Arguments
Recent Comments
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Comments 1 to 50:
-
tder2012 at 23:32 PM on 2 July 2025Rebutting 33 False Claims About Solar, Wind, and Electric Vehicles - Recap
Here is a report you may want to consider
[snip]
"The Growth & Future of Small Modular Reactors" by Arthur D. Little group. It starts with
"Bridging the Green Energy Gap
Decarbonizing energy supply is central to achieving net zero targets. However, once fossil fuel power plants are decommissioned, wind and solar generation alone will not be sufficient to fill the resulting gap, despite the rapid rise in renewables. The intermittent nature of wind and solar — and the lack of viable energy storage mechanisms — highlights the urgent need for low-carbon sources of continuous baseload generation to power an increasingly electrified world. Nuclear power should be the primary option for filling this need, but the combination of an aging fleet of reactors, substantial cost and time overruns on new plants, and safety fears have held back its widespread deployment. Small modular reactors (SMRs) provide a potential opportunity to overcome the challenges faced by nuclear power, though their cost competitiveness compared to large nuclear power plants (LNPPs) is still being proven." I don't see "baseload" defined anywhere in the report. I've seen baseload defined as minimum load or demand, which usually occurs on an electricity grid early in the morning when most everyone is asleep. For example, in California the minimum demand today occurred at 4:05am local time, 23,242MW.
Moderator Response:[BL] No, we do not want to continue "considering" whatever you throw out hoping to get something to stick to the wall. The issues raised in the quote you provided (which I have snipped) have been addressed in the comments on the nuclear power thread, and in the literature cited by others in the comments on that thread.
Switching to a new post/thread, and avoiding the criticisms that have been made of your comments on the previous thread is considered very bad form. Since this thread is a recap of pther posts, your comment is off-topic here.
What we want is serious debate - where you respond to the criticisms that are made of your posts. We will not tolerate you running off in other directions shouting "look! Squirrel!" Providing another example of a paper nuclear option that is claimed to have "potential" and is admitted as not yet proven does not advance the discussion.
I have added moderators comments to several of your recent posts on the nuclear thread.The last one is located here. Please go back and read all of them before posting again.
-
tder2012 at 06:02 AM on 2 July 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Keep in mind the following:
nuclear 1GW x80% capacity factor x80 years = 560,640GWh lifetime
solar 1GW x25% capacity factor x30 years = 67,500GWh lifetime
wind 1GW x45% capacity factor x35 years = 137,970 lifetimeA recent SKS article identified a report released in June 2025 "Beyond LCOE" "This report explains why LCOE fails to reflect the full complexity of electricity systems and can lead to decisions that jeopardize reliability, affordability, and clean generation."
Keep in mind that Lazard's LCOE reports have many factors that they don't examine, which Lazard themselves clearly acknowledge.See the bottom of page 7 in the 2025 report (it was page 8 in 2024) "Other factors would also have a potentially significant effect on the results contained herein, but have not been examined in the scope of this current analysis. These additional factors, among others, may include: implementation and interpretation of the full scope of the IRA; economic policy, transmission queue reform, network upgrades and other transmission matters, congestion, curtailment or other integration-related costs; permitting or other development costs, unless otherwise noted; and costs of complying with various environmental regulations (e.g., carbon emissions offsets or emissions control systems). This analysis is intended to represent a snapshot in time and utilizes a wide, but not exhaustive, sample set of Industry data. As such, we recognize and acknowledge the likelihood of results outside of our ranges. Therefore, this analysis is not a forecasting tool and should not be used as such, given the complexities of our evolving Industry, grid and resource needs. Except as illustratively sensitized herein, this analysis does not consider the intermittent nature of selected renewables energy technologies or the related grid impacts of incremental renewable energy deployment. This analysis also does not address potential social and environmental externalities, including, for example, the social costs and rate consequences for those who cannot afford distributed generation solutions, as well as the long-term residual and societal consequences of various conventional generation technologies that are difficult to measure (e.g., airborne pollutants, greenhouse gases, etc.)"
Moderator Response:[BL] Keep in mind that moderators here can delete everything and anything, and rescind your posting privileges.
Constantly shifting goal posts and repeating yourself will only lead to one place.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 03:46 AM on 2 July 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
My response to tder2012’s list of potential nuclear facility development is ‘revisit my comment @428’.
I will add the following regarding tder2012’s apparent interest in knowing what regions will have renewable energy developed to the current target of 100g CO2e per kW-hr. That is a known goal all regions will have to pass on their way to the ultimate requirement of ending human impacts that increase global warming.
Also, in the future, any energy system that is unsustainable will be unable to be continued. Unsustainable activities either use up non-renewable resources or produce accumulating harm. Nuclear power systems consume non-renewable resources and produce accumulating harm.
Therefore, no future energy system will include nuclear power generation. And since it is also a very costly way of generating electricity it should be unpopular.
However, humans have a tragic history of regionally developing popular support for harmful costly misunderstandings, as I implied in my comment @428.
Moderator Response:[BL] Your closing paragraph reminds me of the popular support in industry and political circles for the construction of natural gas pipelines from the north of Alaska to the continental US and Canada. Several proposals were made, much survey work done to determine possible routes, soil and permafrost conditions, etc.
Proposals go back as far as the 1970s. Many dollars were spent. No such pipelines have been built in the past 50+ years. As project plans matured, costs escalated and were a major factor in the lack of completion.
I was involved in some of the work in 1981-82. In subsequent years, we used to refer to these as "paper pipelines". Projects that only exist on paper will not transport gas or oil, or produce electricity. The phrase "pipe dream" comes to mind.
-
tder2012 at 22:58 PM on 1 July 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Philippe, I see you don't care that over 5,600 square kilometres of land was flooded, causing rotting vegetation and methane emissions for QC Hydro, however, I doubt the Indigenous people in the area feel the same way you do.
Moderator Response:[BL] All right, This is enough. Using phrases such as "you don't care..." represents inflammatory tone, and you are walking on the edge of having your posting privileges revoked.
Such language is is particularly galling when you start pretending that you speak for the indigenous people of Quebec. And even worse when information on the subject is readily found using a search engine. Your "doubt" is easily replaced by actually doing the work to find the relevant information.
FYI, the Hydro Quebec developments in the northern part of the province have been carried out after reaching agreements with the Indigenous people. Although the Quebec government initially tried to develop the area unilaterally, legal actions and negotiations eventually led to an agreement that recognizes the rights of the Cree and Inuit nations that live in the area.
You can read more at this Canadian Encyclopedia link. Many other sources can be found with search engines.
