@Robert Bryce, the idea that it is so easy to block energy infrastructure is well worth digging into IMO as a line of enquiry for your work in energy, look at the ridiculous situation in New England where they cannot get much needed gas pipelines built. Hydro Quebec cannot build new transmission lines into the US. Canada is also rife with this nonsense unable to build gas or oil pipelines due to irrelevant objections or misuse of planning approval processes. So many examples of bad planning processes that block progress and critical infrastructure to the detriment of all.
Planning permission and permitting processes need a radical overhaul in my opinion. Regardless of your technology preferences it is just too easy for people to say no to needed energy infrastructure. We really need to take a hard look at how long it takes to get energy project approvals and how easy it is to block projects that are quite benign in nature yet every single one of those objectors like to go home every night and turn on as may light switches as they like.
We saw video of him announcing money for Superfund from the "Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill" to clean up a Superfund National Priority List site (NPL, most contaminated of all U.S. federally regulated sites).
While standing on a contaminated site that, by Congress' own definition under Superfund, was an "imminent and substantial endangerment to human health and the environment", he reminded the world that "climate change" is the most important threat to humanity.
For readers, the cost of remediating ALL ~1,300 US NPL sites would be in the range of $25 - $75 billion. We just committed $369 BILLION to wind, solar, biomass, biofuels, etc. in the Inflation nonReduction Act.
Which is to say, instead, we could have cleaned up ALL U.S. Superfund NPL sites. AND had enough left over to build 80 - 100 Natrium SMRs.
Any claim that installing renewables leads to lower bills is a lie, and a stupid lie at that as evidence to the contrary exists in every country in the world that has done so.
Joe is lying, assuming he even understands what he said.
As a long time nuclear power supporter, I can only laugh as these rejections pile up.
The moat around those sweet sweet IRA subsidies is so big that it gives me hope that maybe in a few years people will finally understand that we have to occasionally build things somewhere. Land use is going to be everything...
@Robert Bryce, the idea that it is so easy to block energy infrastructure is well worth digging into IMO as a line of enquiry for your work in energy, look at the ridiculous situation in New England where they cannot get much needed gas pipelines built. Hydro Quebec cannot build new transmission lines into the US. Canada is also rife with this nonsense unable to build gas or oil pipelines due to irrelevant objections or misuse of planning approval processes. So many examples of bad planning processes that block progress and critical infrastructure to the detriment of all.
Planning permission and permitting processes need a radical overhaul in my opinion. Regardless of your technology preferences it is just too easy for people to say no to needed energy infrastructure. We really need to take a hard look at how long it takes to get energy project approvals and how easy it is to block projects that are quite benign in nature yet every single one of those objectors like to go home every night and turn on as may light switches as they like.
We saw video of him announcing money for Superfund from the "Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill" to clean up a Superfund National Priority List site (NPL, most contaminated of all U.S. federally regulated sites).
While standing on a contaminated site that, by Congress' own definition under Superfund, was an "imminent and substantial endangerment to human health and the environment", he reminded the world that "climate change" is the most important threat to humanity.
For readers, the cost of remediating ALL ~1,300 US NPL sites would be in the range of $25 - $75 billion. We just committed $369 BILLION to wind, solar, biomass, biofuels, etc. in the Inflation nonReduction Act.
Which is to say, instead, we could have cleaned up ALL U.S. Superfund NPL sites. AND had enough left over to build 80 - 100 Natrium SMRs.
You choose, America. Do so informed.
Thanks to Robert for doing so.
Any claim that installing renewables leads to lower bills is a lie, and a stupid lie at that as evidence to the contrary exists in every country in the world that has done so.
Joe is lying, assuming he even understands what he said.
Next Step: private land appropriation alà Marxists to realize Renewable "Power Grab" (pun)
Nice work Robert. The rejection data base is the real inconvenient truth.
Funny how the climate howlers remain convinced that solar and wind lower utility rates, despite the mountain of evidence to the contrary.
San Bernardino county (mostly desert) banned new solar because, it created no jobs, paid no taxes and used all the land.
Keep up the great work Robert.
As a long time nuclear power supporter, I can only laugh as these rejections pile up.
The moat around those sweet sweet IRA subsidies is so big that it gives me hope that maybe in a few years people will finally understand that we have to occasionally build things somewhere. Land use is going to be everything...