All posts by Wintery Knight

https://winteryknight.com/

Canada, France and Japan are planning to increase their nuclear power production

I really, really hate wind and solar power. Most people dislike them because they are unreliable, expensive, and need taxpayer subsidies. I hate them because they are harmful to animals, especially birds. I adore birds. A lot of left-leaning countries had been going away from nuclear power towards green energy, and so I’m delighted to report that some of them are now returning to it.

Here’s the most recent news about Canada, from far-left Bloomberg News: (archive)

Nuclear energy is gaining significant momentum in Ontario, with new plans to expand an existing plant to become the world’s largest and a pledge to add three small modular reactors to a site where another is already being built.

The news marks a shift for an industry that has been stalled for decades amid fears about safety and cost overruns. It’s also seen as a critical step in modernizing an aging power grid that needs to add capacity without boosting already-high electricity costs, or threatening emissions goals.

[…]The newly announced expansion at the Bruce Power facility marks the first large-scale nuclear build in Canada in over three decades, suggesting nuclear policy may finally be becoming unstuck. The province is home to all but one of the country’s 19 nuclear reactors, most of which were built from the 1960s to 1980s, during which time the Candu reactor became a global favorite.

The article notes one of the problems with wind and solar – the need to meet “base-load demand”:

Once complete, the nuclear projects will… lessen the need to use wind and solar power to meet base-load demand — the minimum level of power needed from an electrical grid at any time — which contributes to a costly mismatch between supply and demand.

Electricity demand typically ramps up in the morning, peaks late afternoon, and tapers off at night. But supply from intermittent renewables like wind and solar is weather-dependent, and therefore less reliable at meeting the demand of the hour. Sometimes intermittent sources generate less power than is needed, and sometimes more — in which case operators may need to pause generation at certain plants to avoid overloading the system.

Now let’s see France. This article from Euractiv is from May 2023:

A bill to speed up the construction of new nuclear reactors was approved by the French parliament on Tuesday (16 May), with the government hailing it as an environmental step forward.

[…]Once it comes into force, the new law will speed up the construction of new nuclear reactors by simplifying the required administrative procedures and planning documents. The Energy Transition Ministry expects future construction times to be reduced by at least two years.

In addition, a 50% cap on nuclear power’s share of France’s electricity mix was removed.

And finally, Japan. This article is from July 2023, from far-left Bloomberg News. (archive)

Japan’s government is considering a plan to help subsidize required upgrades at idled nuclear power plants, in the latest move to quickly boost the nation’s atomic energy.

Under the proposed plan, existing nuclear plants would be able to participate in an auction next year to receive subsidies for necessary upgrades to meet the country’s safety standards, according to documents from the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry. Projects selected would then get a subsidy for 20 years to help cover costs, the document said.

[…]The government is ramping up an effort to restart reactors to help cut imports of pricey fossil fuels, bolster power supplies and curb pollution.

I’m really hopeful that people will give up on wind and solar power, and turn to zero-emission fracking and nuclear for our electricity needs. That’s much better for the environment and for the animals than wind and solar.

Democrat mayor pleads guilty to 140 child pornography charges

I blogged previously about this openly gay Democrat mayor of College Park, Maryland, who had been arrested and charged with child pornography. Well, the accused decided to plead guilty to the charges, and is facing 30 years in prison. Giving how law enforcement works in the Obama administration, I expect him to get 30 days in jail. Anyway, let’s take a look at the details.

Here’s the story from the Washington Free Beacon:

A Democratic former mayor pleaded guilty to 140 charges for child porn possession and distribution.

Patrick Wojahn—who served for nearly eight years as mayor of College Park, Md., before his arrest and resignation in March—pleaded guilty to 60 counts of distribution of child pornography, 40 counts of possession of child pornography with the intention to distribute, and 40 counts of possession of child pornography.

Wojahn, who listed his pronouns in his Twitter bio, said in his resignation letter that he was stepping down to address his “mental health.”

He has ties to the Biden administration, which is supported by an overwhelming majority of atheist voters:

The ex-mayor also has connections to the Biden administration. Wojahn in a 2019 interview called then-South Bend, Ind., mayor Pete Buttigieg (D.) his “buddy” and credited Buttigieg’s “mentorship” for advancing his career, the New York Post reported. Wojahn has also posted pictures of himself and Buttigieg and said the two repeatedly spoke on the phone. Buttigieg is now President Joe Biden’s transportation secretary.

Why do we have so many pedophiles and child pornographers and child molesters being elected as Democrats? Well, one reason is because atheists are very involved in politics, and they overwhelmingly support Democrats.

Breakpoint notes:

According to political scientist Ryan Burge, the group of people in American society most likely to be highly engaged in political action are not evangelicals, as we’ve been led to believe. They are in fact atheists. “Let me put it plainly,” Burge wrote, “atheists are the most politically active group in American politics today, and the Democrats (and some Republicans) ignore them at their own peril.”

In a slew of indicators—from actions as simple as putting up a yard sign, to the more proactive of attending a protest march—atheists not only outdid their evangelical neighbors but, in most cases, were the most likely group to put money and time toward partisan activities.

Atheists are extremely active in politics, it’s almost like it is their religion. And they vote overwhelmingly for the the political party that elevates adults selfishness over protecting children.

And from Get Religion:

The atheist vote is one of the bluest in American religion (behind only Black Protestants). Eight-two percent of atheists backed Barack Obama in both 2008 and 2012. However, Hillary Clinton didn’t enjoy that level of support — she only garnered 78% of the atheist vote. That’s not because atheists like Trump, by the way. The cause of this drop was a lot more third-party voters. But, then Biden did incredibly well with atheists, gathering 85% of the vote.