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can be rescinded if the posting individual treats adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.
-
tder2012 at 22:27 PM on 1 July 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
I'll just add a quick note about Estonia "the government has abandoned its goal of producing as much renewable electricity in Estonia by 2030 as is consumed domestically on an annual basis. Climate Minister Andres Sutt also stated that nuclear energy is now a priority"
Moderator Response:[BL] Your long list of political announcements regarding future nuclear electricity generation plans does not represent evidence that nuclear can actually be built on time or within budget, or without massive government subsidies. History suggests that these political cost estimates and timelines are grossly optimistic.
Until you can actually present evidence of a nuclear power plant that was built on-time, within budget, and at a lower cost than renewables, please stop wasting our time.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 12:04 PM on 1 July 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
I'll add that my previously stated doubts are materializing as fast as the goal posts are moving. It seems for ever impossible to have a rational conversation about nuclear.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 12:03 PM on 1 July 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
A province the size of PEI, it's kinda like saying someone has something the size of Rhode-Island. It is a US state after all. Texas is unfazed...
-
Philippe Chantreau at 11:59 AM on 1 July 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
tder's goals posts are moving so fast, it's just a blur...
-
michael sweet at 01:09 AM on 1 July 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
tder2012
You have simply not looked for renewable grids that have low CO2 emissions. You require me to do all of your homework. Your claim that no grids that are more than 30% wind and solar have low CO2 emissions can be easily checked at the website you linked.
I find that while Lithuania has too few people to meet your cherry picked standards (after you moved the goalposts twice), the regional grid of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia generate all of their electricity using wind and solar and have less than 100 g CO2/kWh. North-east Brazil generates about 80% wind and solar, 20% hydro. Uruguay generates about 50% of electricity with wind and solar, the remainder hydro. Central Brazil generates primarily with wind and solar, no hydro or nuclear, at 107 gCO2/kWh.
Searching your previous posts on SkS here (offtopic) you previously claimed the five grids of France, Ontario (not a country), Switzerland, Finland and Sweden as "nuclear sucesses". According to your website in 2024:
country nuclear renewable France 67 29 Ontario 51 33 Switzerland 32 65 Finland 37 56 Sweden 31 69 I note that three of the five "nuclear successes" generate way more electricity using renewable power than nuclear and one is not a country. Canada as a whole generates only 14% nuclear and 61% renewable. Both Switzerland and Sweden generated less than 30% nuclear in May, 2025 and are disqualified by your 30% standard. I would count Finland, Sweden and Switzerland as renewable successes and not nuclear successes. None would meet the standard without renewables.
Meanwhile, I have named two grids that meet your standards using only wind and solar just 5-10 years after they became economic to install. In 20 years essentially the entire grid will be renewable since they are the cheapest electricity.
Since you keep changing the goal posts I will set them at over 75% of the successful generating strategy. By that standard my two grids using only wind and solar without hydro are successful and no grid worldwide is successful using nuclear. Adding hydro makes about 25 grids worldwide successful using only renewable sources of electricity. About 20 renewable grids are close to 100g/CO2-kWh and no nuclear grids.
After 70 years building out nuclear only one country in the entire world, France, generates enough nuclear power to claim success (unachievable without renewables) and they lose money on nuclear power.
Your claims about "nuclear success" while wind and solar fail are simply ignorant ranting.
All pro nuclear arguments are based on false claims and fall apart when they are carefully exmained.
I have already told you that it is a waste of my time lobbying against nuclear, these are all paper schemes that will fall apart on their own. I note that there has never been a nuclear plant built worldwide without enormous government subsidies.
You have still not provided any any data or references to support your wild claim that a renewables plus nuclear grid can be built out faster than a renewables only grid. As you demanded, I provided several peer reviewed papers to support my position. When you demand data you must provide data to back up your position.
Nuclear is too expensive, takes too long to build and there is not enough uranium to build a significant amount of nuclear power.
-
michael sweet at 22:42 PM on 30 June 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Moderator:
td2012 is not providing any data to support their absurd claims and is now taunting others who try to respond to their nonsensical posts.
They have not provided any information to support their wild claim that a nuclear plus renewable grid could be built faster and cheaper than a renewable only grid in spite of demanding that I provide data to show that renewables only was cheaper and faster (which I provided).
They have not listed three nations successfully using nuclear to reduce carbon emissions despite demanding that I provide names of nations using renewable energy to reduce carbon.
They are simply repeating posts made several months ago at SkS that several other posters responded to pointing out their contradictions, mistakes and deliberate lies.
I am tired of responding to these insulting taunts and deliberate lies. It is time for the moderators to take action and require tder2012 to conform to the comments policy.
The comments policy requires that data be provided, especially when the poster has demanded others to provide data. The comments policy does not allow reposting the same comments repeatedly without any new information. The comments policy does not allow evidence free and knowledge free taunting of other posters.
It is a waste of everyones time reading and responding to repeated misinformation, taunts and lies that fill up the comments thread with garbage. I do not like to see misinformation and deliberate lies left unrefuted at SkS. I do not have unlimited time to respond to posters who are not required to adhere to the comments policy.
Moderator Response:[BL]This assessment of tder2012's posting habits is unnervingly accurate.
tder2012's post will now be subjected to strong moderation.
-
tder2012 at 22:09 PM on 30 June 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
To those that dislike nuclear, here is one more region to lobby to stop, what you likely think, is a big waste of money. "Governor Hochul Directs New York Power Authority to Develop a Zero-Emission Advanced Nuclear Energy Technology Power Plant". Any time you spent responding to my posts should instead be used to lobby all these regions committing to nuclear to, in your opinion, stop this madness, correct?
Moderator Response:[BL] Challenges such as this are purely rhetorical and highly inflammatory.
-
tder2012 at 20:53 PM on 30 June 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Oops, I made errors in 440. "Which region has meet the Paris climate target..." should read "Which region has met the Paris climate target...".
Also "Which region has hit the Paris climate target with the majority of their electricity generated by wind, solar and batteries?" should read "Which region will meet the Paris climate target with the majority of their electricity generated by wind, solar and batteries?"
Moderator Response:[BL[ Do us all a favour. Please get your facts right before you post. Read your own links before you post. Make an attempt to answer your own questions before you post.
