“The elevated costs associated with EVs persisted. Efforts to wrestle it down proved to be more challenging.” //

Because of low demand and high repair costs, Hertz Global Holdings Inc. will sell 20,000 electric vehicles (EV), one-third of its EV fleet. //

Hertz and everyone else had to know this would not work. You mean you couldn’t tell no one wanted to rent EVs?

Go woke, and you waste a ton of money:

Hertz will record a non-cash charge in its fourth-quarter results of about $245 million related to incremental net depreciation expense. //

Corky M | January 13, 2024 at 9:50 am
Recent article by younger fellow discussed how after 7 years his Tesla S had lost 32 percent of it’s range. What was more amazing to me was that he said he would still purchase another one.

Oh, and a 7 year old internal combustion engine vehicle is likely to get the same miles per gallon today as it did when new.

The long-term damage to the economy demanded by the “must go all electric” crowd will just increase. Electrification of everything to save the planet is a canard for being able to completely control humanity.

Nada mas.

Gopher 5 hours ago

The easy answer... There is NOT enough electric generation (or power grid capacity) available to replace the power used by gasoline vehicles.

1 gallon of gas = 33.7kWh of power.

The US uses 134,830,000,000 (yes, 134 Billion) gallons of gasoline/year.

4,543,770,000,000. 4.543 Trillion kWh of electricity.

In 2018 we used 3,900,875,000,000 or 3.900 Trillion kWh of electricity.

In other words we need the ability to generate well over TWICE as much electricity (8.4 Trillion kwh) as we currently generate just to stay even.

Add the range and power of semi's and locomotives and ships fueled by diesel and we are WAY, WAY short on our electric generation needs.

HAWLEY: Let's talk a little bit about who's really benefiting from this administration's climate agenda, and from these draconian electric vehicle mandates. So, Mr. Turk, you've already alluded to this. I know you know the answers to these questions. Currently, one nation accounts for 60 percent of the world's electric vehicle production. That nation is?

TURK: China

HAWLEY: One nation accounts for 76 percent of the world's lithium battery production. That nation is?

TURK: China

HAWLEY: Yet, your administration, the president's administration, the mandates that you put in place require that two-thirds of our new vehicle sales in just the next eight years be electric vehicles. Your policies are driving us and our supply chains into the hands of our greatest geo-strategic enemy, enriching them, enriching their government ....

So, Mr. Turk, why is it good for the American worker that we force our supply chains to a country that is our greatest rival and adversary, and why is it good for the American consumer? //

Meanwhile, China remains the world's largest emitter of carbon emissions, and they aren't slowing down anytime soon. Think about how insane that dynamic is. We are knee-capping Americans for "climate change" to enrich China, which is continuing to build coal-fired power plants like they are pop-up houses. If the Biden administration was purposely trying to sabotage the United States, what would it be doing differently? //

anon-608f
5 hours ago
The EV mandates have nothing to with environmental conservation and everything to do with limiting citizens freedom of travel. The globalist elites intent is to depopulate the world in accordance with their ideology and new religion.
They learned all they needed from the Soviet Union and the Holodomor- disarm a population, make them politically unsavory, restrict their ability to communicate with the outside world, restrict their ability to flee, then starve them out of existence.
Make no mistake, Whites are first in their sights but no one is safe...only temporarily useful.

As US dams age, removal is always an option—and it can be done well. //

Wending its way from the Olympic Mountains to the Strait of Juan de Fuca, Washington’s Elwha River is now free. For about century, the Elwha and Gilnes Canyon Dams corralled these waters. Both have since been removed, and the restoration of the watershed has started.

The dam-removal project was the largest to date in the US—though it won’t hold that position for long. The Klamath River dam removal project has begun, with four of its six dams—J.C. Boyle, Copco No. 1, Copco No. 2, and Iron Gate—set to be scuppered by the end of the year, and the drawdown started this week. (In fact, Copco No. 2 is already gone.)

