Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change

You should be more careful.

 

How? This is a protection of OUR energy sector by keeping prices down

 

you should talk!
https://co2coalition.org/publications/climate-impacts-of-fossil-fuels-in-todays-energy-systems/
spelt William here - where it shows they are being paid by the fossil fuel industry

Astroturf anyone?

 

No, it is the destruction of your energy sector by destroying investments.

 

Though in fairness, it was a reaction to 3 mile island... something needed to change, maybe it just went too far.

 

However Chernobyl and Fukushima have both left lasting horrific legacies

 

Probably orders of magnitude less that the whackadooble renewable energy panic will produce. Reactor designs and safety standards are far advanced from those in place during the times of those accidents.

 

Get back to me when a solar array “melts down” and leaves exclusion zones kilometres in diameter

 

.??? Did you skip reading the part where this will mostly affect government revenue?

 

Apart from containing a double negative that sentence makes no sense.
Astroturf and why you should not “play” with it
https://climateinvestigations.org/global-climate-coalition-koch-exxon/

Oh! And…..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CO2_Coalition

https://www.desmog.com/co2-coalition/

Astroturf

 

". . . Who in their right mind will put money into new NSW coal projects, when the government has just granted themselves the right to seize control of your product, break your contracts without compensation, and redirect supplies to whomever they choose at the price they set? The only rational behaviour in such circumstances is to run the existing mines and facilities into the ground, and get your money out of the state as quickly as possible, before the government expropriates your business and ruins you. . . . "

 

There was certainly no double negative.
As for the rest, there's no surprise that fossil fuel advocates will advocate for fossil fuels.
Your argument is mere prejudice and bigotry.

 

Once again, misquoting and misleading people.

Uh-huh.

Sorry, FUD is fear and paranoia. And not at all reasonable.

Wait, have you not been telling us over and over that we must accept projections? Even if they are wrong, we must accept them?

And once again, excess production was a factor as they could export it to other areas, to recoup costs faster. Did I not say that? The very fact that was a consideration shows that it was in excess to needs. It was also by design to provide power for when the region did need more power.

*sigh*

Did I say it provided 95% of the power for Washington?

No, I did not. I never said that, I never even implied it. If you want to know, the "region" is the Columbia River Basin. I said "region", and I meant "region". If I had intended to imply that it provided 95% of the power to the state, I would have said state.

Once again, you absolutely ignore what was actually said, then twist it around in some way to suit your own purposes. And you know, I am really sick and tired of that.

Oh yes, that is why we have had scores of new nuclear plants opened in the last 25 years.

*laughs*

 

And I also accept that.

But there is reasonable measures, then there is extreme reaction to make future projects impossible.

And I find it funny, in that "in reaction" pretty much means "done by reactionaries". Nuclear is probably the safest large scale power production there is. Yet it is completely ignored if not outright hostilely shunned because of fear.

 

The Japanese have reconsidered.
Japan Embraces Nuclear Power, Cancels Phase Out Plans
Eric Worrall
Nuclear power serves “an important role as a carbon-free baseload energy source in achieving supply stability and carbon neutrality”. . . . .

 

WUWT bulldust being spread again
Read something less biased
https://www.theguardian.com/austral...coal-price-cap-to-provide-energy-price-relief

 

Do you know what I find fascinating?

Not all that long ago, you castigated somebody because you said their "source" was from corporations.

Yet, a source from a group that outright says they are only interested in CO2 is somehow "relevant"?

Look, screaming that one side is biased while using sources yourself that are biased is known as being "hypocritical". It is also known as "cherry picking". One can not simply reject anything they do not like, and then expect to be taken seriously when they use nothing but sites that do the exact same thing.

 

good! Finally admitting that the lure of millions in kickbacks can influence what and how things are presented

 

Australia to Limit Gas and Coal Prices to Ease Spiraling Bills
https://www.voanews.com › australia-to-limit-gas-and-c...

Dec 12, 2022 — Gas producers won't be allowed to charge more than $8 a gigajoule, which is far less than the average price so far this year. The oil and gas ...

". . . The oil and gas industry has condemned what it has described as a "heavy-handed, radical intervention" that would "smash" confidence in Australia as an investment destination for the resources sector. . . ."

 

I admit nothing. All parties have the right to present their views. All parties have the right to expect their views to be debated on the merits.

 

In the battle of the mighty funding dollar who has the most to gain and win?

 

That is correct

Please do not tell me that these mighty and lucrative coal and oil companies cannot suck it up until this crisis is over?

 

I will agree the day the “merits” do not include false and misleading information

 

They can easily become untenable investments, and thus candidates for bankruptcy.