-
tder2012 at 20:49 PM on 30 June 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Of course QC is hydro, as is BC. I find it puzzling when people promote wind, solar and batteries and state they can decarbonize, give examples of how it can be done, but hydro is used as the example. Going forward, which region will hit the Paris climate target that has not hit that target yet using mostly hydro? Which region has meet the Paris climate target with most of their electricity generated by wind, solar and batteries (reminder: that is less than 100 grams of CO2 emissions per kilowatt-hour, averaged on an annual basis). Which region has hit the Paris climate target with the majority of their electricity generated by wind, solar and batteries?
Quebec flooded land the size of the Canadian province of PEI for hydro. Is the methane emitted from that rotted vegetation accounted for in GHG emissions of QC hydro?
Over 95% of Manitoba's electricity is geneated by hydro. The dams are about 1000kms from where most of the electricity is consumed. Manitobans paid $5.3 billion for a new long distance HVDC transmission line, completed 7 years ago, big money for 1.5 million people. Here is a list of the top seven HVDC transmission line distances in the world, from 1400 to 2500 kms, all hydro. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1305820/longest-power-transmission-lines-worldwide/ I do wonder if, for long distance HVDC transmission lines, the amount of concrete, steel, aluminium, etc and the amount of land that needs to be cleared are factored into lifecycle CO2 emissions, raw material requirements and cost estimates of hydro dams.
Also, since you dislike nuclear so much, shouldn't you spend time lobbying all those regions and companies I identified making commitments to nuclear? How much money is being committed to nuclear, don't you consider this a waste of money? One example Nuclear Dawn: Africa’s $105 Billion Energy Revolution
-
michael sweet at 07:02 AM on 30 June 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
tder2012:
You are simply repeating the posts you previously made at SkS here. It is against the comments policy to regurgitate arguments that others have previously showed have no merit.
I note that after 70 years on your web site only France has over 50% nuclear and less than 100 g CO2 per kwh. And France generates 34% of power with renewables. Hardly a shining example of nuclear successs after 70 years.
I have already provided at least 10 countries that meet your requirements. Stop changing the goal posts every time I show that your claims are false. You have not given a single country that generates over 70% of power using nuclear.
It is a waste of my time to lobby against nuclear power. All I have to do is wait and nuclear will collapse under its own wieght again. For the past 50 years every 5-10 years nuclear supporters claim another renaissance is starting. They all fail. In 2006 modular reactor supporters and developers said they would have running reactors by 2020. They are about 20 years late and have not delevered any reactors to date.
You have still not provided any any data or references to support your wild claim that a renewables plus nuclear grid can be built out faster than a renewables only grid. As you demanded, I provided several peer reviewed papers to support my position. When you demand data you must provide data to back up your position.
Nuclear is too expensive, takes too long to build and there is not enough uranium to build a significant amount of nuclear power.
moderator: it is very time consuming for me to have to repeat answers to tder2012 when the answers have previously been posted to them on SkS. tder2012 has not added any new information or given a new argument in support of nuclear recently.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 01:01 AM on 30 June 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
I'll add that it took me less than 2 minutes to find the information in that previous post. Writing it and creating the links was far more time consuming, although still reasonable thanks to the link tool in SkS.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 00:42 AM on 30 June 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
I always get a little suspicious of the sincerity of contributors asking others to provide them with information that they could easily find themselves. Quebec's population was counted at 8.5 million in the 2021 census.
This is from the Canada Energy Regulator site: "The greenhouse gas intensity of Quebec’s electricity grid, measured as the GHGs emitted in the generation of the province’s electric power, was 1.2 grams of CO2e per kilowatt-hour (g CO2e/kWh) in 2022. This is a 68% reduction from the province’s 2005 level of 3.8 g CO2e/kWh. The national average in 2022 was 100 g CO2e/kWh."
-
tder2012 at 06:33 AM on 29 June 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Michael Sweet, could you please list a grid that serves at least 5 million people that will meet the Paris target of less than 100grams of CO2 per kilowatt-hour, averaged on an annual basis, that will be this target by having most of their electricity generated by hydro?
Have you considered lobbying all these regions and companies that I have listed to stop with their nuclear plans? Obviously they have not heard from you, otherwise I'm sure they would not be announcing these plans or would cancel them immediately.
-
michael sweet at 06:19 AM on 29 June 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
tder2012:
Most of the green countries on your map provide their electricity with renewable energy. Many produce over 100% renewable energy. For Example Paraguay, most of the Canadian states (only Ontario appears to have significant nuclear capacity), many countries in Africa. Most of these countries have lots of hydro electricity, but so does Ontario. I could list countries with high solar and wind but your source does not show that data.
Florida alone has over 18.6 GW of solar installed at the end of 2024 even though solar has only been cheapest energy for about 4 years. After 75 years only 3 GW of nuclear power exist in Florida. Adjusting for 20% capacity of solar and 90% capacity of nuclear, there are about 3.7 GW generated by solar and only 2.7 GW of nuclear. I note that in 2024 alone over 4.7 GW of solar was installed and more is expected to come online in 2025.
Please list three countries that generate over 75% of their electricity using nuclear power.
You have still not provided any any data or references to support your wild claim that a renewables plus nuclear grid can be built out faster than a renewables only grid. As you demanded, I provided several peer reviewed papers to support my position. When you demand data you must provide data to back up your position.
You are simply repeating the same incorrect claims that you posted upthread and I have already addressed. Repeating the same incorrect claims does not make them correct.
-
tder2012 at 03:59 AM on 29 June 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Micheal Sweet,
Could you please provide a link for a renewables grid that achieve a Paris climate target of less 100 grams of CO2 released per kilowatt-hour, averaged on an annual basis. I don't see any at the global electricitymaps site
-
tder2012 at 03:54 AM on 29 June 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
I'll add one more "Governor Kathy Hochul today directed the New York Power Authority (NYPA) to develop and construct a zero-emission advanced nuclear power plant in Upstate New York to support a reliable and affordable electric grid, while providing the necessary zero-emission electricity to achieve a clean energy economy. This builds on other opportunities announced in Governor Hochul’s 2025 State of the State to catalyze nuclear energy development in New York."
-
michael sweet at 03:53 AM on 29 June 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
tder2012,
Sorry I left off part of your handle above.
You have still not provided any any data or references to support your wild claim that a renewables plus nuclear grid can be built out faster than a renewables only grid. As you demanded, I provided several peer reviewed papers to support my position. When you demand data you must provide data to back up your position.
-
michael sweet at 03:47 AM on 29 June 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Tder
A lot of "pledges to" and "planning" and few breaking ground. I note that there are zero reactors worldwide that are being built by investors, all are being built by governments for political reasons. Even France has only announced building 8 reactors to replace the 55 reactors they have that are nearing end of life. Obviously they will depend more on renewables in the future.
