The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Demand in U.S. electricity elevates the risk of wind/solar & highlights need for nuclear power > Comments

Demand in U.S. electricity elevates the risk of wind/solar & highlights need for nuclear power : Comments

By Ronald Stein, Oliver Hemmers and Steve Curtis, published 9/4/2025

The best chance for affordable, reliable, and clean electricity for all is through nuclear power technology.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. ...
  8. 9
  9. 10
  10. 11
  11. All
mhaze,

Cherry-picked graphs, revisionist history, and the classic “you just don’t get it” routine? You need a new MO.

Anyway, let’s take it from the top...

Yes, countries with strong renewable adoption have higher electricity prices in some cases - but causation isn’t that simple. You’re folding in decades of infrastructure decisions, market structures, and taxes unrelated to renewables. Germany didn’t just “go green” and suddenly pay more - it made a national policy choice to transform its grid, support early-stage tech, and phase out nuclear. Blaming renewables alone is like blaming your grocery bill on the bag of apples and ignoring the champagne.

Now onto the IMF’s $7 trillion figure. I have read the breakdown. It includes externalities like pollution-related health care costs, environmental damage, and artificially low energy prices in many countries (which, yes, include direct fuel subsidies). You’re not disproving the number - you’re just upset that real-world costs were finally put on the tab.

As for the “worst-case projections” on Arctic ice, that’s exactly what they were - edge-case scenarios, not universally accepted timelines. Scientists model a range of outcomes based on different emissions levels and feedback loops. Deniers love to grab the most dramatic possibilities, pretend they were guaranteed forecasts, then claim victory when reality doesn’t match the headline they misquoted.

That’s not scepticism - it’s gotcha theatre.

The actual consensus has always pointed to mid-century for the possibility of ice-free summers under high-emissions pathways, and even that’s coming worryingly close.

You posted four cherry-picked data points and stopped. But trends are measured across decades, not anecdotes. The long-term downward trend is clear - and backed by every major climate monitoring agency on the planet. Sea ice is thinning, volume is decreasing, and multi-year ice is disappearing. “Vanishing” doesn’t mean “gone entirely,” it means rapidly declining, and your own numbers - starting from a historic minimum - don’t disprove that.

Al Gore making money doesn’t invalidate physics. The Nobel Prize wasn’t for flawless predictions - it was for sounding the alarm early. And given where we are, the alarm was worth sounding.

Try again.
Posted by John Daysh, Thursday, 10 April 2025 12:02:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
JD,

These are data from over 70 countries which, far from the cherry-picking you claim, takes everything into account so that cherry-picking is eliminated. Sorry you can't see that. But try to keep up.

So you pick on Germany alone as though its the exemplar. Why you cherry-picked it when no one had mentioned it is somthing only you can answer. But what about Denmark? Or Italy? Britain? Spain? Netherlands? All with high renewables and high electricity costs. What 'special' case can you fabricate for them?

The fact is that when ALL costs are accounted for, renewables are the most expensive form of power generation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dN_ARfPY9rY&t=350s

_______________________________________________________________

80% of the IMF figure is notional costs. These aren't subsidies. Governments aren't paying someone $7trillion. Its a made up number to sucker in the gullible. They'll be pleased to see it works. BTW do we count the environmental pollution involved in making solar batteries as a subsidy?

____________________________________________________________

"The actual consensus has always pointed to mid-century for the possibility of ice-free summers under high-emissions pathways, and even that’s coming worryingly close."

If you say so!! Perhaps the 2010's is too far back for you to remember but back then the consensus was for a near term ice free Arctic. Where are the IPCC, NOAA, HadCrut saying that Gore et al were wrong to predict 2013. Only after it failed to happen did they come out saying they never believed. The whole green movement is like that - make prediction that fail and then deny the prediction was real. Dams won't fill. Perth will be a ghost town. NYC will be under water. Tuvalu also. All predicted. All wrong. All now denied. And those of a certain learning fall for it every time.

" The long-term downward trend is clear". If you say so!! But the data might disagree with you. Data? I showed you the data - you showed your chutzpah to deny it.
Posted by mhaze, Thursday, 10 April 2025 2:35:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
mhaze,

You’re confusing data with conclusions. Citing numbers from 70 countries doesn't eliminate cherry-picking if you’re still drawing simplistic conclusions from a complex dataset.

The relationship between renewables and electricity prices is multifactorial - you can’t just throw up a scatterplot and pretend it’s gospel. Policies, energy imports, tax structures, and legacy infrastructure all influence cost. Correlation isn’t causation, no matter how many countries you plot.

As for Denmark, Italy, Spain, etc. - yes, many have high electricity prices. But that’s not solely because of renewables. These countries often carry layered costs from early investments and policy choices. Meanwhile, places like Portugal, Ireland, and Chile are rapidly scaling up renewables while seeing falling wholesale electricity prices. Context matters.

And the IMF figure? No one said governments are writing $7 trillion cheques. It’s about implicit subsidies: underpricing pollution, ignoring climate impacts, and artificially cheap energy. These are real-world costs, just not itemised on a receipt. That’s not “made up” - that’s economics 101.

Lomborg’s clanger doesn’t say what you think it says either. He flat-out admits - in plain language - that solar and wind are “technically” among the cheapest sources of electricity in the world. His gripe? They’re only cheap when the sun shines or wind blows. That’s not a revelation - that’s how variable energy works. The solution isn’t to give up - it’s to invest in grid storage, demand management, and complementary baseload - which is exactly what’s happening. His framing only sounds like a “gotcha” if you ignore how energy systems function.

