Michael Shellenberger has made a serious claim that renewables cannot get us where we need to go. For that, he argues, we need to invest in nuclear power. Facebook censored Shellenberger even though he was deemed correct by researchers at Princeton and Bloomberg news. FB shut down the conversation on yet another critically important national issue. Shellenberger’s article is titled “Finally They Admit Renewables Are Terrible For The Environment: New research from Princeton University and Bloomberg confirms that renewables require 300 – 400 times more land than natural gas and nuclear plants.”
Over the last few years, I have been pushing back against the idea that renewables are good for the environment. In 2019 I published, “Why Renewables Can’t Save the Planet,” which was the most-read article of the year at Quillette, and gave a TEDx talk by the same name, which today has 2.5 million views. And last year, in Apocalypse Never, I pointed out that wind and solar projects require 300 to 400 times more land than nuclear or natural gas plants, and that 100% renewables would require increasing land used for energy from 0.5% today to 25% to 50%.
Needless to say, the renewable energy industry and its boosters haven’t liked what I’ve written, and have sought to cancel me. Last year, a group of activist scientists denounced me as factually wrong, and demanded that I be censored by Facebook. They drew on junk science to claim that solar required just 3.6 times more land and wind just 5.8 times more than nuclear and natural gas plants. In response, Facebook censored me and denied me the right to appeal their verdict.
But now researchers at Princeton University and Bloomberg News have admitted that I was right and my critics were wrong.
Yep, current Nuclear power designs like molten salt reactors claim to be inherently safe by design. This poses a serious economic threat to the renewable energy sector. They will fight nuclear energy to the bitter end to protect their own interests. Very similar to the tobacco industry. Instead of a fight to stop cancer this one is about the fight to reduce global warming. Unfortunately the process of building renewables demands an enormous amount of fossil fuel energy compared to the amount used to build a nuclear power plant. Naturally I’m comparing the fossil fuels needed to produce two different forms of sustainable energy. Weighing the two seems to sway towards nuclear energy for several reasons. The main reasons being obvious as follows: no wind=no energy from a wind turbine and no sun reaching the solar panels = no energy. Nuclear power on the other hand generates it’s own power taking advantage of abundant materials created during the big bang.
I hope this was not a surprise to anyone. This has been common knowledge among scientists for decades. Anthropogenic Global Warming enthusiasts dispute it, and these enthusiasts are the guardians of one of the fundamental tenets of anti-American liberalism. We were evil because of carbon pollution long before we were evil because of racism. The biggest problem in trying to convince people of the real science is that it is inconsistent with the religious belief that the U.S. is fundamentally evil.
My understanding is that, at this point in time and for some time to come, renewables won’t be able to run heavy industries like steel mills. If that’s true, it amazes me that this issue is not even discussed. If it isn’t true, I’m willing for some knowledgeable person to correct me.
It seems to me that there is no form of energy production that does not produce worrisome externalities. The environmental movement is pushing a narrative that there is, making it so people don’t have to grapple with choosing the lesser of several evils.
Agreed, Ruth. I like the idea of solar panels and wind power. However, the numbers are not there – they don’t produce enough energy to run heavy industry or most of our automobiles. Not even a close question. We are bad at math and good at tribal narratives. This makes for bad public policy.
If you would like an in depth intro into Nuclear Energy and it’s ability to satisfy modern day energy demands please visit the face book site link below. There are Nuclear scientist in there who actually design nuclear reactors. There are also several other scientist in related fields such as chemistry who are all pushing for more nuclear energy. I have been monitoring the site for a long time and it is very clear that renewables are not capable of sustained energy. In fact one wind turbine company tried to convince a small town that they have backup batteries to sustain power if the wind stops. This group made fun of that for almost a week before it fizzled out. Michael Shellenberger would have enjoyed being a part of this group. They have never been shut down that I am aware of.
The site is labeled Americans for Nuclear Energy. https://www.facebook.com/groups/408164279325391
Thanks, Alan. I will take a look.
I just went in there and posted some gibberish. Asked one friend about Michael Shellenberger. Do you know Michael Shellenberger? He didn’t recognize him. Recommended that the group read him. I think one of the moderators is mixed up with the department of energy. Seems right up Michael Shellenberger’s alley.
I’m going to apply to myself on the above paragraph I attempted do to compose while falling asleep. lol In short I meant to ask if anyone knew Michael Shellenberger, If so, turn him on to the above group, “Americans for Nuclear Energy”. He might like it.