Oliver Stone’s Nuclear Now: Documentary On Atomic Energy To Solve Climate Change

[Blue Horseshoe 348]

 

 

Oliver Stone’s new movie makes the case nuclear power is the obvious solution to climate change

....The movie had a special screening at the World Economic Forum in Davos earlier in January, opened in New York and Los Angeles.... Critics say the movie overlooks significant barriers for nuclear energy, particularly high cost and slow construction....Generating electricity with nuclear reactors does not produce any greenhouse gas emissions, and is therefore worth a serious look, Stone’s movie says, because anthropogenic climate change, caused by excessive greenhouse gas emissions largely emitted from the burning of fossil fuels, is getting worse..... He started reading about climate change, including a review of the book “A Bright Future: How Some Countries Have Solved Climate Change and the Rest Can Follow” by Joshua S. Goldstein and Staffan A. Qvist. He was struck by both the review and the book....

....“I didn’t realize it was going to be so tough to pull something like this off,” Stone said, because there is no single main character for the documentary. “The story is the logic of it. Follow the history into the present: What went wrong? What could go right?”....In the movie, Stone presents a case that the beneficial potential of nuclear energy has not been reached because society conflated its collective fear of nuclear bombs with nuclear energy. In the film, which Stone narrates, he says he was anti-nuclear because he generally absorbed the environmentalist anti-nuclear agenda that has been spread for generations....“State the facts. You have to give the information that you have,” Stone told CNBC. Not everyone is going to believe what you say, “but some people will believe it. You have to trust in the truth ultimately will obliterate the lie. You have to believe that....” 

Goldstein, who worked with Stone to write the film, says the feeling of being in a movie theater can have a more powerful effect on people’s perceptions than leaving them alone to parse facts that may feel overwhelming or out of context....“A film is more than information. It’s an experience, and it’s a collective experience. That’s why I’m really happy we’re getting some release in theaters, because you sit in the theater with everybody else, you have this collective experience...The majority of people actually support nuclear energy, but the people who don’t support it are very loud and very scared and it draws a lot of attention.....”

....Americans’ perspective of nuclear energy fluctuates and has been generally increasing in the last decade, according to a recent poll from Gallup showing 55% percent of Americans either strongly or somewhat favor using nuclear energy as a way to provide electricity. That’s the highest percentage since 2012, according to Gallup....Jaczko says fear of accidents is not the primary reason nuclear energy is not more widespread today. Instead, nuclear energy is expensive and has been managed poorly.....“As with most nuclear fables these days, the film establishes the strawman argument that nuclear is an underutilized technology because people are afraid of nuclear power and confuse it with nuclear bombs: ‘Once we get over our radiation fear, nuclear will thrive and solve climate change.’ This isn’t the main or even a significant problem with nuclear power....The primary problems are cost competitiveness, operational ineffectiveness, engineering weakness, managerial incompetence, and design mistakes. These are well documented deficiencies....” ....Another problem is the length of time it takes to build nuclear reactors....

....But Stone also felt compelled to make the documentary because he sees nuclear energy as an underappreciated and misunderstood climate solution....“The film is a warning, a dramatic warning, of a major distortion in history, and a need to return to the using nuclear in any possible way....” 

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/05/01/oliver-stones-movie-says-nuclear-power-is-a-climate-change-solution.html

[Blue Horseshoe 348]

 

The Democrats Really Are That Dense About Climate Change

The party doesn’t even seem to realize that it’s blowing a once-in-a-decade chance to pass meaningful climate legislation....Missing was any sense that this legislation is a make-or-break moment for the broader Democratic caucus. Gone was any suggestion that if Democrats fail to pass a bill this term, then America’s climate commitment under the Paris Agreement will be out of reach, and worse heat waves, larger wildfires, and damaging famines across the country and around the world within the next decade and a half will be all but assured....