Once the project is complete, the Klamath will run from Oregon to northwestern California largely unimpeded, allowing sediment, organic matter, and its restive waters to flow freely downriver while fish like salmon, trout, and other migratory species leap and wriggle their way upstream to spawn. //

The Dark Ars Praefectus
7y
10,623
org said:
That's too absolutist. Many small dams can only generate a few hundreds of kW or low double digit MW. That's a drop in the bucket for power generation but their local impact can be huge. I guess I mean you have to do case by case analysis to see when it's worth it.

Using the article as an example, the four dams being removed from the Klamath are John C Boyle (90 MW), Copco 1 (20 MW), Copco 2 (27 MW), and Iron Gate (18 MW). The four produced 686,000 MWh annually, or about 50.5% of their nameplate capacity. //

QuantifiableQuoll Ars Centurion
7y
272
greendave said:
Would have liked to see a discussion of the cost of these removals (reportedly $40-60 million for the two on The Elwha River, and $350 million overall for restoration). Those numbers seem exorbitant and make it hard to imagine that we'll be able to afford much removal/restoration in the long term.
The only reason PacificCorp, owner of the dams, agreed to the removal of the Klamath dams is because it was cost prohibitive to keep them in place. They needed mandatory upgrades and were already not competitive in a power generation market full of windmills/turbines/whatever and newer dams.

Source https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-solutions/interactive/2023/klamath-river-dam-removal/

Dr. Matthew Wielicki: “There’s a disconnect between what the science says and what the narrative in the mainstream media is….and what certain ‘activist scientists’ have been pushing.” Other scientists share his concerns. //

Occasionally we are asked why Legal Insurrection features so much science among the articles featuring court cases, legal analysis, and updates on our push-back against Critical Race Theory and Diversity-Equity-Inclusion in education.

While there are many reasons, perhaps the chief one is that true science is being twisted to support political narratives that are destructive, both to our nation and to humanity. For example, the Twitter Files shed light on the degree to which good information from epidemiologists and physicians was suppressed during the covid pandemic. //

Wielicki was born in Poland while it was still under communist rule, so he has a deep appreciation for freedom of speech and personal liberty. His parents worked at California State University- Fresno at a time when professors and students were allowed to have different opinions about the issues of the day.

Another believer in freedom in science is Roger A. Pielke Jr., who recently prepared an exceptional column on ten principles for effective use of math in policy research.

It was his eighth entry on torturing data that caught my eye. https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/against-mathiness-part-2

I don’t know who said it, but there is an old adage that says if you torture data enough, it will confess. Simple methods, shared data, easily replicable, with clear meaning are always going to be preferable in policy settings to complex methods, unavailable data, impossibility of replication with unclear meaning. //

The hard sciences are canaries in the coal mine. If their data-driven conclusions, which should be experimentally reproducible, can be manipulated and massaged to promote ideological and/or political narratives resulting in elite policy objectives that affect us all, then no science (especially, it goes without saying, the social sciences) can be trusted.

If our leaders and our media want us to trust The Science™, then The Science™ must be trustworthy. Results must be replicated, data should be offered freely, and methodology must make sense.

Ultimately, though, I will leave the final word on the leftist march through the institutions—here, of science—to climatologist Judith Curry who confirms the climate “crisis” is manufactured. https://nypost.com/2023/08/09/climate-scientist-admits-the-overwhelming-consensus-is-manufactured/amp/

We are told climate change is a crisis, and that there is an “overwhelming scientific consensus.”

“It’s a manufactured consensus,” climate scientist Judith Curry tells me.

She says scientists have an incentive to exaggerate risk to pursue “fame and fortune.”

…“The origins go back to the . . . UN environmental program,” says Curry.

The president of the 28th United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP28) seems like an odd man for the job of creating more climate hysteria and trying to end our use of fossil fuels before we have fully developed the technologies to replace them.