They will build more solar in China this year alone than the amount of nuclear planned to be built worldwide by 2050.
Nuclear is too expensive, takes too long to build and there is not enough uranium to build a significant amount of nuclear power.
-
tder2012 at 21:51 PM on 28 June 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
I can add one more to the previous list
International Atomic Energy Agency and World Bank sign nuclear energy partnership.
-
tder2012 at 09:57 AM on 28 June 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
I posted on the "its too hard" post because nuclear energy was mentioned as a solution there.
Michael Sweet, either the following are not getting your message, or maybe they know something you don't
Philippines Senate Passes Nuclear Bill
Nuclear Dawn: Africa’s $105 Billion Energy Revolution
At COP28, over 20 countries pledged to triple nuclear power by 2050. That number has now grown to more than 30. Last fall Ebba Busch spoke at a conference in New York where 14 major banks and financial institutions – incl. Bank of America, Morgan Stanley & Goldman Sachs – announced their commitment to financing the expansion of nuclear energy
South Korea has started building two new reactors, with plans for two more by 2038
Nuclear energy set a global production record in 2024, despite premature shutdowns in the 2010s and early 2020s in countries like Germany, Japan, Sweden, France, and the US
newly appointed German Chancellor Friedrich Merz and French President Emmanuel Macron signaled a new joint vision for energy policy: A tech-neutral EU with no discrimination against any fossil-free energy sources – including nuclear – with a renewed focus on competitiveness and security of supply
The European Nuclear Alliance – launched under the Swedish EU Presidency – has grown to 16 member states. That’s a majority of EU countries now openly supporting nuclear power. Public support is also strong: 56% of EU citizens now say nuclear power positively impacts their lives. The European Investment Bank (EIB) is now opening the door to nuclear funding, starting with backing Urenco’s expansion
15 EU countries are actively pursuing new builds – from construction/preparations (France, Poland, Czechia) to feasibility studies (Sweden, Estonia, Finland)
Despite an on-going invasion, Ukraine has begun preparing new nuclear projects – including groundwork for new reactors
In the US, nuclear is getting support from both the federal level and individual states. Texas is investing $2B to become a hub for new nuclear. Michigan’s Palisades plant is on track to be the first prematurely closed reactor to restart. Small and microreactor projects are moving ahead – civilian and military. The Pentagon’s Project Pele (mobile microreactors for military bases) is already under construction
Canada has committed tens of billions to extend the life of its CANDU fleet. Yesterday, OPG announced the final investment decision for North America’s first grid-connected SMR – on track for 2029 if all goes to plan
Denmark is reconsidering its decades-long nuclear ban. Danish PM, social democrat Mette Frederiksen, has signaled openness, and a €350M investment fund has launched with backing from major firms like Novo Nordisk
Finland and Estonia are planning new reactors – including for district heating and SMRs. Sweden’s Vattenfall is a shareholder in Estonian startup Fermi Energia
Norway has launched a government inquiry and tasked multiple government agencies with preparing for environmental permitting of new SMRs
China has already approved 10 new reactors this year. In fact, this is the 4th year in a row Chines regulators have kept to their promise to approve "8-10" units a year. With 11 reactors approved last year, China now exceeds its target of 8–10 reactor approvals annually
Investor interest is high – both from domestic companies and international investors. The government has taken about 50 actions to accelerate new builds, including regulatory reforms and a major financing bill now before parliament
The UK announced a historic £30 billion nuclear investment programme. This includes £14 billion to build two EPRs totaling 3 200 MW at Sizewell C and announcing Rolls-Royce as the winner of the UK SMR competition
As Rt Hon Rachel Reeves, Chancellor of the Exchequer, said during the announcement: "Energy security is national security"
Czech Republic finally signs €17 billion deal with KHNP (Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power) to build two new reactors
Nuclear ties between Europe and Asia are deepening fast
For the first time, the World Bank will consider funding new nuclear.
This is a monumental shift in global development policyTogether with Constellation Energy, Meta will keep the Clinton Power Station running for 20 more years.
Big Tech and hyperscalers are stepping in to secure carbon-free, 24/7 powerAt the same time, Westinghoue targets a $75 billion expansion with dramatically reduced costs through utilising a finalised design, series build and a ready supply chain
Japan moves to restart reactors at world's largest nuclear power plant
Tepco has started loading fuel at the Kashiwazaki Kariwa No. 6 reactor (with No. 7 loaded last year)Taiwan eyes nuclear restart
Lawmakers have passed a proposal for a referendum on restarting the Maanshan nuclear plant.Belgium legalizes nuclear
After 22 years, the nuclear phaseout law in Belgium is dead. The plan to shut down 50% of national electricity supply in 3 years is over.
Belgium is back in the nuclear game.The 1985 ban on studying nuclear as an energy source is gone — repealed by the antinuclear parties. There are still bans on nuclear in Denmark, but there is also undeniable momentum.
What about Sweden?
On May 21st, the Riksdag (parliament) cleared the path for new investments in nuclear but adopting the nuclear financing bill put forward by the government.This is another step in Sweden’s pivot from phaseout to buildout. Sweden now has one of the best financing frameworks for nuclear in the world in place
Microsoft, Amazon, Meta, Google, Oracle and Dow Chemical have signed agreements with various nuclear reactor companies. Amazon doubled their nuclear contract in June 2025
Greece opens door to nuclear power on June 19
Nvidia invested in Bill Gates nuclear reactor company, Terrapower
-
michael sweet at 08:37 AM on 28 June 2025It's too hard
TDER:
The place for nuclear comments is on the nuclear thread here. It would help if you read through the previous comments before posting so that you do not simply repeat things previously discussed.
It currently costs ten times as much for nuclear power than for solar power on a capacity adjusted basis. Solar plus batteries is cheaper than nuclear and covers more of demand than nuclear does. There is not enough uranium to generate a significant amount of nuclear power.
-
tder2012 at 22:28 PM on 27 June 2025It's too hard
Since this article was written in 2010, we see minimal change in fossil fuel production, slight growth and minimal percentage change. This chart shows shows the years 2010 to 2023 on the horizontal axis and TWh of energy on the vertical axis, from ~153,000TWh in 2010 to ~183,000TWh in 2023.
This map from Our World in Data is "Energy Use per person, 2023". For example, Chad's 2021 number is 361kwh/person, India is 7,586, UK is 28,501, Canada is 100,000, Bolivia in 2021 was 7,062, Bangladesh 2,940, Germany 38,052. There are many people who use too much energy, but there are so many more that need additional energy. If all 8.2 billion of us lived a lifestyle of a typical European, we would need 4x as much energy as we consume today.
