Many politicians call for drastic reductions—on a very short deadline—in the use of coal and natural gas to generate electricity.
We know that this can be done because it has been done, as the graph shows.
https://twitter.com/EcoSenseNow/status/1709667753098117213
Nuclear fuel has more energy per kilogram than any other fuel. A 100-watt light bulb can be lit for only 1.2 days on 1 kg wood, 3.8 days on 1 kg coal, 4.8 days on 1 kg oil, and 25,700 years on 1 kg uranium.
Since Germany has forsworn nuclear energy and has lost access to cheap Russian gas, and its Energiewende to wind and solar has proved so costly and unreliable, it is clear-cutting forests and mining lignite (the dirtiest form of coal) to keep warm, while deindustrializing.
If the “Net Zero” forces were primarily concerned about reducing CO2 emissions rather than some other agenda (destroying capitalism, impoverishing the U.S., reducing the human population, some other goal they do not wish to openly promote), should they not be advocates for nuclear energy?
Additional information:
- Robert Zubrin, The Case for Nukes: How We Can Create a Free, Open, and Magnificent Future, Doctors for Disaster Preparedness, 2023
- Stanford S. Penner, Nuclear Energy for the Future, (2005)
- Bernard L. Cohen, Risks in Perspective, J Amer Phys Surg, summer 2003