His name is Sultan Al Jaber, and he’s the chief executive of the United Arab Emirates’ state oil company, Adnoc, which “many observers see as a serious conflict of interest.” You think? //

Al Jaber responded to badgering questions from an interviewer :

I accepted to come to this meeting to have a sober and mature conversation. I’m not in any way signing up to any discussion that is alarmist. There is no science out there, or no scenario out there, that says that the phase-out of fossil fuel is what’s going to achieve 1.5C…

Please help me, show me the roadmap for a phase-out of fossil fuel that will allow for sustainable socioeconomic development, unless you want to take the world back into caves. //

I don’t think [you] will be able to help solve the climate problem by pointing fingers or contributing to the polarisation and the divide that is already happening in the world. Show me the solutions. Stop the pointing of fingers. Stop it. //

A phase-down and a phase-out of fossil fuel in my view is inevitable. That is essential. But we need to be real serious and pragmatic about it. //

Blue State Deplorable
a month ago

As much as it may upset many people, my message is the planet is not in peril. This is good news. I believe there is no climate crisis. The alleged atmospheric CO2 and methane have a negligible effect on the climate.

• Dr. John Clauser, 2022 Nobel Laureate for Physics //

Mackey
a month ago
Climate alarmists say we must stop using fossil fuels and adopt 100% wind and solar today or the world as we know it will cease to exist in 10 years.

If we adopt 100% renewable energy today and phase out fossil fuels the world as we know it will cease to exist in 5 years. //

Random Commenter
a month ago
I got a good laugh out of this.

For a very interesting and somewhat new take on global warming, I suggest doing an internet search on:

Paper by William Wijngaarden (York University, Toronto) and William Happer (Princeton); Carbon dioxide saturation effect
A world-class radiation physicist (Happer) finds that the possible effects of H2O and CO2 are saturated, in other words, adding more of them won't heat the planet. //

Why is this nuclear fission disrespect from Cipher important enough for such a long post?

Cipher’s “About” page includes this self-description “Cipher covers the technological innovations we need to combat climate change and transform our global energy systems.” The publication’s executive editor is @AmyAHarder Cipher is sponsored by Breakthrough Energy.

Cipher’s fission “coverage” slows global progress in combating climate change. Fission is an incredibly powerful natural reaction that serves as an easily controlled heat source for the most productive, cleanest and safest power plants on Earth. It will play an increasingly important role in addressing energy sufficiency for all, energy abundance for most, energy security and energy cleanliness.

Of course nuclear is a “controversial topic.” People have been carefully taught to fear fission. They have rarely been taught much about the technological details of the power plants. Publications like Cipher that point to accidents almost never mention the statistical evidence accumulated over >6 decades that shows nuclear fission is one of our safest forms of energy production.

It’s logical to have some trepidation and concerns about the unknown, especially when fear messaging has been so prevalent.

There is also the competitive factor. Nuclear energy production takes markets away from all other power sources. No business likes to lose sales and revenues. All businesses strive to beat their competition. Talking trash and going negative are frequently used techniques.

But journalists shouldn’t pick sides.

Cipher should adhere to its mission of covering [all of] “the technological innovations we need to combat climate change” and the rest of our energy challenges.

Do Dubai delegates propose to reduce supply or demand? //

After two weeks of negotiation, the United Nations climate conference in Dubai agreed last week to “transition away” from fossil fuels. Left unanswered is whether governments are supposed to do that by reducing supply, reducing demand or both. A lot rides on the answer, but neither would affect the climate much.

The Center For Alternative Technologies in the UK delves into embedded carbon in residential storage batteries. It says the carbon footprint of current lithium ion batteries is around 100 kg of carbon dioxide per KWH of battery capacity when manufactured in factories that use fossil fuels. When renewable energy is used for the manufacturing, this is reduced to about 60 kg of CO2 per kWh.

U.S. Special Envoy John Kerry announced that America was joining the Powering Past Coal Alliance, which means the Biden Administration commits to building no new coal plants and phasing out existing plants. No date was given for when the existing plants would have to go, but other Biden regulatory actions and international commitments already in the works had meant no coal by 2035.

Daniel Turner @DanielTurnerPTF
·
John Kerry demands the end of coal plants.

