I listened to Mike Adams interview RFK Jr. Mike mentioned hot fusion as a potential solution to our energy future. Bobby Kennedy dismissed it offhand. He thinks windmills and solar farms are the solution. How can he ignore the environmental damage necessary to mine the resources and site wind and solar resources required to make alternative energy a reality?
There's a lively debate on which alternatives could best replace fossil fuel. My impression is that industrial-scale biomass (including ethanol) is a disaster, wind, solar, tidal, and geothermal are only partial solutions, and hot nuclear could feasibly scale up to the levels required but comes with serious downsides. So barring a technological breakthrough like cold fusion or zero point, phasing out fossil fuels any time soon looks like a pipe dream. It would entail enormous suffering and could only be justified if the climate change disaster scenarios are as bad as Polya, Griffin, etc. say they are. I don't have the scientific background to know whether that's the case.
I live in the Columbia River gorge where hydropower is abundant and is attracting Google and other server farms in number. I used to live three miles from a nuclear plant in Michigan and am well aware of the danger of storing spent fuel rods in open pools on the plant's grounds. My point is that it makes me question RFK Jr's commitment to a viable energy solution if he's not interested in investigating all possible methods of energy production. Personally, I would like to see small scale units and short transmission lines that would means local control. But of course that would deprive energy giants of income and money talks.
Yep
I listened to Mike Adams interview RFK Jr. Mike mentioned hot fusion as a potential solution to our energy future. Bobby Kennedy dismissed it offhand. He thinks windmills and solar farms are the solution. How can he ignore the environmental damage necessary to mine the resources and site wind and solar resources required to make alternative energy a reality?
There's a lively debate on which alternatives could best replace fossil fuel. My impression is that industrial-scale biomass (including ethanol) is a disaster, wind, solar, tidal, and geothermal are only partial solutions, and hot nuclear could feasibly scale up to the levels required but comes with serious downsides. So barring a technological breakthrough like cold fusion or zero point, phasing out fossil fuels any time soon looks like a pipe dream. It would entail enormous suffering and could only be justified if the climate change disaster scenarios are as bad as Polya, Griffin, etc. say they are. I don't have the scientific background to know whether that's the case.
I live in the Columbia River gorge where hydropower is abundant and is attracting Google and other server farms in number. I used to live three miles from a nuclear plant in Michigan and am well aware of the danger of storing spent fuel rods in open pools on the plant's grounds. My point is that it makes me question RFK Jr's commitment to a viable energy solution if he's not interested in investigating all possible methods of energy production. Personally, I would like to see small scale units and short transmission lines that would means local control. But of course that would deprive energy giants of income and money talks.