When I say "corrupt" when referring to a body of government I usually mean systemically corrupt and not just the paper bag full of money under the table kind of corruption or the laundered campaign contributions or jobs for friends and family kind of corruption which corrupts individuals.
In the systemically corrupt sense the FCC itself is a corruption of a representative form of government in that it is a complete abdication of lawmaking authority by Congress and the President to a commission made up of people who have made big money in the industry they supposedly regulate and to which they undoubtedly expect to return to make big money especially when they are rewarded by the industry for the regulations they craft. So it is both systemically corrupt in that it is a corruption of lawmaking authority which should be held by Congress and the president and not delegated to an unelected commission, but it is also clearly individually corrupt with most of the commissioners deep in the pocket and beholden to the industry they regulate.
Renewables alone are going to be insufficient for the world's energy needs.
The energy needs of a world with no more people could easily be covered by renewables.
Easily... meaning after another 50 to 100 years of large scale fossil fuel emissions? Because even for developed economies with plenty of resources it is looking like 20, 30 or even 40 years to get to 100% renewables. Even if you believe that that would be a good thing for the environment, which I think that really 100% renewables would be a bigger negative impact on the environment than keeping a large percentage of nuclear is. That still means that developing economies are going to have to also have to stay away from coal, oil and natural gas for their own economic development.
people don't understand until you tell them nuclear fuel is a million times more energy dense than chemical fuel.
Could have just left it at "people don't understand"... The PR problem is that nuclear is economically disruptive to the fossil fuel industry so there is a lot of money at stake in spreading fear uncertainty and doubt about nuclear. The industry doesn't really fear solar or wind, because it isn't a large scale or near term threat for fossil fuel dominance. Compared with even a single new nuclear power plant which can power a large part of an entire region with consistent electricity and combined with an affordable and economically viable electric car that combination could almost completely replace fossil fuels.
We don't have time for rational solutions!
Okay then... I propose a tax on solar panels which can be used to subsidize solar panels.
Climate change and the benefits of using renewables in place of fossil fuels are observable, measurable and given the volume of data we now have it is an irrefutable fact that renewables are preferable to fossil fuels.
Totally agree, but when people cite Germany as being well on their way to using 100% renewables they are missing the facts that Germany has increased its CO2 emissions in the last several years with its shift away from nuclear and they are increasing use of cheap dirty coal to balance the higher costs of renewables.
Renewables alone are going to be insufficient for the world's energy needs. And industrial scale renewables have their own very negative effects on habitats and the environment. Just as shifting food production to biofuels caused food shortages and food riots, there are going to be negative effects if we have to blanket large areas of the planet with solar panels and wind "farms". Just as we found that the downstream effects of hydro-electric dams are often very negative to fisheries, estuaries and sometimes to agriculture.
And I've said it once and I will say it a million times, nuclear is a far better option with far less negative consequences and with even far less risk than even renewables.