This chart "Remaining carbon budget" has on the vertical axis CO2 emissions per year in gigatons and the horizontal axis has years from 2000 to 2100. It shows our emission need to be at zero by 2036 to keep global warming to 1.5C, at zero by 2052 to keep global warming to 1.7C and at zero by 2077 to keep global warming to 2C. We can see that 1.5C is essentially impossible, 1.7C will be very difficult and 2C is doable if we all get on the same page and agree it must be done.
The reality is "it's too hard" is likely true, but we have no choice, we must do it. We no longer have the luxury of picking and choosing energy sources, we have to throw everything we got at it as fast as we can.
You can read two X threads by Ebba Busch (Deputy Prime Minister of Sweden, Minister for Energy and the Minister for Business and Industry) about nuclear energy announcements on May 9 and June 13 . What is not included is "Nuclear Dawn: Africa’s $105 Billion Energy Revolution" and "Philippines Senate Passes Nuclear Bill"
-
tder2012 at 21:21 PM on 20 June 2025Sabin 33 #32 - Is range restriction a problem for EVs?
Thank you for the responses to BEV vs hybrid. It is not "your preferred hybrid option", I don't have one, I don't know enough to have a preferred option. I should have at least indicated on the initial post that it seemed too simplistic and there must be more to examine, which you outlined, thank you.
-
Doug Bostrom at 21:34 PM on 19 June 2025Climate Adam: Is China Finally Changing Its Climate Ways?
The fecundity of climate research happening in China is remarkable. Stakes are high, as can be seen in the overall theme of reseach topics which tend to be about impacts on food, water, safety.
For jingoists and other geopolitical insecurity victims, the US is surrendering to synthetic ignorance. "Make America Great Again" surely can't include "know as though we were in the 19th century."
-
Bob Loblaw at 00:49 AM on 18 June 2025Sabin 33 #33 - What is the effect of hot or cold weather on EVs?
I used to live in the Canadian prairies (north-west of Evan's Minnesaota location, and I can attest to the problems that extreme cold can have on ICE-powered vehicles. (We saw lows as cold as -40C ...or -40F, if you prefer...)
At such cold temperatures, oil does not flow easily, batteries lose power, and engines often do not want to start. A standard "optional" extra was a block heater: an electric heating element inserted in the engine block, which would be plugged into a standard 120V electrical outlet when the car was parked. Building electrical codes required that each parking spot in a residential garage be equipped with an outlet for a block heater, on its own circuit. When away from home (e.g., at work), finding parking with an electrical outlet for your block heater was an added bonus. Or even at home, if you rented an apartment and parked outside.
At colder temperatures, air is more dense, which increases air resistance regardless of the source of propulsion. This reduces energy efficiency (mileage) for all vehicles. We have not had our BEV long enough to see summer-winter differences (and we don't see the same extreme cold where we live now), but when I lived in colder climates a 20% drop in efficiency in winter was not unusual.
-
Bob Loblaw at 00:02 AM on 18 June 2025Sabin 33 #32 - Is range restriction a problem for EVs?
tder2012 @ 9:
I'm with nigelj (comment 10) on this one. You present the argument that the extra battery capacity in a full BEV, compared to a hybrid, is wasting resources that will be rarely used. You present the argument that it makes more sense to spread that battery capacity across multiple hybrids. (I know it's not your argument - but you are presenting it here.)
Yet, as nigelj points out, the hybrid also has wasted resources that will be rarely used - a complete second motor, drive train assembly, and fuel storage system for the gasoline powered part of the vehicle. It also means maintaining a second network of fuel distribution (refineries, pipelines, trucking network, gas stations) for the life of those hybrid vehicles. Granted, that fuel distribution network will be needed as long as there are non-electric vehicles still on the road - but if hybrids are to remain for a longer period of time, that extends the need for that network.
"Weak argument" indeed. It only looks at one small part of the issue. A very selective presentation of the evidence. What it boils down to is that the argument (as presented) for eliminating the extra battery capacity in a BEV can also be made for eliminating the extra motor and fuel system in a hybrid.
-
Evan at 20:30 PM on 17 June 2025Sabin 33 #33 - What is the effect of hot or cold weather on EVs?
We've owned a Tesla for 8 years. We live in Minnesota where it can get down to -20F or colder. We have a car with a resistance heater, but even if we had a heat pump, at -20F it isn't going to do much.
EVs suffer from reduced range in extreme cold and heat pumps don't help this situation very much. If you live in Minnesota and need your car to drive to work, you have to be able to rely on it to do that on the coldest days you may experience. EVs with modest sized batteries are good for at least 100 miles on the coldest days in Minnesota, and this is usually more than enough for the daily commute cycle.
The up side is that our EV is much more reliable in the extreme cold than any other vehicle we've owned. There are pluses and minuses to everything, and I will gladly trade range for reliability, because I can manage with a 100 mile range more readily than I manage with a car that may not start.
-
prove we are smart at 06:48 AM on 17 June 202510 ways that Trump’s tax bill would undermine his energy promises
The stupidity,incompetence and moral bankruptcy of this current administration in the USA is obvious to any with an open mind.
If their country is still a viable democracy in around 500 days time, just maybe their citizens will vote for the lesser of two evils www.nextpresidentialelection.us/events/2026-united-states-mid-term-elections
I don't look at any countries the same anymore but it seems like many citizens are finally realizing people power can give you back your government for the people-I hope the right to peaceful protest is always available in every country en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Kings_protests
-
nigelj at 06:29 AM on 17 June 2025Sabin 33 #32 - Is range restriction a problem for EVs?
tder2012
"As Gilboy pointed out, “Operating an F-150 Lightning may generate less than a third of the CO2 emissions of a gas F-150, but each one hoards 98 kWh of battery, most of which will be used only on the rare, prolonged drive. Meanwhile, an F-150 Powerboost hybrid battery is just 1.5 kWh. It doesn’t achieve nearly the emissions reduction the Lightning does, but Ford could make 65 of them with the batteries that go into a single Lightning.”
This is weak argument. Firstly having substantial energy capacity that is not often fully used is part of all technology with energy storage, for example EV cars, ICE cars, Hybrid cars (the big petrol tank) and battery operated appliances using recharble batteries. The spare capacity issue isnt really a big problem, and is better than having to constantly replenish a small storage system.
Secondly your preferred hybrid option just shifts the large capacity issue from a big battery to a large fuel tank and a small battery. You haven't SOLVED the capacity issue in any significant way.