Pelosi did not seem to understand, really, why Congress needed to pass a climate law this session. (She seemed to blame the fossil-fuel industry for the current Congress’s inaction.) ... Climate action was “for the children” in the 1990s. “We’re not doing this for the children,” Kate Larsen, an energy analyst at the Rhodium Group, told me after the event. “We’re doing this for us!” Heat waves hot enough to cook human flesh are already happening this month; they will become more common over the coming decades, striking multiple times a year. Unbearable droughts, sea-level rise so high as to break levees, and unpredictable famines will characterize life. Most of the world’s coral reefs, including the Great Barrier Reef, will undergo bleaching every few years, meaning the water will be so hot that the coral will eject their symbiotic microorganisms into the water, starving themselves in the process....

The speech seemed to punctuate the collapse of climate politics over the past year. During the campaign, Biden described climate change as one of the country’s four major overlapping crises. Yet his administration seems to be sleepwalking toward inaction.... Five months ago, Senator Joe Manchin, a Democrat of West Virginia, killed Biden’s Build Back Better bill after the White House repeatedly ignored his attempts to pare it down. Since then, Democrats have been stuck in limbo, with Manchin laying out some of his terms for a replacement bill, and Democrats neglecting to put together a new bill reflecting those terms. It now seems likely that Democrats will lose control of Congress with only a bipartisan infrastructure bill to show for their trouble....

...At the same time, the Biden administration could soon lose its ability to regulate climate change at all. The Supreme Court could restrict the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to regulate greenhouse gases this term. It could also curtail Chevron deference, a legal doctrine that gives executive agencies more freedom to operate when the underlying law is unclear. In the past, both concepts have been central to Democratic climate-rule making. Both could be gone by 2023...What all of this means is that, the next time a climate-skeptical president takes office, advocates will have fewer tools to constrain their behavior than last time. And they will have no future to point to: If Democrats couldn’t pass a climate bill in 2009 or 2022, why should anyone have any hope that they’ll try to do it again, or be able to?

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2022/05/nancy-pelosi-democrats-climate-change-bill/629822/

[Blue Horseshoe 348]

 

From college to climate, Democrats are sealing their doom by selling out young voters 

....But just nine months into the 46th presidency, Biden is struggling to earn even that “C+” on his first report card from America’s young voters. The last week of headlines — that free community college is completely dropped from the Democrats’ economic plan ....along with the Godot-like wait for major action on student debt — has shaken many teen and 20-something voters who hoped for more.....“It’s insulting that we’re not being given a seat at the table after helping deliver Biden his victory in November....And it’s absolutely devastating, honestly, that our future is being neglected to the extent that it is ... Young people are going to bear the burden of these policy blunders....”

...But what should the United States expect next from young people who’ve seen such little substantial change ....“It’s like a knife stabbed you in the back,”....While college voters, in particular, strongly supported left-wing Sens. Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren in early Democratic primaries, they overcame any qualms about Biden’s past record to rally behind him....Researchers at Tufts University found 18-29-year-old turnout had increased substantially — from about 42% to 44% in 2016, when youth apathy was one key to Trump’s victory, to a 52% to 56% range last year. Those young voters went for Biden, 61% to 36%, and the Tufts team found their votes put the Democrat over the top in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Georgia and Arizona.

Simply put, under-30 voters handed Biden the Electoral College......“College students are issue voters,” ....find young voters are less wedded to party ID and more focused toward action on issues like climate or gun safety, while older voters are more drawn toward “electability,” the factor that drove Biden’s 2020 march to the Democratic nomination.....

https://www.inquirer.com/opinion/biden-democrats-young-voters-community-college-climate-20211021.html

 

How Does 'Boss' AOC Plan To Pay For Her $93 Trillion Green New Deal?

Environmentalism: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has declared herself "boss" of the "Green New Deal." Maybe she can explain were the money will come from to pay its $93 trillion cost. Because taxing the rich won't even scratch the surface.....Ocasio-Cortez's response: "Some people are like, 'Oh, it's unrealistic, oh it's fake, oh it doesn't address this little minute thing. And I'm like, 'You try! You do it.' 'Cause you're not. 'Cause you're not. So, until you do it, I'm the boss. How 'bout that?"

....A new analysis from the American Action Forum finds that the Green New Deal, as laid out by New York Rep. Ocasio-Cortez and Massachusetts Sen. Ed Markey, would cost up to $93 trillion in the first ten years.

