Was there a third atomic bomb?

[NNadir]

55. Bullshit. This tiresome crap was clearly insane 20 years ago, but as things are now, it's worse.

It's rather tiresome to hear bourgeois people sitting at their computer in the United States talking about "conservation."

It's fine to say that if you live in a country where the average continuous power consumption is close to 10,000 watts while there are billions of people who lack even basic sanitation services, electricity or clean water on a planet where the average continuous power consumption of all human beings is 2500 watts, with some people having access to less than 10 watts of power.

This is as myopic as it is immoral, a "let them eat cake" type remark.

I made this point at some length elsewhere almost 3 years (and 100 billion metric tons of dumped carbon dioxide) ago: Current Energy Demand; Ethical Energy Demand; Depleted Uranium and the Centuries to Come

Solar and wind are trivial forms of energy, incapable after the expenditure of trillions of dollars (and the poisoning of 10% of the Chinese rice crop in Southern China) of producing even 5 of the 570 exajoules humanity is now consuming.

I'm an old man, who's lived through half a century of stupid hype about the solar money sucking scam. I've spent the last 30 years of my life buried deeply in the primary scientific literature - not dumb promo pages - studying energy and the environment.

Right now, 7 million people are being killed each year, every year by air pollution, half from dangerous fossil fuel waste, half from the combustion of "renewable" biomass.

A comparative risk assessment of burden of disease and injury attributable to 67 risk factors and risk factor clusters in 21 regions, 1990–2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010 (Lancet 2012, 380, 2224–60: For air pollution mortality figures see Table 3, page 2238 and the text on page 2240.)

And you want to talk about Chernobyl? You are burning electricity that is almost certainly coming from dangerous fossil fuels.

Which killed more people, Chernobyl and Fukushima or the coal, oil and gas burned by people running computers to comment on Chernobyl and Fukushima?

The big bogey men raised by people who never opened a science book in their lives, Chernobyl and Fukushima, combined didn't kill as many people as will die tomorrow from air pollution.

And I note that the nuclear energy industry is more than half a century old, with a death toll dwarfed by automobiles, oil wars, air pollution, human consumption of bad water, airline crashes, and, in fact, natural gas explosions. That people don't give a shit about any kind of death except a radiation death is morally appalling.

Nuclear energy need not be perfect, it not be without risk to be vastly superior to everything else. It only needs to be vastly superior to everything else which it is, as has been experimentally observed.

It is immoral to oppose nuclear energy, particularly as we raced past 410 ppm this year while people sat on their asses praising the failed so called "renewable energy" industry. It didn't work, it isn't working, and it won't work.

Nuclear energy saves lives: Prevented Mortality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Historical and Projected Nuclear Power (Environ. Sci. Technol., 2013, 47 (9), pp 4889–4895)

It follows that anti-nuke ignorance kills people.

Note that this reference is not from a dumbed down internet page, but from the primary scientific literature, a paper written by one of the world's most prominent climate scientists.

You can sit around like D'Estragon waiting for Godot for the Grand Renewable Energy future that never comes, but you are not serving humanity or the environment in doing so. Quite the contrary. You are damaging humanity and the environment.

Have a nice week.