“But make no mistake, [Bradley]’s as venomous an antinuke as the most biased Greenpeacer.” (Colin Hunt, Canadian Nuclear Society)
Social media exchanges are educational and informative. Going head-to-head with an intellectual foe is a great opportunity to learn and unmask error–and to find out what you do not know. I report, you decide on the exchanges below, which get into some basic issues and the history of a troubled, government-subsidized technology.
——————
This LinkedIn exchange began with a post by Chris Keefer, Physician and President Canadians for Nuclear Energy:
Nuclear to the rescue. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. Nuclear is best suited to replace many fossil fuel services. When fossil fuels become constrained nuclear doesn’t just become attractive, it becomes inevitable.
I responded as follows:
…New nuclear capacity is just way too expensive and complicated compared to the alternatives.

——————–
For various posts at MasterResource on the experts’ global cooling scare, see here.…
“ExxonMobil wants more: an ‘initial’ increase in the tax credit to around $100 per metric ton (from $85) and an extended eligibility period to 30 years (from 12 years). And ‘Provide a $10 billion grant to help develop infrastructure in Houston….'”
“Carbon capture and storage is a ‘loss leader’ for ExxonMobil to officially greenwash. For the Biden Administration, CCS is a bribe providing leverage on the biggest energy major.”
Yesterday’s post described ExxonMobil’s abandonment of its biofuels (algae) venture, wildly uneconomic after more than a decade of effort and hundreds of millions of dollars invested. But the company’s Low-Carbon Solutions division has something much bigger in process: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS), advertised as “Providing industry solutions needed to help reduce emissions during the energy transition.” (Ouch! ExxonMobil endorsing “the energy transition” away from its major products, oil and gas.)…