Remember, the GND isn't just about converting the entire U.S. energy supply to renewable energy in a decade and establishing a "zero emissions transportation system."...The plan also includes things like "guaranteed" federal jobs, "universal health care," and "food security."....Despite the GND's name, it's the proposals that have nothing to do with climate change that cost the most. The price tag for a federal guaranteed jobs program could run as much as $44.6 trillion over the next decade. The "universal health care" plan? $36 trillion.....

....All told, the cost of the "green" part of the Green New Deal would run from $8.3 trillion to $12.3 trillion over the next 10 years, according to the AAF report. The rest of it would cost an additional $42.8 trillion to $80.6 trillion....Looked at another way, economists expect the entire U.S. gross domestic product over the next decade to total $266 trillion.....What's most shocking about the Green New Deal is that so many leading Democrats, many of whom very much hope one day to be president, are blindly embracing it....

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/green-new-deal-93-trillion-alexandria-ocasio-cortez/

[Tree of Knowledge 1,705]

Good stuff.  One of the things that hurts the credibility of the climate cult is their refusal to embrace this obvious solution.  

[Cdub100 3,838]

But if we solve the made-up problem we can't use our tax dollars to change the weather and funnel 10% to the big guy.

[The Real timschochet 6,430]

I’ve been talking about this for a long time. I think this is an area in which reasonable conservatives, liberals and moderates can agree. And even those conservatives like the last poster who are skeptical of climate change: surely they can see the advantages of getting off oil, of making Saudi Arabia irrelevant to our well being? 

Nuclear fusion doesn’t  create waste, the main liberal concern about nuclear energy in the past. And it will solve all of our energy problems. But it’s going to take a huge financial investment from the government. 

[MTSkiBum 1,620]

1 hour ago, The Real timschochet said:

I’ve been talking about this for a long time. I think this is an area in which reasonable conservatives, liberals and moderates can agree. And even those conservatives like the last poster who are skeptical of climate change: surely they can see the advantages of getting off oil, of making Saudi Arabia irrelevant to our well being? 

Nuclear fusion doesn’t  create waste, the main liberal concern about nuclear energy in the past. And it will solve all of our energy problems. But it’s going to take a huge financial investment from the government. 

Nuclear fusion is ~50 years off.

Fission is what we need.

[wiffleball 4,788]

Fukushima, Chernobyl, but yeah incremental solar radiation from 93 million miles filtered through the resurgent ozone..

[Thornton Melon 605]

1 hour ago, MTSkiBum said:

Nuclear fusion is ~50 years off.

Fission is what we need.

Hey, hey, hey....nuclear fusion is only 25 years off. At least that's what they've been saying every year since 1945.

[Cdub100 3,838]

3 hours ago, The Real timschochet said:

I’ve been talking about this for a long time. I think this is an area in which reasonable conservatives, liberals and moderates can agree. And even those conservatives like the last poster who are skeptical of climate change: surely they can see the advantages of getting off oil, of making Saudi Arabia irrelevant to our well being? 

Nuclear fusion doesn’t  create waste, the main liberal concern about nuclear energy in the past. And it will solve all of our energy problems. But it’s going to take a huge financial investment from the government. 

I'm not a conservative. Getting off oil just transfers the problem to the ore needed to make batteries.

[Blue Horseshoe 348]

 

[seafoam1 2,803]

Why do people want to stop the planet from doing what it's been doing since it's creation?

[BufordT 427]

3 hours ago, seafoam1 said:

Why do people want to stop the planet from doing what it's been doing since it's creation?

This has been happening since the beginning of humanity.

[Blue Horseshoe 348]

 

Sweden Shocks Europe: Abandons 'Unstable' Green Energy Agenda, Returns to Nuclear Power

.....Sweden just dealt a severe blow to the globalist climate agenda by scraping its green energy targets. In a statement announcing the new policy in the Swedish Parliament, Finance Minister Elisabeth Svantesson warned that the Scandinavian nation needs “a stable energy system.”....Svantesson said wind and solar power are too “unstable” to meet the nation’s energy requirements. Instead, she said, the Swedish government is shifting back to nuclear power and has scrapped its goal of a “100 percent renewable energy” supply to meet the nation’s energy requirement...