Here's what Kerry won't tell you:

• Coal is inexpensive, abundant, and reliable
• Solar manufacturing plants run on coal
• Wind manufacturing plants run on coal
• EV battery factories are powered by coal

Facts matter.

9:33 AM · Dec 4, 2023 //

But it gets worse, as Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY) and Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) point out. While the Biden team is pushing for this radical agenda that would limit and harm the U.S., Kerry gave China a pass by locking them into the status of a "developing country" according to the Paris Agreement, which Kerry helped to negotiate.

“China is bent on global domination. It is the world’s second largest economy and largest emitter of greenhouse gases. It is America’s chief economic and geopolitical rival. It exploits forced labor. It manipulates global markets. It steals our technology. It is building hypersonic missiles and a blue-water navy,” the senators wrote. “It should not get special treatment in international climate agreements. There should be no more free rides for China. That should be non-negotiable.”

China permitted more coal power plants last year than any time in the last seven years, according to a new report released this week. It's the equivalent of about two new coal power plants per week. The report by energy data organizations Global Energy Monitor and the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air finds the country quadrupled the amount of new coal power approvals in 2022 compared to 2021. //

China is the world's biggest emitter of fossil fuels and has pledged for its emissions to peak by 2030. But there are questions over how high that peak will get and how soon that peak will come, says Champenois.

If hypocrisy caused global warming, we would rival the temperatures on our sister planet, Venus, at this point. //

DD Denslow 🇬🇧 @wolsned
·
COP28 is about to take place in one of the hottest places at this time of year, Dubai.

70,000 attendees, 1000s of private jets, and a few motorcades for the richest most carbon hungry individuals on Earth, to tell the poorest people they are destroying the planet.

Priceless.
12:23 PM · Nov 28, 2023 //

Daniel Turner @DanielTurnerPTF
·
COP28 Climate Summit:

Americans must reduce meat consumption.

COP27 Climate Summit:

Global elites dine on a gourmet selection of meats.
10:47 AM · Nov 28, 2023 //

UnCivilServant | December 1, 2023 at 2:02 pm
You know, if I were an unscrupulous Oil-producing nation in the region with all of these anti-fossil fuel nutters packed together in one convenient location… //

randian | December 1, 2023 at 10:46 pm

If hypocrisy caused global warming, we would rival the temperatures on our sister planet, Venus, at this point.

Amusingly, CO2 is not why Venus is hot, protestations by the climate cult notwithstanding. Venus is hot because its surface pressure is 92 bar, and anybody who has studied basic chemistry knows gases under pressure in a constant volume increase in temperature in rough proportion to pressure.

For the first time ever, a commercial plane flew across the Atlantic Ocean without using fossil fuels.

Virgin Atlantic said the test flight Tuesday from London to New York was powered only by sustainable aviation fuel, or SAF, a broad category of jet fuel that creates fewer carbon emissions than standard kerosene blends. The fuel on this flight was made from waste fats and plant sugars and emits 70% less carbon than petroleum-based jet fuel, according to a press release. //

Sustainable aviation fuels are a broad category that includes biofuels made from raw materials such as corn, animal fat, algae, municipal trash and sewage. By definition, they must emit at least 50% less carbon than petroleum-based jet fuel, according to federal guidelines.

But all of these fuels still produce some emissions. SAF, on its own, will not get the airline industry to zero carbon emissions.

To do that, the industry will have to develop new technologies that will allow planes to run on electric batteries, liquid hydrogen or some other as-yet-unproven fuel source. ///

Novel, but not very sustainable -- imagine how much "stuff" (sugar and fat) that takes to manufacture, compared to the equivalent volume of petroleum/crude oil...

Just because you can doesn't mean you should! I don't think it will scale well. Another case of diverting food for fuel. Humans can't eat petroleum, even though engines can be made to consume both.

Other than the United Nations' despicable treatment of Israel, there's nothing the world body is more hypocritical about than climate change — purported anthropomorphic (human-caused) climate change ("global warming"), to be precise. For the latest example, we need to look no further than the U.N. Secretary-General, António Guterres.

