Washington University: Researchers create novel electro-biodiesel more efficient, cleaner than alternatives

[OKIsItJustMe]

8. Six words stopped nuclear power

Atoms for Peace: Atoms for Peace was propaganda. All the world knew about atomic power was that you could destroy cities with it. Eisenhower wanted people to see nuclear power as our friend! Hence the title of the movie, Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb. We were told that we could harness the mighty power of the atom to power our cities! We could have nuclear powered aircraft carriers, nuclear powered submarines, nuclear powered airplanes, even nuclear powered cars! Indeed, nuclear power would be “too cheap to meter.” We started building reactors, with little thought regarding what we would do with their spent fuel, or their reactor cores, and, they were not “too cheap to meter.” The “hype” was overblown.

Three Mile Island. The China Syndrome with its warnings of a “nuclear meltdown” had barely made it to the theaters, before we had one on our hands (although at the time, it was not acknowledged.) As the drama proceeded, people in the vicinity were greeted with “what if” maps in the local newspapers, portraying possible radiation exposure levels which bore a striking resemblance to maps of a nuclear detonation.

Virtually overnight, we stopped building new reactors, and existing ones were eyed as threats.


In the 1970’s we knew that fossil fuels were finite, and we knew that the “Greenhouse Effect” was a threat (although it was perceived as a distant one.) Gerald Ford started a campaign to make Solar Power practical. Jimmy Carter picked up his program, and expanded upon it, researching other forms of renewable energy sources as well.

Ronald Reagan came to town, and cut the R&D into renewable energy sources, and did not resurrect the nuclear industry. His answer was simply to produce and burn more fossil fuels.

In spite of Reagan R&D continued, although at a slower pace. Today, renewable energy sources can be installed faster and more cheaply than nuclear plants, and nuclear plants are not the climate panacea they are made out to be. (Back to propaganda again…)

https://www.sciencealert.com/here-s-why-nuclear-won-t-cut-it-if-we-want-to-drop-carbon-as-quickly-as-possible

25-Year Study of Nuclear vs Renewables Says One Is Clearly Better at Cutting Emissions
ENVIRONMENT 11 October 2020 By DAVID NIELD

Nuclear power is often promoted as one of the best ways to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels to generate the electricity we need, but new research suggests that going all-in on renewables such as wind and solar might be a better approach to seriously reducing the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

Based on an analysis of 123 countries over a quarter of a century, the adoption of nuclear power did not achieve the significant reduction in national carbon emissions that renewables did – and in some developing nations, nuclear programmes actually pushed carbon emissions higher.

The study also finds that nuclear power and renewable power don't mix well when they're tried together: they tend to crowd each other out, locking in energy infrastructure that's specific to their mode of power production.

Given nuclear isn't exactly zero carbon, it risks setting nations on a path of relatively higher emissions than if they went straight to renewables.

…

In my opinion, nuclear fission likely has a role to play for some time. I believe it will be eclipsed by nuclear fusion (if we live long enough to deploy either.) In the meantime, we need to cut emissions as quickly as possible, and nuclear power just isn’t doing it.

Your utter rejection of renewable sources of energy, at every opportunity, in spite of the facts is simply irrational.