Math is a harsh mistress. It's inscrutable, it's objective, and it is absolute: 2 + 2 is always 4, no matter what.
Back in my jacket-and-tie days, a good part of my living was made teaching big companies (some of whom you'd recognize) how to conduct failure investigations, cause analyses, and trend analysis - I described this as "extracting information from data." That required a cold, dispassionate examination of numbers, statistics, in short, reality.
Climate scolds don't seem to be able to do this. In large part, this is because they are driven, not by facts, but by ideology; their goal has more to do with the destruction of free-market capitalism than climate, which is obvious if you look at the numbers behind their advocacy for iffy technologies like wind and solar. To that end, an X user, Chris Martz (@ChrisMartzWX) has crunched those numbers, and it's a damning look at the claims of climate scolds when it comes to nuclear vs. "green" energy.
Do you like math?
— Chris Martz (@ChrisMartzWX) December 30, 2024
Do you like making climate activists cry?
If so, this post is for you. 🫵
They advertise utility-scale solar photovoltaic (PV) and wind as being “eco-friendly” energy technologies because they emit less CO₂ over their total lifecycle. Emissions is all the… pic.twitter.com/qV0ZM8CqrC
Folks, if you read one thing on X today, read this. Here are some highlights:
They (climate scolds) advertise utility-scale solar photovoltaic (PV) and wind as being “eco-friendly” energy technologies because they emit less CO₂ over their total lifecycle. Emissions is all the “greens” like to jack their sausage holsters about. But, when you point out to them just how land intensive their “green” energy technologies are, they squirm trying to justify being vehemently opposed to nuclear fission — a near-infinite, carbon-free, energy-dense electricity source — and working to destroying the landscape with massive amounts of solar cells and wind farms to save the planet. Let's run the numbers, shall we?
It gets better - oh, so much better - when Mr. Martz gets into specifics. I won't drag you through all the calculations, but please do read the entire post, as Mr. Martz shows his work. But here is the summary.
In order to power the same number of homes that a 1,000 MW nuclear power plant can, it would require either:
• For 𝐬𝐨𝐥𝐚𝐫 𝐏𝐕: Approximately 4,000 MW of installed power (equivalent to four nuclear facilities) and 24,000 acres of land (some 37.5 × as much land area than a nuclear plant).
• For 𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐡𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐰𝐢𝐧𝐝: Approximately 2,800 MW of installed power (equivalent to 2.8 nuclear facilities) and 89,600 acres of land (some 140 × as much land area than a nuclear power generation station)
Note that these land estimates don't take into account things like battery backup storage, for times when the wind isn't blowing - or when it's dark.
See Related: Climate Activism Is Under Fire Across the Globe—Will the Push-Back Make a Difference?
Australia's Melbourne University Afflicting Kids With Climate Indoctrination
This is revealing in more ways than just the practical aspects. Why? Because it exposes the real agenda of the climate scolds. These people claim to be concerned about climate change, global warming, or whatever the sky-is-falling term du jour is. But they are clearly more concerned with destroying free-market capitalism, free enterprise, and our modern, energy-dense, technological lifestyle. There's no other explanation for these people looking at numbers like this and still refusing to accept that nuclear power, not wind and solar, is the answer to our energy needs. We don't even need the always-forty-years-away fusion power, either. Current fission reactor technology will work very well. Small modular reactors (SMR) are an even more exciting twist on nuclear energy, having the possibility of not only bringing affordable electricity to small towns and remote places but also beginning the process of decentralizing our electrical grid.
We solve today's problems with tomorrow's technology. Nuclear power is the energy source of not only today but of the future. If someone can make a workable, grid-level fusion power plant, all the better, but it's not necessary. We have the answer to today's and tomorrow's energy needs. That answer is and will be nuclear fission reactors.
Mr. Martz concludes:
Nuclear power represents both continued economic growth and a clean energy future.
But, many climate activists don't want continued economic growth. They want to abolish capitalism and overturn western culture.
This is correct. This is the reason. Once you accept that, all of the irrational shouting from climate scolds starts to make a lot more sense.
