The Greenest Energy Isn’t Even Being Considered

Though this article rightly considers nuclear energy, I would argue from a physicist’s point of view, there is an inexhaustible source of free energy within the fabric of space-time itself. It has been demonstrated dozens of times, yet buried by the powers-that-be. We need never be dependent on chemical or even “green” sources again, if our leadership would only pull their heads out of their backsides and develop it. The real Tesla knew.

Here in the state of Texas, we’re currently experiencing a freak chill with temperatures that dropped well below the southern part of Alaska. Many residents have fled their homes due to not having any power to heat, thanks to the fact that Texas has made around a quarter of its power source “green energy,” mostly in the form of wind farms.

As Tucker Carlson pointed out last night, Texas shouldn’t be having an energy problem at all. The state of Texas is the largest source of natural gas in the world. He likened running out of power in Texas to starving in a grocery store and pointed out that you can only do that on purpose.

(READ: Tucker Carlson Expertly Points Out How Unreliable Green Energy Is, With the Texas Power Outage as Proof)

But the overall point he was making is pretty clear, and has been clear for some time; green energy is unreliable at best and underperforms when the need calls.

Moreover, green energy comes with a myriad of other problems. For one, it’s expensive to build, and many of the rare-earth metals that are needed to make the fields of solar and wind farms come from China. Moving over to a primarily green energy-producing system will effectively have us owned by our enemies via the debt alone.

Also, this “green energy” is often very damaging to the environment. Not only do large swaths of land need to be cleared and made ready for these green energy farms, but they also damage the environment by their mere existence. From cadmium leaks, the deaths of millions of birds (many of them endangered), to toxic waste they become when they’ve run their course, green energy isn’t exactly something you would consider environmentally friendly.

(READ: The Expense and Destruction Caused by Renewable Energy)

However, if there’s one thing that the green energy worshiping, Church of Climate Change parishioners has right, it’s that we can’t rely on fossil fuels forever, mostly because at some point we will run out. So, if we can’t just stay on fossil fuels and green energy is the power-producing equivalent of the C-squad, then what’s next?

We already have the answer, and you likely already know it.

What about nuclear energy?

Nuclear energy is the only kind of energy that could rival, if not out-perform, oil and gas. It has a myriad of advantages as well.

For one, it releases no carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Its power is generated through fission, which produces steam that spins turbines, generating electricity. According to the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), the U.S. avoided emitting over 476 million metric tons of CO2 in 2019 via nuclear energy. notes that this is about the same as removing 100 million cars off the road.

It also has a much smaller land demand as well. A single nuclear facility may need only a square mile to operate, whereas a solar farm requires 75 times the amount of space. In order to rival the nuclear facility, you would need 3 million solar panels or 430 wind turbines, and that’s a lot of land that would have to be sacrificed as a result.

According to, even the waste that nuclear energy produces is minimal:

Nuclear fuel is extremely dense.

It’s about 1 million times greater than that of other traditional energy sources and because of this, the amount of used nuclear fuel is not as big as you might think.

All of the used nuclear fuel produced by the U.S. nuclear energy industry over the last 60 years could fit on a football field at a depth of less than 10 yards!

What’s holding us back from nuclear are two things we could do without. One is the irrational fear that every nuclear power plant will become a Chernobyl or Fukushima, but it needs to be understood that both incidents, while tragic, were educational in helping us further understand what to do and what not to do.

For one, Chernobyl was an issue that happened because of Soviet incompetence in both its construction and maintenance. Shortcuts were taken when putting it together in order to save the soviet government on costs, and it was administrative and bureaucratic idiocy that caused the plant to meltdown.

Fukushima is the first time that an external force actually caused a plant to release radiation after a 14-meter-high wave hit the plant, which was twice the height it was built to withstand. However, as Ernest Moniz at MIT wrote, this devastating occurrence can only improve how nuclear facilities are built:

The Fukushima disaster will cause nuclear regulators everywhere to reconsider safety requirements—in particular, those specifying which accidents plants must be designed to withstand. In the 40 years since the first Fukushima reactor was commissioned, seismology and the science of flood hazards have made tremendous progress, drawing on advances in sensors, modeling, and other new capabilities. This new knowledge needs to be brought to bear not only when designing new power plants but also when revisiting the requirements at older plants, as was happening at Fukushima before the tsunami. Outdated safety requirements should not be kept in place. In the United States, the NRC’s review led to a recommendation that nuclear power plant operators reevaluate seismic and flood hazards every ten years and alter the design of the plants and their operating procedures as appropriate. With few exceptions, the needed upgrades are likely to be modest, but such a step would help ensure that the designs of plants reflect up-to-date information.

There really aren’t a lot of reasons not to move to nuclear energy. Sure, there are risks, but they are incredibly minimal. Accidents are quite rare, the energy produced is bar-none, the waste it produces also is incredibly minimal and recyclable, it requires very little land to operate, and moreover, it’s cheap.

“Green energy” on the other hand, is destructive, expensive, and unreliable. Taking yourself out of the political argument for a second and looking at the issue on paper would make nuclear energy the obvious choice, but it’s not.

As I mentioned earlier, there are two issues getting in nuclear energy’s way, and the other is a fight to keep it from establishing itself as the main source of energy, primarily by the left who seem to be very invested in solar and wind. It’s an industry that China has a lot to benefit from, and the close relationship between the Biden administration and China can’t be overlooked.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.