http://af.reuters.com/article/energyOilNews/idAFLDE6AO17120101125
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- One Atomic Bomb Per Hour
- New Video : Analyzing Oil And Gas
- Is Antarctica Melting?
- High Speed Analysis And Visualization
- El Nino To The Rescue?
- Fake News Update
- Growth Of Antarctic Sea Ice
- 65 Years Of Progress!
- El Nino To The Rescue?
- Worst March Drought On Record
- ChartGL Process Control Demo
- The Biggest Money Laundering Scam
- Drought In The Headwaters Of Lake Powell
- Unrealistic Expectations Of Water Availability
- Did Bill Gates Do This?
- Worst March Drought On Record In The US
- The Real Hockey Stick Graph
- Analyzing The Western Water Crisis
- Gaslighting 1924
- “Why Do You Resist?”
- Climate Attribution Model
- Fact Checking NASA
- Fact Checking Grok
- Fact Checking The New York Times
- New Visitech Features
Recent Comments
- Bob G on One Atomic Bomb Per Hour
- conrad ziefle on One Atomic Bomb Per Hour
- Timo, Not that one on One Atomic Bomb Per Hour
- Bob G on One Atomic Bomb Per Hour
- Bob G on One Atomic Bomb Per Hour
- Crispin Pemberton-Pigott on One Atomic Bomb Per Hour
- Crispin Pemberton-Pigott on One Atomic Bomb Per Hour
- william on 65 Years Of Progress!
- arn on One Atomic Bomb Per Hour
- Gordon Vigurs on One Atomic Bomb Per Hour
I think James Hansen has a mental illness.
The jester-jousting adjuster supports ‘death trains formerly known as coal trains’ energy?
I thought ‘clean coal’ was an oxymoron by eco-definition.
I thought ‘safe nuclear power’ was also an oxymoron.
Fortunately, the IPCC has now come clean on its raison d’etre (wealth redistribution through various unelected functionaries that skim handling fees), so all this climate catastrophe talk is no longer required.
That is why the Financial institutions are now the primary drivers at Cancun.
Hi Chris
Obviously you are higher up the evolutionary scale than Chris D!
It is obvious by the use of the Y version designator! 🙂
Lol, Hansen is so circular in his arguments. Here’s a quote from the article, “The danger is that the minority of vehement antinuclear “environmentalists” could cause development of advanced safe nuclear power to be slowed such that utilities are forced to continue coal-burning in order to keep the lights on. That is a prescription for disaster.”
Apparently, he doesn’t understand this is occurring and his advocacy is partially responsible. More, he’s advocating the shut-down of all coal plants which don’t sequester CO2. Where does he imagine the electricity will come from? Wind and solar are light-years away from ever being useful. We’re not building more dams for hydro-power and many places, it isn’t a viable option. We could use natural gas, but that would result in tripling of everyone’s electric bill, and raise the cost of the other more efficient uses of natural gas that is already in place. It doesn’t make sense to heat a house with electricity generated by natural gas.
While I’m with him on the need for more nuclear generated electricity, it isn’t realistic to believe that even if national policy immediately switch as to suddenly we had hundreds of nuke stations in development that it could meet our needs. It takes approximately 20 to bring a nuke station on-line. Our grid will have long since shut down by the time the first one comes up. It takes a coal station about 4-5 years, as long as the advocacy groups stay out of the way. We need more coal plants, and we need them now. (Without that expensive and silly CO2 sequestration.)
It is all part of their Eugenics movement. They are using AGW as the cover. Quite ingenious actually.