Call it bad timing.

Guterres hysterically backed a complete fossil fuel “phaseout” on Thursday, just before jetting off to the two-week COP 28 climate conference in oil-rich Dubai — where he will undoubtedly gnash his teeth with upwards of 70,000 other climate fanatics. //

Look, I'm no Al Gore, John Kerry, or Leo DiCaprio [sarc], but Guterres and like-minded climate alarmists are now calling for the complete elimination of the use of fossil fuels on the planet — for the sake of 1.5 degrees. Just me, or does it strike you as more than a bit of overkill? //

anon-a755
11 hours ago
I have a friend who lives in a part of Utah where the summer temperature averages near 110 F. He said, "I rather live with 112 degrees with air conditioning than in 110 degrees without it." You can bet your last nickel the climate snobs will always, always have their air conditioning. //

Blue State Deplorable
10 hours ago
As much as it may upset many people, my message is the planet is not in peril. This is good news. I believe there is no climate crisis. The alleged atmospheric CO2 and methane have a negligible effect on the climate.

• Dr. John Clauser, 2022 Nobel Laureate for Physics

As the green energy dominoes continue to fall, one of the major climate cult propaganda machines falls with them. //

As we enter the year’s final phase, I am becoming more hopeful that 2023 may be remembered as an essential point in human civilization as the threat to critical and efficient energy supplies begins to recede.

Sweden’s government has ditched plans to go all-in on “green energy,” green-lighting the construction of new nuclear power plants. Fossil fuel giant Shell announced it was scaling back its energy transition plans to focus on . . . gas and oil! Specific wind farm projects began to topple due to strong economic headwinds because the cost of generating electricity was deemed too high.

British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak announced his decision to open the North Sea to more oil and gas drilling. French President Emmanuel Macron is surrendering to reality and asked for a “regulatory pause.”. More recently, the US and the United Kingdom have committed to expanding nuclear energy, and offshore windfarm projects are going kaput.

Now comes intriguing confirmation that there may be an end to the mindless and unscientific promotion of green energy sooner rather than later. One of the climate crisis propaganda machines is closing its climate desk. //

Neo | November 24, 2023 at 7:57 pm
The dam on Climate Change hysteria seem to break after ExxonMobil broke ranks saying that to reach NetZero 2050 would require sacrifices that society would not accept. //

broomhandle | November 24, 2023 at 8:14 pm
How much advanced nuclear technology could have been developed with all the resources wasted on green energy follies? Maybe that was the point all along.

cupera1 pinkunicorns
3 hours ago
For those that want to return to a world that runs totally on green, like it was centuries ago, be careful about what you wish for. Wood was used for heating and cooking; charcoal for smelting and blacksmithing; wind or waterpower for pumps, mills, and sail ships for transport; and whale oil for lamps. People and soldiers walked or rode horses and the manure that dropped on the streets dried and blew into people’s lungs and was a lot more harmful than asbestoses ever was. The smoke from open fires choked and blackened cities. This smoke from wood and dried manure would make the smog of LA look like a clear day after a rain. The forests were stripped of trees; most of the crops went to feed draft animals.

For 99.999% of the people, life was nasty, brutish and short. You would be old and worn out at 40 and dead by 50. People would be laboring 18 hours a day from before the snow starts to melt to well after snow starts to build up in the fields, then you hope you have wood to make it through the winter and enough food to last until the next harvest.

In the documentary above, one government estimate shows that if the power were to remain off in the United States due to its inability to replace and repair the damage done to the grid, 90 percent of the population could die off in one year. //

DaveM Romeg
9 hours ago edited
btw- over the years there have been various explanation.
At one time in the 70's and 80's
(when climate change "experts" predicted we were entering a new Ice Age ) the lack of detection of electron neutrinos from the Sun led to a hypothesis that there were some changes in the Solar Core fusion rate which could lead to ice ages. That one was discarded when it was discovered that electron neutrinos can decay into tau and muon neutrinos. Suddenly those missing neutrinos were no longer missing.
Before that it had been hypothesized that periodic oscillations in Earth's orbit could lead to both cold and warm periods.

The reality is that the science of climate is immature as a science. There's a huge amount of data but much of it is very low quality data.

In the world of science the sin qua non of any hypothesis is it's ability to make testable conclusions. The fact that revery single hypothesis of climate change has failed that fundamental test should have told the scientific community that the underlying theories about climate are just plain wrong. More importantly- a re-assessment should have told them that that they are making a classical mistake- instead of being led to the conclusion by the data they are starting with the conclusion and working backwards. That leads to the cherry-picking of data.

Were I a climate scientist (I'm not nor do I play one on TV) I would wonder why these hypothesis are failing. After all they are based on a sound understanding of the physics involved. There are obviously factors influencing climate that are critically important but very poorly understood. What are those factors? I haven't a clue. But then -if we knew all the answers there wouldn't be much point in studying it would there?

A famous case was a study of tree rings which proved climate change. The problem was the ring data was all over the place and the researcher threw out in excess of 90+ percent of the tree ring data. He then tried to use the remaining few percent of data to prove a conclusion. The proper scientific conclusion was that tree ring data he was using was not a valid predictor of climate. A real scientist would have seen a new line of enquiry open. Why was there such variation in a group of trees that shared the same climate and overall environmental conditions? But that would have required him to admit he didn't have a clue what was happening.

A 2022 paper by Kelly Senecal of Convergent Science and other scientists compares greenhouse gas emissions from plug-in, battery-powered electric vehicles with emissions from hybrid vehicles, which combine internal combustion engines with small battery packs.

The conclusion: Pure plug-in battery-powered vehicles can create more emissions than hybrids and even more than some traditional internal combustion engine vehicles—whose fuel delivery, air delivery, and ignition systems have improved over the past 20 years, increasing overall vehicle gas mileage.

Here’s why. //

Research shows that electricity for battery-powered vehicles is coming from coal and natural gas rather than renewables. //

Seventy percent of the world’s electric batteries are produced in China, and 83% of China’s energy comes from fossil fuels, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

The longer the range of the battery, the more carbon is used in the production process. Senecal has calculated that carbon emissions to produce a battery for a Nissan Leaf were equivalent to driving a gasoline-powered BMW 320d for 24,000 miles. For a larger Tesla Model S battery, carbon emissions used in production are equivalent to driving the BMW 320d for 60,000 miles. //

Those concerned about greenhouse gas emissions may also be worried about the negative effects on the environment of mining for battery components. Such mining, which itself creates emissions, disrupts the land in low-income countries, such as cobalt mining in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, where abuses of mine workers and significant pollution from mining have been documented by Amnesty International.

Lithium is another crucial component of batteries, and China, Chile, Argentina, and Australia are home to potentially damaging lithium mines, according to the Institute for Energy Research.

A coalition of more than 1,600 scientists critical of their peers’ hyperbolic claims about climate change drew a prominent recruit to sign their 2019 declaration that the climate “emergency” is a myth.

John Clauser, who won last year’s Nobel Prize in physics, became the second Nobel laureate last month to sign the document with 1,607 other scientists rebuking the idea of a climate crisis.

“Climate science should be less political, while climate policies should be more scientific,” the declaration organized by the Climate Intelligence Foundation (CLINTEL) reads. “Scientists should openly address uncertainties and exaggerations in their predictions of global warming, while politicians should dispassionately count the real costs as well as the imagined benefits of their policy measures.”

Last year, the International Energy Agency (IEA) debuted a roadmap to net-zero emissions that became the model for corporate bishops of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) standards. A June report from the Energy Policy Research Foundation criticized the initiatives outlined as a “green mirage.” The IEA roadmap, researchers wrote, “will dramatically increase energy costs, devastate Western economies, and increase human suffering.”

“The aim of global policy should be ‘prosperity for all’ by providing reliable and affordable energy at all times,” reads CLINTEL’s World Climate Declaration. “There is no climate emergency. Therefore, there is no cause for panic and alarm.”

Norwegian-American engineer Ivan Giaever, who won the Nobel Prize in physics in 1973, is also a signatory to the declaration. //

The World Climate Declaration also notes that carbon dioxide is plant food, “not a pollutant.”

“It is essential to all life on Earth,” the document reads.

In fact, reforestation is on the rise, promoted by a global “greening” effect proliferating plant growth.

Rickover is the man most responsible for both the success and the failure of nuclear power. Thanks to Rickover, nuclear power became a reality as much as a decade earlier than it otherwise would have. But Rickover (along with Teller) was an originator of the Two Lies. He thought and taught that any sizable release was intolerable. My guess is that this doctrine was more a product of his concern for his program than his concern for humanity. But either way such a release must be prevented. He insisted this could be done if you followed Rickover's system of quality assurance religiously enough, cost be damned. The Intolerable Harm Lie and the Negligible Probability Lie put a crushing burden on nuclear power, which has prevented nuclear from realizing its promethean promise, and will continue to do so until they are renounced.

An instructive exception to Rickover's control of American nuclear effort was the Army's successful small reactor program in the very late 1950's. This included Camp Century. Camp Century was located at 77N in one of the most inhospitable places on the planet, 6000 feet above sea level on the Greenland Ice Cap, 800 miles from the North Pole, Figure 1. //

from a nuclear power perspective, Camp Century showed what is possible when you combine

1) a non-standard nuclear manufacturer accustomed to building large components in a competitive market [American Locomotive Company],

2) a plant built entirely on an assembly line,

3) transported by ship in blocks to site,

4) an erection time measured in weeks,

5) disassembled by reversing the process,

with an attitude that nuclear power is just another way of making electricity with its own benefits and hazards. [2]

When Camp Century was abandoned, the reactor and its fuel were removed; but just about everything else, including 200 m3 of diesel fuel and reactor coolant water with an initial activity of 1.2 GBq of activity, was left buried in the ice. The ice flow at the site has been tracked by the Danes ever since, most recently by Colgan et al.\cite{colgan-2023}. The ice is moving southwest at about 3.7 meters per year. But this will speed up as the ice gets closer to the shore. Colgan et al estimate it will hit the shore at Melville Bay in about 7000 years, Figure 4.

This has been promoted as a looming radiological disaster. 1.2 GBq is about 1/800th of the activity of a nuclear powered pacemaker. The deal with the Danes required that the site surface be left with no higher than normal background radioactivity. This was checked and signed off on by Danish personnel.

The longest lived isotope in the coolant is our old friend tritium. Tritium emits a weak electron which for all practical purposes is harmless. Tritium has a half-life of 12.3 years. If we conservatively assume all the ``initial" activity was tritium, by the time the Camp Century ice gets to the sea, the tritium will be reduced by more than a factor of 1.0e170. That's 10 followed by 169 zeros. //

Camp Century left us with a precious gift, Figure 6, a 1390 meter long ice core, all the way down to the ice base.3 This was the product of a multi-year effort to do what never had been done before. It was our first real record of the climate of the last 100,000 years. The single most important data is the ratio of heavy oxygen, Oxygen-18 to normal oxygen, O-16.. The lower this ratio, the colder the planet, since more of the heavy oxygen in the atmosphere condenses and precipitates out as it moves north before it gets to northern Greenland. //

CO2 measurements showed that atmospheric concentration of CO2 dipped to around 200 ppm about 20,000 years ago, barely above the level needed to support photosynthesis.\cite{neftel-1982}

There's more. The Army actually drilled about 3 meters into the sediment below the ice. Astonishingly, this portion of the core was pretty much forgotten, until it turned up in a freezer in Copenhagen in 2017. The sedimentary record spans pretty much the whole Pleistocene (roughly the last 3 million years). It contains plant material including well preserved twigs which showed that during that period the Camp Century location was ice-free, at least twice.\cite{christ-2021} The core is still producing papers.