I have  an atheist friend who is a huge proponent of “atheist morality”. He insists that atheists have a firm foundation for moral behavior. And yet, when you look at his politics, he votes over and over against Christian morality, especially in areas like redefinition of marriage, no-fault divorce, premarital sex, abortion and gay rights. He sides with selfish adults against child – born and unborn. He supports “survival of the fittest”. He wants to be liked by the successful, intelligent people he hangs out with. He wants to be thought of as successful and intelligent, too. It’s too much of a burden to make moral judgements and to tell his sophisticated peers “No”. Too bad for the kids. The adults are more important to him.

We’re living at a time now when we have amazing arguments and evidence against atheism. But we really need Christians to get serious about making those arguments, and presenting that evidence. If not, we can expect a steep decline in morality. And children will be the biggest victims.

Gay marriage debate: Michael Brown debates Eric Smaw on same-sex marriage

About the debate:

On April 21, 2011 at 7:30pm at UCF’s Health and Public Affairs Building (Room 119), Rollins College professor, Dr. Eric Smaw and author and seminary professor Dr. Michael L. Brown will debate the question “Should same sex marriage be legalized in America?” The event will be held at 4000 Central Florida Blvd and is open to the public. After the formal portion of the debate, Brown and Smaw will field questions from the audience.

About the speakers:

Dr. Smaw will be responding in the affirmative. He earned his Ph.D. in Philosophy of Law from the University of Kentucky in 2005. His areas of expertise are philosophy of law, international law, human rights, ethics, and modern philosophy. He has published articles on human rights, terrorism, and cosmopolitanism. His most recent publication is “Swaying in the Balance: Civil Liberties, National Security, and Justice in Times of Emergency”.

Dr. Brown will be responding in the negative. He earned his Ph.D. in Near Eastern Languages and Literatures from New York University and is a nationally known evangelical lecturer and radio host. He is the author of numerous scholarly articles and twenty books, including the recently published study “A Queer Thing Happened to America”, which is quickly being recognized as the definitive work on the history and effects of gay activism on American culture.

Here are the first two parts:

Part 1 of 10:

Part 2 of 10:

The rest of the segments are here.

Summaries of the opening speeches

Summary of Dr. Brown’s opening speech:

There is no compelling reasons by the state should change the definition of marriage

The reason the state conveys benefits for marriage is because marriage is beneficial for the state

Traditional marriage is recognized by the state for several reasons:
– it domesticates men
– it protects women
– it provides a stable, nurturing environment for children

Marriage has three public purposes:
– to bind men and women together for RESPONSIBLE procreation
– to get the benefit
– to provide children with two parents who are bonded to them biologically
– to create the next generation of people to keep the society going

Normally, opposite sex couples create children

Homosexual couples can NEVER create children together

Men and women are differences that are complementary

Monogamy is the norm for opposite sex couples.

For gay men, open relationships / cheating is the norm.
This is because women have a tempering effect on sexuality.

There is no evidence that recognizing same-sex civil unions and marriages have changed this trend.

Same-sex marriage guarantees that children will either not have a father or a mother
So which of the sexes is dispensable when raising children?

For example, consider Dawn Stefanowicz, who grew up with a gay father and no mother
She never got a chance to see a man model love and protect a women within a marriage
That makes an enormous difference in a woman’s life – in the way she relates to men

Even with scientific advancements, every baby has a mother and a father

If we change the definition of marriage so that it is based on consent, then why limit it to just two people
If marriage is not the union of male and female, then why have only TWO people
In Canada, you have civil liberties lawyers arguing for for polygamy
In the United States, Professor David Epstein was in a consensual relationship with his daughter
Should incestuous relationships also be celebrated as marriage? Why not?
Should polyamorous relationships also be celebrated as marriage? Why not?

Sexual orientation is not the same as race
Men are women are different in significant ways, but different races are not
You need separate bathrooms for men and women, but not for people of different races

Summary of Dr. Smaw’s opening speech: (He ended his speech after only 10 minutes)

You can redefine marriage so that it no longer based on the public purposes he mentioned (controlling procreation, fusing complementary male and female natures, providing children with mothers and fathers who are biologically linked to them, providing children with a comparatively stable development environment that offers comparatively less instability, promiscuity and domestic violence rates compared to cohabitation, etc.), but is instead based on consent and feelings, and that redefinition of marriage won’t open marriage up to polygamy, polyamory, etc.

If you like feminism, then you should allow same-sex marriage

If you like abortion rights, then you should allow same-sex marriage

Homosexuals participate in society by working at various jobs, so they are participating in society

Homosexuals should be given the same tax breaks as married people because they work at various jobs for money

Working at a job for money achieves the same public purpose as procreating and staying together to raise children in a stable environment

You can listen to the rest for the rebuttals, and cross-examination. Oh yes – there was cross-examination! It starts two thirds of the way through Part 5, if you want to jump to it. And sparks were flying! There is also Q&A from the audience of students.

This is such a great debate – I love to hear two passionate guys disagreeing about something. I love to hear both sides of the issues. There is always something to learn by listening to the other side. It makes me more effective and more tolerant when I stand up to defend my side of the argument.

By the way, my own secular case against same-sex marriage is right here, if you want to see how I would debate this issue. Also check out the recent studies on the effects of gay parenting on children.