"Gilboy noted, “That adds up, because if Ford sells one Lightning and 64 ICE F-150s, it’s cutting the on-road CO2 emissions of those trucks as a group by 370 g/mi. If it sold 65 hybrids—spreading the one Lightning’s battery supply across them all—it’d reduce aggregate emissions by 4,550 g/mi. Remember, this uses the same amount of batteries; the distribution is different.”"
This is a weak argument because it would be lower emissions overall to just build EVs and no ICE or Hybrid automobiles. Therefore its better to build EVs, and try to convince the public to buy them. The argument also takes no account of the fact hybrids still have very significant emissions, and are inefficient, because they have two complete motor systems and energy storage systems, with all the extra materials and servicing costs and complexities. They are at best a form of bridge technology.
-
tder2012 at 05:36 AM on 17 June 2025Sabin 33 #32 - Is range restriction a problem for EVs?
Should we be promoting hybrids, at least for the short term, as today's BEVs seem to use battery materials inefficiently?
"As Gilboy pointed out, “Operating an F-150 Lightning may generate less than a third of the CO2 emissions of a gas F-150, but each one hoards 98 kWh of battery, most of which will be used only on the rare, prolonged drive. Meanwhile, an F-150 Powerboost hybrid battery is just 1.5 kWh. It doesn’t achieve nearly the emissions reduction the Lightning does, but Ford could make 65 of them with the batteries that go into a single Lightning.”
Gilboy noted, “That adds up, because if Ford sells one Lightning and 64 ICE F-150s, it’s cutting the on-road CO2 emissions of those trucks as a group by 370 g/mi. If it sold 65 hybrids—spreading the one Lightning’s battery supply across them all—it’d reduce aggregate emissions by 4,550 g/mi. Remember, this uses the same amount of batteries; the distribution is different.”"
https://energymusings.substack.com/p/energy-musings-june-5-2025
-
Jim Hunt at 06:00 AM on 14 June 2025Sabin 33 #32 - Is range restriction a problem for EVs?
Michael @7.
"When is the last time you drove more than 250 miles in one day?"
June 2nd to be precise!
Whilst I own a 2016 Nissan LEAF I recently went on my first ever electrically powered "road trip", from the far south west of England to the east of the Netherlands and back. Here's a European perspective.
The venerable LEAF is great for local trips, and is almost always charged at home. However she would certainly have caused "charging time anxiety" on such a long trip, so I drove a hired 2025 Volkswagen ID. Buzz. Charging overnight at home was not an option, and I experimented with a variety of "public" charging options en route. My personal need to stretch my legs, visit the mens room, grab a coffee etc. always offered a chance to top up Betty the Buzz's traction battery long before "range anxiety" or "flat battery anxiety" became an issue. The one time I suffered a minor inconvenience was when I was running late for a meeting and Betty's rate of charge unexpectedly dropped from 175 kW to 35 kW for no apparent reason, and then stayed there.
Chapter and verse is available if required, but by way of example here's Betty happily topping up to 80% at an average ~85 kW in the Netherlands:
An added fun feature was that Betty understood English. You could ask her "Please find me a fast charger near my current route" and a range of relevant alternatives would appear on her central screen. -
michael sweet at 17:38 PM on 13 June 2025Sabin 33 #32 - Is range restriction a problem for EVs?
Riduna,
I own a Tesla. One of the main reasons I purchased it two years ago is that in the USA the Tesla charging system is way better than any other. When I drive a long way the car can plot when to stop to charge for the entire trip. It warns me if I am running low on power. At a charging station I pull in, plug in my car and it charges. The system recognizes my car and automatically charges my credit card. If I am going home I put in just enough to reach home.
Other manufacturers are buying into the Tesla system in the USA. I expect everyone to use the Tesla plug soon.
Two years ago I was making a trip with my girlfriend where we had to charge. As we got in the car she asked where we would stop to charge. The computer displayed 8 Tesla charging stations within 12 miles of her house. I generally look for chargers when I have 50 miles left. Most Tesla chargers are near highways.
My brother has a Kia and does more trips off highways than I do. He uses an app on his phone to plan charging. As more chargers are built less planning is needed
The key idea for me is most of the time you charge at home (renters not yet included). When is the last time you drove more than 250 miles in one day?
-
Bob Loblaw at 23:14 PM on 12 June 2025Sabin 33 #32 - Is range restriction a problem for EVs?
Riduna @ 4:
Our EV has a built-in navigation system that provides information on charging stations. The map display includes plotting a circle that indicates current available range (based on current charge level), and known EV charging stations in your local area. It also has trip planning features that will select a route that includes where you can stop to recharge. It can differentiate between various charging station capabilities: AC, DC, fast charging etc.
You can also get phone apps that provide similar functions. I have one that will indicate charging stations nearby (or you can search by address, etc.), and it will indicate the type of charging station, how many charging ports are installed there (and what plug type they provide), and a real-time indication of how many are currently in use. It provides information on public vs. restricted access stations, stations under repair, and user-entered station scores. You can filter by charging station provider - different providers use individual payment schemes (usually via an app, not a credit card), and have different pricing structures (time plugged in, kWh used, etc.) The app I have lets you enter your car model, and it can then filter on stations with compatible plug types, etc.
I haven't needed to use charging stations away from home yet, so I can't vouch for the reliability of these apps, but they do exist.
The charging networks are much less standardized than a gasoline hose nozzle and credit card payment system, but hopefully time will improve this.
-
Evan at 20:23 PM on 12 June 2025Sabin 33 #32 - Is range restriction a problem for EVs?
Our EV is now 8 years old, and I echo the experience of the others commenting here. Our realistic range is about 200 miles in the summer, 150 miles during "normal" cold winter days, and 100 miles at -20F. Sufficient for typical days. Range is just not an issue for commuting.
We just built a house and I hooked up Time of Day charging so that we get the electricity at half the normal rate. Hence, we pay 6.8 cents/kWh. The elctricity to run our car costs between 2-2.5 cents/mile. Essentially free.
I hooked the time of day meter up to a sub panel, from which I ran circuits to our wall charger, two outlets outside, and I ran conduit to other places in the garage. Different cars have the charging ports in different places (front, rear, left, right), so I felt it was good to plan ahead and put the conduit in the wall to allow us to install chargers at different places in the garage.
8 years and 160,000 miles in and we still love the car.
-
Riduna at 12:18 PM on 12 June 2025Sabin 33 #32 - Is range restriction a problem for EVs?