....European countries are under constant pressure from multiple directions to shift to renewable energy to meet the goals of the World Economic Forum’s (WEF) green agenda. The WEF’s vision is being heavily pushed by the United Nations, the World Health Organization (WHO), Paris Climate Agreement, World Bank, and .... Joe Biden....In “substantial industrialized economies,” Svantesson said, “only a nuclear pathway is viable to remain industrialized and competitive.”

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was unavailable for comment.

https://redstate.com/mike_miller/2023/06/25/sweden-shocks-europe-abandons-unstable-green-energy-agenda-returns-to-nuclear-power

[jonmx 2,424]

I have been arguing that nuclear power was the obvious solution since the 1980's. 

[Blue Horseshoe 348]

 

FS: Similarly, to be anti-nuclear, as you’ve been for decades, has historically been an anti-establishment position. But now things have changed, as countries such as Germany have shut down their nuclear power and now find themselves vulnerable and dependent on Russian gas. Have your views evolved on nuclear?

RFK Jr : No. I’ve always said I’m all for nuclear if they can make it safe and if they can make it economic. Right now, it is literally the most expensive way to boil a pot of water that has ever been devised. We were told that nuke energy would be too cheap to metre, and actually it’s so expensive that no utility in the world will build a nuclear power plant without vast public subsidies from the taxpayer. In our country, we had to pass the Price-Anderson Act because nuclear is dangerous. It’s too dangerous for humanity — look at Fukushima. There is so much contaminated water that is pouring out and contaminating the entire Pacific Ocean; they’re finding radiation in fishes all over the ocean. And the only solution is for them to pump the water into these huge tanks, and then store it forever. If you look at the pictures of Fukushima now, there are these giant tanks that just go on as far as the eye can see. Look at Chernobyl.

You may say there’s new forms of nuke power that are safer, which I would say is not true. But don’t listen to me — listen to the insurance industry; ask them: “Would you ever insure one of these plants?” and they won’t. Until they can buy an insurance policy, they shouldn’t be saying it’s safe. In our country, they had to make a sleazy legislative manoeuvre in the middle of the night and pass the Price-Anderson Act which shifts the burden of their accidents onto the public. So it’s not hippies in tie-dyed T-shirts who are saying it’s dangerous; it’s guys on Wall Street with suits and ties. This is so dangerous that they can’t get an insurance policy and then they have to store the stuff at taxpayer expense for the next 30,000 years, which is five times the length of recorded human history. How can that ever be economic? If they had to internalise the cost, nobody would ever build one of these plants. To build a solar plant, a gigawatt of solar now costs about a billion dollars. To build a nuke plant, it’s between 9 and 16 billion for one gigawatt of the same thing…

https://unherd.com/2023/05/robert-kennedy-jr-america-needs-a-revolution/

[Blue Horseshoe 348]

 

 

[Blue Horseshoe 348]

 

 

White House cautiously opens the door to study blocking sun’s rays to slow global warming

...The White House offered measured support for the idea of studying how to block sunlight from hitting Earth’s surface as a way to limit global warming, in a congressionally mandated report .....The controversial concept known as solar radiation modification is a potentially effective response to fighting climate change, but one that could have unknown side effects stemming from altering the chemical makeup of the atmosphere, some scientists say....

....The concept has created divisions among experts, with some saying it could be a last line of defense against runaway warming if nations fail to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, while others warn that it could result in an atmospheric substance dependency that, if stopped, could lead to abrupt increases in temperatures....The report, which was required by Congress in a policy report accompanying the 2022 appropriations bill, was released the same week that European Union leaders opened the door to international discussions of solar radiation modification. It also followed a call by more than 60 leading scientists to increase research on the topic.....

.....There are risks associated with each form of solar radiation modification, the report said, that can affect human health, biodiversity and geopolitics. That’s because modifying sunlight could alter global weather patterns, disrupt food supplies and lead to abrupt warming if the practice was widely deployed and then halted. It also wouldn’t address air pollution from fossil fuels or ocean acidification, a major threat to coral reefs’ ecosystems driven by the overabundance of carbon in the air and seas....

“Politicization around climate change has obviously been the huge driver” of policy gridlock on reducing carbon emissions, she said. “And so I think trying to avoid politicization around geoengineering is also important.”

