Same for wind energy. Even after all the wind fields build in the Netherlands, including the world’s largest onshore wind farm, they still only power about 9% of that small country. By simple math and logic, it can be shown that wind would not make sense on a large scale for a country as large and populated as the US. You also have to factor in the variability in the weather, which isn’t simply quantified. There would have to be a fossil fuel powered back up system in place to ensure reliable power.

They’re both simply supplementary sources, therefore fossil fuels are still necessary ergo we should expand drilling for natural gas since it’s abundant, readily available, domestic, and can cut national emissions 30-40% if implemented on a large scale (cars, factories, power plants, etc.) in conjunction with current alternative technology R&D. It’s not partisan politics, but the most rational decision at this point if people are serious about reducing emissions and cutting the importation and use of oil and gasoline.

Believing the entire country or world can run on wind/solar/geothermal alone is a partisan left wing pipe dream and it just prolongs the path to long term progress. These measures could be implemented now if the left would put aside the need to appease radical environmentalist activists.

Things would be much better if we all learned to wait for the data or include the data along with our opinions.

Mr. Mooney, are you familiar with the science of these two cases?

It suggests no such thing. That poll is infamously badly designed, artificially inflating both the numbers and the political skew of 9/11Truthers. Rephrase the question into something like “Do you believe the U.S. government PLANNED AND CARRIED OUT the attacks,” and then I’ll take the results seriously.

“Do you believe Bush had advance knowledge”? Of course he did–Bush’s own staff said so in sworn Congressional testimony. That briefing, I believe it was called “Bin Laden Determined to Strike Within the United States.” Our own government, via George Tenet, disclosed that in August ’01 they had seen “the entire system was flashing red.” These are well-known facts, and many (especially many on the left) will never forget or forgive that those facts were wasted on Bush’s empty head.

Believing that Bush planned and ordered 9/11 himself, or that he had already put the pieces together and knowingly watched it, makes you a 9/11Truther.

Believing that Bush was handed everything most men would ever have needed to do a job right, but then disastrously fouled up because he is an incompetent imbecile, makes you someone aware of his biography.

Since this post is about denying science, can you give me a scientific solution to how you would power the city of Atlanta after 2 cloudy and windless days? (I’m using just one city and just 2 days to keep the example simple, but obviously this answer would have to apply to all cities and potentially longer timelines)

In order to make the “progressive” solution of wind and solar possible you’ll have to be able to resolve this very common scenario. And with this solution, you will have to show how you can generate and store enough energy to last 2 days. It’s easy to say we can generate enough electricity to meet demand using these methods, but what happens when you can’t due to weather?

I know of ideas to use excess energy created on sunny and exceptionally windy days to do things like pump water into reservoirs that can then be used to create hydro electric. Or to spin up large flywheels to store excess energy. These solutions require you to generate enough electricity to meet demand + enough excess to last you days should you not be able to generate. This fact significantly changes the discussion about how much energy you need to create.

And, once you’ve answered this for a single city, we then need to roll out the solution across the country. How are we paying for this?

It seems that quite often “progressive” is just another way of saying “overly simplistic”…

On nuclear, it’s very expensive to start up a nuclear plant. However, over the long term it pays itself back and results in near 0 emissions, while providing more power than any fossil fuel source. It’s extremely efficient and there has only been 3 major nuclear plant disasters (really just 2 – Japan and Chernobyl, Green Island was a near disaster that was prevented) in the entire world since the 1950s. It’s widely used over Europe and used on many large Naval ships and subs. In fact, nuclear engineers like to joke that it’s safer to be inside a nuclear plant than outside – my friend is one down in NC, he says that all the time.

Furthermore, looking at the disasters in Japan and Chernobyl the loss of life from nuclear exposure is minimal. The loss of life in Chernobyl was mostly from fires and explosions over exposure and to date no studies can confirm long term effects. It’s really not as dangerous as many think and this is comparing decades old technology to today – even Japan’s nuclear plant didn’t meet the standards we have here in the US. To take redundant measures, new plants could be built in rural areas some 20 miles from any residential areas.

I like to point out that statistically being injured or killed as a result of a nuclear disaster is less than getting struck by lightening, winning the lottery, dying in a plane crash, or getting in a car accident. Yet, we continue do these things every day. Being against nuclear power is plain illogical and anti-science – it’s a fear/political response to a very low probability event with I’d call medium consequence since the loss of life wasn’t a direct result of nuclear exposure, nor widespread. It’s similar to the Gulf oil disaster that had environmental activists up in arms, yet now proved to be insignificant – a disaster yes, but not catastrophic as they’d projected at the time. It’s no different from the loss of life as a result of a plane crash or car accident – disasters indeed, but far from catastrophic (being widespread loss of innocent life indirectly resulting from the accident – i.e victims of a nuclear explosion living outside a nuclear plant).

The relevant studies have been conducted over the past 25 years. The Department of Energy prepared and submitted a License Application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that summarizes and references these thousands studies by the National Laboratories, the U.S. Geological Survey, Presidentially appointed panels, etc. The License Application provides uneqivicoal findings (with probabilities) that indicate Yucca Mountain is suitable for develpment a nuclear waste repository under the governing regulations. It is available for review at:
http://www.nrc.gov/waste/hlw-disposal/yucca-lic-app.html

Happy reading.

It does also suggest, on this issue, that we should maybe be more worried about people who apparently know less than Fox News viewers and not worry about Fox News viewers themselves.

The left says no because there is good data that burning more fossil fuels is not the answer because it exacerbates climate change. The rational course is to replace as soon as possible fossil fuels with renewables that decrease greenhouse gas emissions.

Nuclear also doesn’t seem rational compared with wind and solar. What is the real cost when you add pollution and the possibility of disaster like in Japan?

The left is not as guilty as the right in distorting science. It is just more progressive in its proposed solutions.