Has technology been developed enabling public recharge stations nearest an EV to be identified when the car battery charge reaches a pre-set low level?
Such a facility would overcome the kind of 'range anxiety' experienced in Australia where driving to the State capital, a regional city, or an event, could be a drive of 500 km or more.
-
Bob Loblaw at 00:35 AM on 12 June 2025Sabin 33 #32 - Is range restriction a problem for EVs?
Michael:
Our car came with a portable charger that can plug into a standard 120V 15A wall socket, but that only charges at 1.2 kW, which is a slow charge indeed. The charger itself can have 240V cables (extra cost) attached to it that plug into a variety of 240V outlets, but that still would have required us to install a 240V outlet in the garage.
As part of the negotiations, we got the car dealership to include a wall-mounted permanent charging box at reduced price. We then had our electrician install it. (I did the work of preparing the route for the cable run through our finished basement from the main panel to the garage.)
The 1.2 kW charger would still be able to easily handle the daily commute needs with only a few hours of plug-in time. Our electricity rates drop after 7pm, so we wait until evening to plug the car in. We do not need to plug it in every night, but we usually do. My wife's commute is about 40km round trip, but we're averaging about 60km between charges with extra short trips thrown in. On average, we put in about 12 kW each charge cycle, so just 10 hours if we used the slower 1.2 kW 120V charger.
...but as you say, the actual human resources time to do the charging is less than a minute in the evening to plug it in, and less than a minute in the morning to unplug it. With zero travel time.
-
michael sweet at 21:42 PM on 11 June 2025Sabin 33 #32 - Is range restriction a problem for EVs?
Bob,
I find the same thing with my EV which I have had for two years.
If you own a home almost everyone Installs a home charger. I drive 100 miles a day so I plug in every night. If you drive less than 40 miles a day an extension cord to a regular outlet will work. My brother, who drives less than me, charges twice a week.
People often ask how long it takes to fill my battery. This is really a question about ICE cars. In a gas car it is a pain in the neck to fill with gas. With an electric car you charge overnight at home and the car is always full. I spend a few seconds a day charging . When more people have electric cars rental units will have chargers.
I have only used a public charger twice in the last 8 months.
-
Bob Loblaw at 00:03 AM on 11 June 2025One big, beautiful, climate-killing bill
nigelj, OPOF:
Chris Mooney's 2005 book The Republican War on Science documents a long history of attacks on science. The Wikipedia link includes some criticism of the book, but I think the positive reviews are pretty strong. (Yes, I have read the book.) Climate, evolution, tobacco, medicine - many topics that go against either religious beliefs or industrial/economic special interests.
The current US administration seems determined to destroy the institutions that have fought to protect the environment, the consumer, the law-abiding citizens, etc. All to suit the ultra-wealthy oligarchs. Changing control of the legislative and executive branches away from the current power-hungry zealots will take a long time to rebuild an effective government system. That system has been decaying for a long time.
-
Bob Loblaw at 23:49 PM on 10 June 2025Sabin 33 #32 - Is range restriction a problem for EVs?
We recently bought a full electric vehicle. It has an 80 kWh battery, and a nominal range of 300-400 km.
After about 4,000 km, we have seen the electricity consumption varying from roughly 25 kWh/100km (in colder weather) to 15 kWh/100km (warmer weather, less stop-and-go travel), averaging about 20 kWh/100km. This is consistent with the advertised range of 400 km.
We have not done any long trips yet - just daily commuting and local travel, and few nights out to visit friends or family an hour or so away. We normally only charge to 80% for daily use, and charge to 100% when we anticipate further distances.
To date, we've never seen the battery drop below 50% before charging. We have a level 2 10 kW charger at home that can fully charge the system from nearly empty to 100% overnight, but we usually limit it to 10A slower charge to take it easy on the batteries. This easily completes charging to 80% overnight.
In short, range has not been an issue for our normal city activities. We'll need to seek out fast charging locations if we plan a long trip, but for local use the home charger does just fine.
...and the cost of electricity to feed the beast has been less than 1/3 what I estimate it would have cost to feed gasoline to an Infernal Combustion Engine vehicle.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 02:05 AM on 8 June 2025One big, beautiful, climate-killing bill
Building further on my comment @6,
The collection of harmful actions in the Big Beautiful Bill, and the fact that many supporters of the Bill and the Party that made-it-up claim to have been unaware of some of the harmful elements, indicates that a new way to evaluate and position political groups would be helpful.
The existing evaluations like, Right-Left, Liberal-Conservative, Capitalist-Socialist, Democratic-Authoritarian are useful ways to differentiate political groups. But I think a new scale would be Most Helpful. It would be a scale between the extremes of:
- Every action is governed by the pursuit of learning to be less harmful and more helpful to Others. Evidence-based pursuit of increased awareness and understanding of harm being done and the need to stop the harm and make amends for the harm done To Others. Totally Woke (on the left)
- Every action is a pursuit of short-term, unsustainable, increased potential benefit for some people to the detriment of Others, even to the detriment of people who hope they will benefit from it. This side fighhts against the increased awareness and pursuit of evidence and understanding that would contradict their desired pursuit of short-term unsustainable benefit for a sub-set of global humanity. They call themselves Us. All Others are Them (the enemy or the irrelevant). Totalitarian Anti-Woke (on the Right).
The Big Beautiful Bill contains more actions on the Right of that scale than the ‘anti-future of humanity actions’ that will undeniably increase the magnitude of global warming and climate change harm done (and other related pollution and environmental damage harms).
The Big Beautiful Bill is far from ‘Centrist (the middle of the scale)’. It is very close to the extreme of ‘anti-woke, anti-science, harmful to the future of humanity’.
Tragically, many people, especially young men (see Harmful masculinities among younger men in three countries: Psychometric study of the Man Box Scale - linked here), can be misled to hope to benefit from those unkind kinds of leadership action.
The following quote of the opening paragragh of the above linked article indicates how young men could still support leadership that causes increased climate change harm for other reasons even if they have a good understanding of the harm they will suffer due to human caused global warming and climate chnage.