Now climate predictions. You claim the consensus predicted an ice-free Arctic by 2013, but you’ve shown no evidence. Gore’s documentary isn’t the IPCC. One bold researcher in 2007 doesn’t equal global consensus. The IPCC reports showed ranges, scenarios, and uncertainty. You’re rewriting history and hoping no one checks.

As for your sea ice “data” - four cherry-picked years from a historic minimum isn’t a trend. Every major climate agency - NASA, NOAA, NSIDC - confirms Arctic ice is in long-term decline. That’s not debate - it’s denial.
Posted by John Daysh, Thursday, 10 April 2025 3:39:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Citing numbers from 70 countries doesn't eliminate cherry-picking if you’re still drawing simplistic conclusions from a complex dataset."

Lot's of words looking for a coherent thought.

Valid conclusions aren't simplistic just because the only viable result isn't to your liking. The data is clear, and , as your hand-waving shows, unassailable evidence that more renewables means higher costs.

Ireland/Portugal/Chile? Struth, tell me about cherry-picking again. How's Botswana going?

"One bold researcher in 2007 doesn’t equal global consensus." Wow you real have managed to memory-hole that period haven't you. Gore said it. NASA scientists said it. An international consortium of scientists said it (they were the basis of Gore's claims). Show me where the international science community was decrying Gore's claims or that he won a Nobel based on what you now say (once it became inconvenient!) wasn't accepted by the science community.

This happens all the time in the climate world. Wide predictions are made. They get touted as The Science. The followers of The Science fall for it. Then they fail to happen and the followers of The Science move on to the next soon to be failed prediction. NYC was going underwater in 2020 except when it didn't happen they declared they never beleived it. Tuvalu has been going under for 50 years and never quite gets there. Perth was going to be a ghost town by now but now we are told no one thought that. Claim after claim is made, the gullible declare the sky is falling, then forget the claims once they are proven wrong. Welcome to Climate Science, although its more a case of welcome to the Climate Cult.

"...we are not just scientists but human beings as well. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest." Schneider
Posted by mhaze, Thursday, 10 April 2025 6:59:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
How ironic that the champion of Albo's mad bill is now a mad champion of IBM proportions. As Mel Smith observed, "None of this is true though is it Johnny?". As for Bronny, the anti-nuke arguments presented are so dishonest and discredited that even IBM has used a few of them. Not that having arguments discredited matters to studious pseudo-scientists, as one bs story can easily be replaced with another.

Now, here is a comparison for the rainbow chasing Luddites to think about:

In the 1970s there was an oil shock. In response to the popular catastrophist tales of the Mad Max world humanity was headed for, France decided to source all energy from nuclear fission and Denmark decided to develop windmills. Fifteen years later France was supplying 150% of its electricity needs with nuclear and stopped the build. The build restarted in 2022 and France currently produces 70% of its electricity from nuclear and exports about 100TWH of low carbon electricity per year.

All the while Denmark developed windmills. After half a century of development, windmills and solar supply 28% of Denmark's electricity. Denmark has the most expensive electricity in Europe and relies on imports for 18% of its demand. And IBM thinks the Danish example the one to follow.

Out of interest, Australia's ISP has been junked. It seems the plan was riddled with inconsistencies and falsehoods. Right up IBM's alley.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4z65FswjHw
Posted by Fester, Thursday, 10 April 2025 7:45:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Given up trying to refute my rebuttals now, mhaze?

//Lot’s of words looking for a coherent thought.//

You’re just sneering at complexity because it doesn’t serve your prefab conclusion. That’s not clarity - that’s shortcutting your way into confident ignorance.

//Valid conclusions aren't simplistic just because the only viable result isn't to your liking.//

Cute, but you’re again mistaking “simple” for “correct.” You’ve boiled a complex, global energy transition into a single slogan - “more renewables = higher costs.” In reality, electricity pricing is shaped by policy, legacy infrastructure, taxation, market design, and timing of investment. Your so-called “unassailable evidence” only works if we ignore all of that.

//Ireland/Portugal/Chile? Struth, tell me about cherry-picking again.//

They were named precisely because they contradict your rule. That's called falsification - basic scientific method. If a generalisation doesn't hold in key examples, it’s not a rule.

//Wow you really have managed to memory-hole that period haven’t you. Gore said it. NASA scientists said it…//

No, some scientists made bold projections. Gore quoted them. That’s not a consensus. The IPCC reports at the time offered ranges and confidence intervals. NASA didn’t issue a press release saying “ice-free Arctic by 2013.” You’re conflating headlines and advocacy with consensus science. Again.

//Tuvalu… NYC… Perth… all predicted. All wrong. All now denied.//

Tuvalu is literally losing habitable land. NYC is spending billions on flood defences after increased storm surges. Perth had a water crisis severe enough to reshape its entire supply strategy. These were warnings - not prophecies - and many worst-case outcomes didn’t happen because mitigation worked. That’s effectiveness, not failure.

//So we have to offer up scary scenarios… make simplified, dramatic statements…//

Ah yes, the infamous Schneider quote: clipped, stripped of context, and waved around like a smoking gun. He was reflecting on communication challenges - not confessing to fraud. He also dedicated his life to responsible science. Which, ironically, is what you’re trying to discredit.

You’re not engaging with the science at all - you’re simply constructing a narrative, dodging complexity, and leaning hard on “gotcha” lines you hope no one checks.

Try again...
Posted by John Daysh, Friday, 11 April 2025 1:58:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. ...
  8. 9
  9. 10
  10. 11
  11. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy