People who rail about climate change but ignore nuclear aren't serious, end of story.

Expand full comment

The physics of climatology is wrong. That's what you need to attack.


http://climate-change-theory.com (may be down for maintenance)




Douglas Cotton B.Sc (physics), B.A.(econ), Dip.Bus.Admin et al

Expand full comment

I disagree we have plenty of rooftops available for solar. That is the problem we have no programs for getting them onto homes from govt or private co.s Subsidies are not enough . Loans that pay themselves would work just not enough profit for the big energy investors. We need to forget about nuclear it is really dangerous as we have been shown. The earth has so much energy from so many places, Nikola Tesla was tapping earth on location through magnetic from the earth . Its all about profit and I think you know this Steve.

Expand full comment

Solar energy certainly can't be the solution for the world's energy needs. It can't be if the sun is supposedly contributing to global warming and needs to be dimmed. So how are we supposed to depend on solar energy and deflect the sun's rays away from the earth to fight global warming? By the way, I have no fears of global warming. I have experienced fluctuating temperatures during each season of my life on earth. One of my major concerns is global insanity which seems to have affected at least 50% of the human population. Certain factions in society (rich and poor), have decided that they are going to blame other people for whatever they see fit, even though you have no control over or no involvement with anything they decide you are guilty of. So we can't have it both ways. Either dim the sun to prevent global warming according to the Bill Gates types. Or live with the global warming, and forget about the solar energy which probably won't be enough energy to cover every power grid anyway.

Expand full comment

My late uncle was the Solar Research Engineer for the former Gulf States Utilities in Texas. He liked nuclear power, but told me solar was going to be a bust for many of the reasons you mention. However his solution was not nuclear for the average home, only factories and high use facilities. He believed we would have an honest future and that future would be about homes having Hydrogen Fuel cells.

Hydrogen can be generated on site and once the generator is started, it can put aside just enough hydrogen to run itself while powering the home. Air is free. The byproduct is PURE DRINKABLE WATER. He told me it was already powering the International Space station.

Not only is it a solution that has been hushed , but the benefits to on site generation are, no more leaking pipelines or cross country transportation of explosive fuel. wires, billions spent to repair a grid after a storm or having to pay a utility company to turn on your power. In other words....lots of money taken out of power hands.

Maybe we could clean out all those pipelines and set up a reservoir system to move flood waters to a part of the country with drought issues....???

Tesla's free energy ideas were shut down because Westinghouse, his financier, owned copper mines and was not happy with the idea of power on demand without wires...Has anything changed??? Doubt it.

This company has been around for a while.... https://www.ballard.com/

Expand full comment
Oct 25, 2022·edited Oct 25, 2022

Sorry Steve, I have to vehemently disagree with you here, nuclear is not the answer and needs to be phased out of existence immediately.

It doesn't matter how much cleaner or more efficient the next gen generators are, they and all generators are not disaster proof.

Hurricanes, earthquakes, tornados... TSUNAMIS...

The planet is not stable enough and the disasters too potentially devastating to ever make a risk/benefit analysis work out in the favor of nuclear Imho.

Human hubris is absolutely monumental. No system works as well in reality as it does in theory, there will always be error, mistakes, and natural disasters. Humans act like they can plan for everything to stop those realities - rather than accept and plan for those inevitabilities.

At some point the plant will be devastated and what are the consequences when it does go tits up? Is Fukushima cleaned up completely yet? How is the new facility they had to build around The Sarcophagus in Chernobyl? They had to build it because the old facility was breaking down after 50 years(as they admittedly knew it would when they installed the original sarcophagus to seal the site).

I used to be a big supporter of nuclear but it has become alarmingly obvious mankind is not ready or responsible enough to be mucking around with a Demon Core.

You want to turn the moon into a reactor farm and somehow transfer energy I'd be all for it, the technology is absolutely amazing. But at the end of the day it's inevitable consequences are too devastating for terrestrial use.

And let's be honest, there's no rush. Climate Change/global warming is a hoax perpetuated by the globalists to both advance their technocratic agenda and as a virtue signal and distraction away from the very real ecological disasters caused by modern industrial practices like strip mining.

I'll try and find some Randall Carlson stuff where he breaks down the misrepresentation of the data(just like Covid ) done to create the illusion of a rapidly warming planet and goes over all the historical data including the Greenland ice cores proving it wrong(at the scale they're saying anyway, humans do have an impact but nothing like what they're claiming).

But I'm about to leave for breakfast and may forget so look up Randall Carlson Kosmographia on YouTube and you'll find him.

They had me sold on it for decades because the MSM always presents dipshits as the ppl arguing against climate change, but Randall changed my mind in minutes with hard data and competent presentation of the facts. I think you'd like him, you'd definitely respect his love and knowledge of science.

Anyway, have a good day my friend. And thank you and your team for all your work.

