3 ms·

Yet another Michael Shellenberger column in Forbes. Folks, it's not worth going through the cherry-picking, misrepresentation, and outright fabrication of Shel

Yet another Michael Shellenberger column in Forbes. Folks, it's not worth going through the cherry-picking, misrepresentation, and outright fabrication of Shellenberger and his "Environmental Progress" sham organization. It has been said that it takes 10 times more energy to refute BS than it does to create it. Unfortunately, this author's purpose is to exploit this fact.

TheOtherHobbes 8y ago
Indeed. And consider an alternative view: if all of the money spent on nuclear had been invested in renewables instead, we would have had clean power a decade or two ago.
- ftr45 8y ago
  no
- craftinator 8y ago
  Just take a look at the energy densities of "renewables" vs nuclear power. I wrote a paper last year comparing the output of the entire fleet of US wind turbines (onshore and offshore) to the output of the US's least productive nuclear powerplant. Over the course of a year, the powerplant produced 20% more energy, at a total cost of 90% less $, than all of US wind turbines combined. Just let those figures settle in your mind a little...
  - jhayward 8y ago
    If you have an example of nuclear providing power at a cost 90% below wind, which is generally the lowest cost provider in the US please supply a link and support the implied claim that this is somehow representative of the industry and not cherry-picked. As to the other claim you make, a quick look says that the R. E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant in NY is the lowest productivity (i.e., provides the fewest MWH per year) plant in the US at around 6 GWH. In Texas alone wind produced 9 GWH (2017).
AckSyn 8y ago
There's a whole lot of fud going on in the comments. The misconceptions about nuclear are vast and unfortunately it seems as if a lot of people here have swallowed the bs completely
ftr45 8y ago
'It has been said that it takes 10 times more energy to refute BS than it does to create it. Unfortunately, this author's purpose is to exploit this fact. '' that's your purpose

TheOtherHobbes 8y ago

Indeed. And consider an alternative view: if all of the money spent on nuclear had been invested in renewables instead, we would have had clean power a decade or two ago.

ftr45 8y ago
no
craftinator 8y ago
Just take a look at the energy densities of "renewables" vs nuclear power. I wrote a paper last year comparing the output of the entire fleet of US wind turbines (onshore and offshore) to the output of the US's least productive nuclear powerplant. Over the course of a year, the powerplant produced 20% more energy, at a total cost of 90% less $, than all of US wind turbines combined. Just let those figures settle in your mind a little...
- jhayward 8y ago
  If you have an example of nuclear providing power at a cost 90% below wind, which is generally the lowest cost provider in the US please supply a link and support the implied claim that this is somehow representative of the industry and not cherry-picked. As to the other claim you make, a quick look says that the R. E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant in NY is the lowest productivity (i.e., provides the fewest MWH per year) plant in the US at around 6 GWH. In Texas alone wind produced 9 GWH (2017).

AckSyn 8y ago

There's a whole lot of fud going on in the comments. The misconceptions about nuclear are vast and unfortunately it seems as if a lot of people here have swallowed the bs completely

ftr45 8y ago

'It has been said that it takes 10 times more energy to refute BS than it does to create it. Unfortunately, this author's purpose is to exploit this fact. '' that's your purpose