Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

NNadir

(34,848 posts)
25. Um...um...um..."atoms for peace" prevented, as of 2013, 65 billion tons of carbon dioxide.
Sat Nov 23, 2024, 08:31 PM
Nov 23

The paper is open sourced; I post links to it all the time, usually in the hope that people with poor comprehension can learn to read; usually a rather dubious wish.

Prevented Mortality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Historical and Projected Nuclear Power (Pushker A. Kharecha* and James E. Hansen Environ. Sci. Technol., 2013, 47 (9), pp 4889–4895)

I would question whether anyone who raises the point of Three Mile Island, some 46 years and change later and wants to talk about "lies" and irrationality has any kind of clue about the world at large, which is on fire because people who know very little about anything at all are very loud asserting nonsense, "real, stable, geniuses," all.

Of course, I am familiar intimately with nuclear issues, having downloaded, read, and seriously considered many thousands of papers, 12,117 to be exact, as of this morning, a number that was slight smaller yesterday, because this morning I was expanding my knowledge of Gurry-Darken maps of Pu metal mutual solubility generated by appeal to the Hume-Rothery rules, since I plan on conversing with my son over Thanksgiving on the subject.



I've been studying nuclear energy intensely ever since Chernobyl blew up in August of 1986. At that time, I was as dumb as any antinuke here; but I relieved myself of ignorance.

Of course, this is just a subdirectory of the larger issues associated with the environment.



Which in turn is a subdirectory of a directory devoted to all sorts of scientific papers, physics, chemistry, materials science, molecular biology, engineering, mathematics...etc...



I also have rather large directories for non-scientific topics, history, for instance.

I'm not a mumbling rube trying to make excuses for the complete and total failure of so called "renewable energy" to address extreme global warming, repeating rote and tiresome bullshit about batteries and hydrogen, carrying on about benchtop "breakthroughs" reported by science journalists, as if they're about to solve all our problems, and then carrying on about bullshit that took place in the 20th century, insipidly so.

I've spent a lifetime studying these issues in the primary scientific literature outside my day jobs, for which I have also worked the primary scientific literature. I'd like to think my work saved lives.

Now my life is reaching its end, and it is, I suppose sad, to understand - as I do - that it was largely all for naught; things got worse and worse with the same chanting bullshit being louder and louder and louder all the time.

I did raise a son who may carry some of the things I've learned forward. I hope and trust he will exceed whatever I have known.

As for being lectured from a rube level as to what I do and do not understand, well, it goes with the territory. It's not like this is even the thousandth time I've been exposed to these sorts of claims. Ignorance is nothing if not loud; after all this time, if nothing is clear, that is.

Have a wonderful weekend and enjoy the upcoming Thanksgiving holiday.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Disel is one of the dirtiest burning fossil fuels GoreWon2000 Nov 18 #1
Right. More immediately, diesel exhaust can cause heart attacks OKIsItJustMe Nov 18 #2
No such thing as "clean diesel" GoreWon2000 Nov 18 #3
Uh, this is not "clean diesel" (like "clean coal.") OKIsItJustMe Nov 18 #4
It's all snake oil GoreWon2000 Nov 20 #11
Please go back and read the OP - better yet, follow the links I provided OKIsItJustMe Nov 20 #12
Curious, where are your schooling and work credentials on this issue? GoreWon2000 Nov 20 #13
You have obviously mistaken me for an opponent OKIsItJustMe Nov 20 #14
My engineer father's credentials are totally relevant GoreWon2000 Nov 21 #17
Powering transport with "Green Hydrogen" OKIsItJustMe Nov 20 #15
Reading articles isn't actual expertise GoreWon2000 Nov 21 #16
I take it your father is recently deceased. You must miss him. I am sorry for your loss. OKIsItJustMe Nov 21 #18
You're NOT an engineer GoreWon2000 Nov 21 #19
Please understand, I do not disrespect your father's credentials. I know you are very proud of them. OKIsItJustMe Nov 21 #20
My engineer father was way ahead GoreWon2000 Nov 22 #21
Your engineering credentials are to make such comments? GoreWon2000 Nov 24 #30
Snake oil would work too! FullySupportDems Nov 23 #27
The fossil fuel that currently creates most electricity will run out GoreWon2000 Nov 23 #24
Permit me to correct you a little. Yes, there is a term "Clean Diesel" in the industry... CoopersDad Nov 22 #22
Bio-diesel is not a solution GoreWon2000 Nov 23 #23
I never said it was a solution. But it's better than fossil fuels until we can do better than we do now. CoopersDad Nov 23 #28
Green hydrogen is the solution GoreWon2000 Nov 24 #29
But bio diesels have much different emissions FullySupportDems Nov 23 #26
Bio-diesel involves growing corn or sugar cane GoreWon2000 Nov 24 #31
I understand, it's not a good use of resources FullySupportDems Nov 25 #32
Wow!!!! We're saved! Of the 11300 CO2 to C2 electrochemical papers... NNadir Nov 18 #5
No we're not OKIsItJustMe Nov 18 #6
Look, I fully recognize that nuclear power will not... NNadir Nov 18 #7
Six words stopped nuclear power OKIsItJustMe Nov 18 #8
Um no. What stopped nuclear power was selective attention driven by deliberate ignorance driven by propaganda. NNadir Nov 18 #9
I guess you don't bother to try to understand things you don't want to OKIsItJustMe Nov 18 #10
Um...um...um..."atoms for peace" prevented, as of 2013, 65 billion tons of carbon dioxide. NNadir Nov 23 #25
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»Washington University: Re...»Reply #25