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/07/01/white-house-cautiously-opens-door-to-study-blocking-suns-rays-to-slow-global-warming

[Blue Horseshoe 348]

 

 

[lod001 1,344]

We are in a complete  world. 

Farmers are causing the earth to tilt. CLIMATE CHANGE!!!!

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/06/28/earth-axis-tilt-shift-groundwater-pumped-farming-science/

Wait, we didn't consult with each other on fakeass  climate change. It's ice melting ice caps that is causing the earth axis to shift. 

https://www.businessinsider.com/earth-axis-shifted-melting-ice-climate-change-2021-4 

100% proof the media is useless and lie on the side of wacko leftists and their climate change (which used to be called global warming until that was proven to be total BS). 

The real reasons the axis shifts is: As the Earth orbits the Sun, the Earth is pulled by the gravitational forces of the Sun, Moon, and large planets in the solar system, primarily Jupiter and Saturn. Over long periods of time, the gravitational pull of other members of our solar system slowly change Earth's spin, tilt, and orbit. 

Also: The most notable driver of long-term variations in the rotational axis was already known to be mantle flow — the movement of molten rock in the layer between Earth's crust and outer core.

Neither has anything to do with humans.

 

 

 

[Blue Horseshoe 348]

 

 

Biden admin quietly released study showing green energy receives far more subsidies than fossil fuels

....'Solar should be competing for sales in the marketplace, not for subsidies in Washington,' top Republican senator tells Fox News Digital....The Biden administration quietly issued a 59-page report outlining the current scope of federal energy-related subsidies revealed that the renewable energy sector enjoys significantly larger taxpayer backing than the fossil fuel industry.....The report — authored by the Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration (EIA) and published in August — represents the first of its kind since 2018. The EIA analyzed data from 2016 through 2022, and determined that, during that time period, the federal government doled out $183.3 billion in direct and mainly indirect taxpayer subsidies, more than half of which came over the last three years. .....

"For years Democrats have claimed technologies like solar energy are cheaper than coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear. This report makes clear that solar is largely dependent on heavy subsidies with taxpayer dollars," Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Ranking Member John Barrasso, R-Wyo., told Fox News Digital.....In early 2021, Barrasso and Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., requested the analysis to help inform congressional policymaking in a letter to then-EIA Acting Administrator Stephen Nalley. The pair argued such a report would be particularly relevant "as Congress considers calls for a greater level of federal involvement in the nation’s energy systems and markets."....."Under the Biden Administration, American families are paying too much for energy as it is," the Wyoming Republican continued. "They shouldn’t have to fork over their hard-earned money to support liberal special interests. Solar should be competing for sales in the marketplace, not for subsidies in Washington."

According to the EIA report, while renewable energy sources like wind and solar power account for about 21% of domestic electricity production, such sources received a staggering $83.8 billion in subsidies, by far the largest share compared to any other category. Energy end use subsidies, like energy efficiency- and conservation-related tax provisions, represented the next-largest slice of energy sector federal subsidies after renewable power, according to the EIA report. End use sources received $64.8 billion in subsidies, equivalent of 35% of total energy-related subsidies doled out by the federal government.While renewable and end use sources accounted for more than 80% of total energy industry subsides, fossil fuel sources — namely natural gas, petroleum and oil, which account for more than 60% of electricity production and the vast majority of transportation energy — benefited from $24.5 billion, or 13%, in subsidies. Nuclear power, which produces another 18% of U.S. electricity, received $2.9 billion in subsidies during the analyzed timeframe, the equivalent of 2% of total subsidies awarded.

For example, natural gas power generated 44.9 quadrillion British thermal units in 2022, 45% of total energy generated economywide, but received $2.3 billion in taxpayer subsidies that year. That means for every million British thermal units (MMBtu) produced by natural gas, the industry received about $0.05. By comparison, in 2022, the solar industry generated about 0.6 quadrillion British thermal units, less than 1% of total energy produced economywide in the U.S., but received $7.5 billion in subsidies. That means the solar power industry received $11.9 per MMBtu generated last year.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-admin-quietly-released-study-showing-green-energy-receives-far-more-subsidies-fossil-fuels

[Blue Horseshoe 348]