Peace brother✌️

Expand full comment

I was a very active anti-nuke person in the 80s, around the time of Three Mild Island. I was active in New Mexico, a state that has been the scene of the entire Uraneum; nuke, radiation system, from the mining, to the arms development and other uses of uraneum, and the final destination of much of the country's nuclear waste. What I want you to tell me, how are nuke planst safer now, and all the qualities you attributed to the New Generation Nuke. Jerry Lujan, Albquerque

Expand full comment

Informative article. Thank you so much for your courage, energy, and persistence Mr. Kirsch. Another clean innovative electric generating technology my partner and I believe can demonstrate a LCOE & LCOS of $0.008/kWh is "unpartitioned, convective, supercritical geothermal energy" per U.S. Patent 8,381,523 B2 issued February 26, 2013. Our technology can generate 10x more electric power at the generator (per Iceland Deep Drilling Project models) than conventional geothermal, requires no fracking, no injection wells, uses no geothermal brines, and emits nothing more than clean water while providing temperature and pressure controls beyond any other geothermal system. If curious, you can learn more at our website: http://zgroupenergy.com/

Expand full comment

Speaking of Changing Beliefs: Many today refer to fossil fuels (not really made from fossils) are "non-renewable." However, coal, oil, and gas are being renewed all the time. We might be using it faster than we can find it or faster than it is being renewed, but it IS being renewed.

The greatest solar collector is the collective of green plants that harness photosynthesis. And from there arises all of our energy for all other conversions. (excepting nuclear from uranium, etc. perhaps)

Perhaps uranium is non-renewable as it was supposedly formed in a supernova billions of years ago.

But really, in terms of all the energy available to us on earth, the real non-renewable source is the Sun. And when it burns out, we're done.

Expand full comment

NIMBYs are a problem for Nuclear, but then we also have the AGW and ACC cults that think that coal is deadly too.

When are we going to have a true scientific debate with the best of each side?

CO2 is not dangerous or a poison. Methane is natural and it means we have a high fiber diet.

Plants love them both and they feed the world with food.

Ice core samples have found levels of CO2 20 times higher than today and ice was there too so it was not causing global warming. In fact they also show that temperatures increased before CO2 levels followed. This is due to high temperatures causing more fires.

I don't mind if you want to use nuclear in your backyard, but I like coal better because we have lots of it in Australia. It also makes good steel that is a very useful product for many things. It is cheap and helps employ many people to produce goods we need and industries that support our economy.

Renewables destroy the power network as they are not consistent in output and cause the price of energy to vary wildly. You can't run a business without consistent supply and pricing.

For off the grid with a battery renewables work well if you have a wood burning stove and heat pump hot water system to supplement them.

Everything has its place, but everything together can destroy the system.

Expand full comment

Nobel-Prize-winning theoretical physicist Max Planck coined one of my favorite quotes of all time: "Funerals do more to advance science than discovery does." Meaning when people, even smart people like doctors and scientists adopt a certain belief about something, it is nearly impossible to convince them otherwise, despite overwhelming new evidence that their cherished belief is false. They have to die, before the truth can be accepted by a new generation willing to question the dogmatic "old narrative." I wonder how many generations it will take before "Vaccines are safe, everyone knows that!" is questioned by sufficient numbers of people.

Expand full comment

Why do we keep hearing over and over about better solutions to problems kicked to the kerb for expensive, impractical or may never work, or not at scale, ones? Now we potentially face winter blackouts...

Expand full comment

Fabulous article. I was not aware of the IFR technology. Why aren't they developing it? I just drove through Nevada and saw tons of solar panel fields (I'm not sure what to call them). Talk about inefficient.

How about the 2 people who, developed vehicles that operated on water, that mysteriously died? Need names?

Expand full comment

The problem: energy is not the only problem… Who understands what the mining industry is about, understands why we are on a terribly wrong track! This industry moves so much earth to get one gramm of whatever, needs so much water, energy, polluting chemicals to extract such a gramm, gives such an amount of waste which is not usable, leaves such big scares on the landscape, pollutes the water we are supposed to drink, the earth where we are supposed to grow our vegetables, feed the animals, etc.

Our civilisation is built upon mining products! We use cars, bikes, planes, trains, boats, rollers, bridges… They are all made from metal. We transport and keep conventional or “green” energy and for that we need a lot of infrastructures which are also made of metal.

It does absolutely not cross our minds that things which we use daily could be a problem, we take them for granted.

We know the minerals we can see: iron, cuper, gold,silver… but we ignore everything about them (what they went through to become a car, a train, a roller, a post, a ring…), we know even less about the others which we cannot see, but are also part of our daily life: cobalt, led, bismuth, titanium oxide, barium, selenium sulfide

We don’t ask questions about aluminium cans for our food, all kind of wrappings, pots we use when we cook, light bulbs, even the color for our hair, shampoos, need minerals…

Some regions of the globe look almost like an Emmental cheese… They are full of gigantic holes. They will never recover. When there is not enough to get out of the earth, they are abandoned. Huge holes, nobody ever sees, because most of the time they are in the middle of nowhere, or nicely hidden, like on the little island of Milos, in Greece. Visible from the plane only. The mining part of the island is said to bee without any interesting site, without any road signs on the road, so that you immediately have the feeling that you should tune back…

Uranium, the building of the infrastructures, etc.: all this needs also mining products.

Of course, wind mills and solar cells are gigantic consumers of metal. Most of the things mentioned cannot be recycled… For how many years will the world be able to give its minerals? Not that many. Go to Greece, and you will also see how metal decays badly once it is not maintained anymore.

We live in a world of illusions. I came to see the illusion through Covid. I am not really sure what it is all about. I am certain that the CO2 is not the problem, but mining is certainly a big one, as is the moving of the fleet of all the enormous boats. All made of metal! They pollute the hell of a lot and make a lot of money. Around this: a big silence. Only little people are condemned to “do the right thing”.

Expand full comment