90% of the human population. How do these folks actually want to achieve this? Clearly, artificially controlling energy makes livability for the folks who are so dependent on energy and food security derivative of the scarcity becomes the lever to lead them into their Malthusian nightmare.

 

From the person who stated that the amount of high level radioactive waste in the world was »minuscule », when there are 90 billion tons in the US, and 3x that worldwide.

 

Not surprisingly, your nuclear waste claim is bogus.

Global Overview of Radioactive Waste and Spent Fuel ...

International Atomic Energy Agency
https://www.iaea.org › newscenter › news › new-iaea-rep...

Jan 21, 2022 — Since the start of nuclear electricity production in 1954 to the end of 2016, some 390,000 tonnes of spent fuel were generated. About two-thirds ...

Radioactive Waste – Myths and Realities

World Nuclear Association
https://world-nuclear.org › nuclear-waste › radioactive-w...

Jan 25, 2022 — Only a small volume of nuclear waste (~3% of the total) is long-lived and highly radioactive and requires isolation from the environment for ...

5 Fast Facts about Spent Nuclear Fuel

Department of Energy (.gov)
https://www.energy.gov › articles › 5-fast-facts-about-sp...

Oct 3, 2022 — 1. Commercial spent nuclear fuel is a solid · 2. The U.S. generates about 2,000 metric tons of spent fuel each year · 3. Spent fuel from U.S. ...

Radioactive Waste Management

World Nuclear Association
https://world-nuclear.org › nuclear-waste › radioactive-w...

Jan 25, 2022 — The volume of high-level radioactive waste (HLW) produced by the civil nuclear industry is small. The IAEA estimates that 392,000 tonnes of ...

Visualizing All the Nuclear Waste in the World

Decarbonization Channel
https://decarbonization.visualcapitalist.com › visualizing...

Jan 24, 2024 — Nuclear provides about 10% of global electricity generation. Nuclear waste, produced as a result of this, can be divided into four different ...

 

Please demonstrate damage to you personally from climate change initiatives. Please demonstrate poverty incurred, and show how displaced populations and extreme climate events are going to decrease poverty. Please show statements from the UN that they want to kill off 90% of the world’s population.

 

90,000 tons of spent fuel rods accumulated in the last 7 decades. You missed by 6 orders of magnitude.

 

Electric grids incapable of meeting demand.