There is strong evidence that young men who subscribe to inequitable gender norms (e.g., believe women are solely responsible for household chores and child-rearing) (Pulerwitz and Barker, 2008) and endorse dominant and hostile forms of masculinities (e.g., believe women are sexual conquests) (Pulerwitz and Barker, 2008) have higher rates of perpetrating psychological, physical, and sexual violence against women (Pulerwitz and Barker, 2008; Jewkes et al., 2011; Malamuth et al., 1995; Parrott and Zeichner, 2003; Good et al., 1995; Schwartz et al., 2005; Copenhaver et al., 2000; Eisler et al., 2000; Jakupcak et al., 2002; Barker et al., 2011). Violence against women is a global health epidemic in which one in three women are impacted during their lifetime, leading to adverse health outcomes, such as depression, sexually transmitted infections, and exacerbation of chronic health conditions (World Health Organization, 2013). Research also shows emerging evidence of an association between “harmful masculinities” and perpetrating verbal and physical abuse, cyber bullying, and aggression towards gay, lesbian, and transgender people or those who do not conform to hetero-normative gender norms (Leemis et al., 2018; Steinfeldt et al., 2012; Leone and Parrott, 2015; Parrot, 2009; Vincent et al., 2011; Kelley and Gruenewald, 2015; Reidy et al., 2009; Espelage et al., 2018). Furthermore, studies have explored the impact of “harmful masculinities” on the health of the individual who endorses them, including poor care-seeking behaviors, and mental and sexual health outcomes (Pulerwitz and Barker, 2008; Barker et al., 2011; Barker, 2000; Rivers and Aggleton, 1999; Addis, 2008; Barker and Ricardo, 2005; American Psychological Association, Boys and Men Guidelines Group, 2018; Jakupcak et al., 2017; Courtenay, 2000; Oliffe, 2009; Cho and Kogan, 2017). A recent study estimated that eliminating these hegemonic masculine norms could save the United States (U.S.) economy $15.7 billion (Heilman et al., 2019).
-
One Planet Only Forever at 14:19 PM on 7 June 2025One big, beautiful, climate-killing bill
nigelj @5,
The Republican anti-science attitude is nothing new.
Al Gore made a detailed presentation of the Republican penchant for misunderstanding things in his 2007 book "The Assault on Reason".
-
Jeff Cope at 14:16 PM on 7 June 2025Renewables allow us to pay less, not twice
The prisoner's dilemma
Pointing out that it makes sense to build slowly and wait for prices to fall calls to mind the prisoner's dilemma thought exercise. Everybody acting selfishly (in a very limited, short-term way), thinking (incorrectly) that this is a zero-sum contest (essentially the core conservative belief (GeorgeLakoff, Don't Think of an Elephant and other works)) and delaying implementing solutions such as efficiency, renewable energy, organic permaculture, EVs, heat pumps, etc. until the price is lower, makes it all turn out very badly for everyone, as we see playing out in the real world, as actors try to compete by NOT solving the greatest existential crisis in history. Because that delay is the strategy for most countries, even more corporations, and many people, climate catastrophe will destroy quadrillions of dollars worth of civilization and nature (by which I mean mostly ecosystem services, alone worth more than the entire human economy, since it's quite insane to try to put a price on extinction or ecological degradation).
Taking this to its logical conclusion, everybody would do nothing, ever, and civilization and most life on Earth would be doomed. We see that that is almost the case in reality, except some people and countries are
1) being deceitful, with lies like "net zero 2050", essentially an excuse for people in power now to do nothing, but to pretend they are or will, so others implement solutions now and bring the price down; or
2) acting more enlightened and altruistic. So we see that it's not even in anyone's short term interest to delay, as they are saving money on cheaper energy, or as China seems to be doing, reducing its burden of expensive energy and externalities to compete better and take over the world.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 14:11 PM on 7 June 2025One big, beautiful, climate-killing bill
I offer this as building on the comments so far (and to intentionally properly use the term woke to try to counteract the destructive misleading marketing efforts of the anti-woke crowd).
I particularly want to build on Bob Loblaw’s point that there are “more than one representative that has admitted that they voted for this bill without reading all of it - and that they are surprised to find sections that they don't like.”
In addition, many voters may also claim they were not fully aware of all the intentions of the individuals and party they voted for - and they do not like many of the things those elected representatives are doing. (as noted in the article “42% of liberal or moderate Republicans, and 28% of conservative Republicans support tax rebates for electric vehicles.”)
In both cases, elected representatives and voters not being more aware, the problem is individuals being selective about their learning in pursuit of personal benefit. They do not care to be governed by the undeniably more important objective of having increased awareness and learning to be less harmful and more helpful to Others (being helpfully woke to harmful developments).
Of course, there is also the problem of liking/desiring a particular action so much that as long as that action is achieved any other actions that are ‘claimed to be disliked’ are considered to be acceptable political ‘collateral damage’. They like their ‘favourite actions’ so much that they would consider any harmful consequences understandably related to them getting what they want to be justified and excusable.
Too many people, voters and elected representatives, will believe that any harm done by their desire to benefit from increasing the total global climate change harm done, or any other understandably harmful desire, is justified and excusable.
-
nigelj at 06:20 AM on 6 June 2025One big, beautiful, climate-killing bill
So what happens when / if theres a democratic president? Does it all swing back to support for Paris accords and climate mitigation? Its like a roller coaster of policy. The UK has tried to get around this problem. It created an independent non partisan committeec alled the climate change committe to advise governments on climate mitigation related decisions. The UK have also made quite good progress on some aspects of mitigation so the committe seems to have been a success even although it doesn't have the power to make decisions itself. Generally governmnets of all colours seem to have agreed to take its recommendations seriously. Refer:
Something related. Regarding the Republicans unfortunate anti science agenda.The Economist Journal has a excellent article on the anti science agenda in its May 24th - 30th editions titled "Americas assault on science". You can read it online in the link below. You need to sign up for an account, but they give you a couple of articles for free each month, or you can subscribe and pay for full access.
www.economist.com/leaders/2025/05/22/magas-assault-on-science-is-an-act-of-grievous-self-harm
-
nigelj at 05:56 AM on 6 June 2025One big, beautiful, climate-killing bill
Regarding prove we are smarts very good link on why people are fooled by misinformation. Its known that is partly because they lack critical thinking skills. I think they lack such skills for the following reason: Our entire society is based on obedience to authority, so of course teachers never taught students how to think critically, because they didn't want students questioning the validity of what they say. This has left entire generations of people vulnerable to misinformation.
The situation is slowly improving with meaningful critical thinking skills creeping into curriculums, at least in the final years of schooling. Websites like this are invaluable because they help inform on such skills.
-
Bob Loblaw at 23:37 PM on 5 June 2025One big, beautiful, climate-killing bill
Recent news reports have quoted more than one representative that has admitted that they voted for this bill without reading all of it - and that they are surprised to find sections that they don't like.
With a bill this large, it is obviously difficult to be familiar with everything in it - but isn't that their job?
