Jay Cee Ees,

Good points. Have you read: 'Nuclear Power Learning and Deployment Rates; Disruption and Global Benefits Forgone' https://doi.org/10.3390/en10122169 ?

Abstract:

"This paper presents evidence of the disruption of a transition from fossil fuels to nuclear power, and finds the benefits forgone as a consequence are substantial. Learning rates are presented for nuclear power in seven countries, comprising 58% of all power reactors ever built globally. Learning rates and deployment rates changed in the late-1960s and 1970s from rapidly falling costs and accelerating deployment to rapidly rising costs and stalled deployment. Historical nuclear global capacity, electricity generation and overnight construction costs are compared with the counterfactual that pre-disruption learning and deployment rates had continued to 2015. Had the early rates continued, nuclear power could now be around 10% of its current cost. The additional nuclear power could have substituted for 69,000–186,000 TWh of coal and gas generation, thereby avoiding up to 9.5 million deaths and 174 Gt CO2 emissions. In 2015 alone, nuclear power could have replaced up to 100% of coal-generated and 76% of gas-generated electricity, thereby avoiding up to 540,000 deaths and 11 Gt CO2. Rapid progress was achieved in the past and could be again, with appropriate policies. Research is needed to identify impediments to progress, and policy is needed to remove them."

I see other posters have failed to properly address Charles Essery's main points:

> In simple terms, if a warming climate aided the rise of the Roman Empire,
> why should it harm our far more advanced and 'intelligent' world today?
Two very important reasons:
Firstly, the warming climate as the Roman Empire rose was not global warming; it affected the area around Europe, but the rest of the world was not as hot as it now is. And this time round the direct effects on Europe (with its temperate climate) are unlikely to be very bad and could be beneficial. The effects in much of the rest of the world, including Australia, will be far worse.

Secondly, there's a lot more warming happening this time. The large thermal mass of the ocean has buffered the temperature rise, but the temperature is continuing to rise and so are sea levels.

> This second scandal is the result of a UK PM Boris Johnson initiative.
FALSE! It has nothing to do with Boris Johnson's initiative. It's the result of a subsidy from the Brown era (or possibly the early Cameron era) which got extended far too long in Northern Ireland. But it was gone before Johnson came to power.

And finding one out of touch anthropology professor's rant is hardly newsworthy. It's clear to almost everyone that we must have more reliable power, though engineers will tell you that increasing the reliability of supply may not be the most cost effective way to improve overall reliability when most of the problems are due to distribution faults.

See/type in, Thorium in four minutes, to see why there's so much resistance to economic commonsense And just on plain old fashioned conflict of economic interest, without climate change issues entering the fray/discussion.

If we want logical rational change to our energy policy? We need to remove the idiots that stand in the way/prevent it with half-truths and endless obfuscation?

If we would become an energy super-power? We need boundless and seriously inexpensive energy! Rather than the currently proposed models put by those with their skin in that game/proposal?
Alan B.

As Aiden's ability to read for more than 30 seconds at a time means he missed Essery's second point on NI. Yes the first was not Bojos fault, but bthe second ludicrous schemes was Bojo delivered ( pays 350GBP per tower, with only 50 GBP return in electricity.

And as for the Roman empire being during a warming period only in Italy, Aiden your lazy, look at the evidence. Just saying something contrary to an author, doesn't make it valid. Do your own research you lazy thing.

And if you could read the whole article ( 6minute read for an average 100 IQ I would say) then you would see that he reckons, the warming period did not stop growth to half way round the world ( it aided it), but that its fall was not cooling, but corruption, sex and debauchery (see Nero and Caligula)

"Sea ice extent for October 2020 was 5.28 million square kilometers (2.04 million square miles), placing it lowest in the satellite record for the month. This was 3.07 million square kilometers (1.19 million square miles) below the 1981 to 2010 October average and 450,000 square kilometers (173,700 square miles) below the record low mark for October set in 2019. October 2020 is the largest departure from average conditions seen in any month thus far in the satellite record, falling 3.69 standard deviations below the 1981 to 2010 mean. Ice extent is far below average in all of sectors of the Eurasian side of the Arctic Ocean and in Baffin Bay."
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

Apparently nothing to see here folks.

Aiden said;
Firstly, the warming climate as the Roman Empire rose was not global
warming; it affected the area around Europe,

I have hidden somewhere on my computer a reference to a study that
found the previous belief that the Roman & Medieval warmings were
only local was not correct. From hazy memory a different measuring
technique made the difference. I will try harder to find it as it is
important as Aiden's comment implies.