Being Anti-Nuke does **NOT** Mean Pro-Coal.

[garybeck]

There seems to be a rampant idea from the pro-nukes here in this forum. Part of their ongoing combat against anti-nuclear folks like myself is that they make a false assumption that everyone who is anti-nuke must also be pro-coal.

it happens time and time again. I (or someone else) posts an article that reveals something less than complimentary about nuclear power, and the replies are filled with pro-nuclear people saying how bad coal is, assuming that in criticising nuclear I am a proponent of coal.

This is a 100% false assumption and those who make this assumption should stop using this argument.

I am against the increased use of nuclear power and I am also against the increased use of coal. I am not alone.

Just because I post something about the dangers of nuclear power doesn't mean I favor dirty and dangerous mining practices.

One time I recently posted an article about a problem at a nuclear power plant and someone responded with a rant about how people like me don't give a crap about coal minor safety, or how many people die every year mining coal. I take OFFENSE to this accusation and this line of reasoning should STOP. this argument is TRASH. So please stop it. Or maybe every time I post something about nuclear, I need to put a footnote at the bottom reminding those people that I am not in any way inferring that coal power is good?

Just because someone posts an article on nuclear power it has nothing to do with their stand on coal.

it is perfectly reasonable, logical, and rational to be against BOTH nuclear and coal.

it is not logical to assume that everyone who doesn't like nuclear power must therefore like coal power. Continuing to make this inferrence only shows that you have to resort to illogical methods and tactics in your discussions. So please stop it.

The more logical, rational, and respectful thing to do when someone posts an article about nuclear power, is to ASK THEM, "well how do you feel about coal power?" and then proceed with the discussion accordingly.

Everyone who is against nuclear power is not necessarily for coal power. Please get it.

Did I make my point, or will this silly line of reasoning continue?

[phantom power]

1. I'm confident that you don't "want" coal.

However, the only good replacement for nuclear power is coal. And so the outcome of successfully opposing nuclear reactors tends to be coal plants.

[garybeck]

2. no, again you are making an assumption.

"the only good replacement for nuclear power is coal."

that might be your opinion but I disagree 100%. I understand that your position on this is what drives your assumption. However, my opinion, which is based on multiple studies by some of the worlds best economists and energy experts, is not the same as yours.

[phantom power]

6. For sure, that is one keystone of nuke/anti-nuke disagreement.

the other being disagreement about the relative external costs of various renewable industries versus nuclear.

I think the path for advancing debate on the issue lies in addressing those two keystone topics. Pretty much everything follows from them.

[garybeck]

7. sure, that is a valid discussion and there are points to be made. however

it is not useful or helpful to jump on everyone who makes a negative comment about nuclear energy and accuse them of not caring about minors and or being supportive of coal power.

if you want to engage about the feasibility of renewable energy sources (or lack thereof) then start a new thread on that topic.

[DinahMoeHum]

3. "Solartopia" vs. King CONG (coal, oil, nukes, gas)

Link:
http://solartopia.org/

If you direct folks to the above link, they will "get it".

[garybeck]

5. I'm not sure they will get it, even then... another good link is

http://apolloalliance.org

[depakid]

24. What the anti-nuclear crowd doesn't get is SCALE

Unless society is willing to return post haste to an early 1900's energy budget (and abandon most of its modern amenities) no amount of renewables is going to provide enough energy to keep the system going without either nuclear power or more coal.

Other issues aside- the maths just don't work.

[garybeck]

27. maybe you don't get the scale?

this may enlighten you

[depakid]

29. For the sake of argument

ceteris paribus

How would one store and transmit that energy, particularly over long distances?

The sun doesn't shine at night- and that old entropy law means that power will be lost by transmission.

[oldhippie]

30. But you can't get it from there .........

..... to all the load centers.

And then there's that DARK thingee.

[King Coal]

4. What about clean coal, if it should exist?

[Yuugal]

8. Whats wrong with wind?

We've got lots of it in NY. I just saw a show where they built 4 of these big windmills and they power 7000 homes. Cost a few million. (7?) Since the average electric bill around here is about 300 bucks, thats 25.2 million a year for 7000 homes. Since my local power co buys their power off the grid, it seems these windmills would pay for themselves really fast. Why aren't they everywhere?

[Hydra]

9. Because renewables

"Are not economically feasible"

I get so tired of that line, especially since it becomes less true every day.

[DrBlix]

11. Wasted Alternative Fuel Tax Credits

If we didn't waste billions of alternative tax credits on the coal industry perhaps we could come up with some alternative fuel that works.
.
Yes the coal industry is getting this AFTC, everyone is in on the act, even the Marriot hotel which has no coal interests. The corporate line is formed on the right.
.
It's called "The Greatest Energy" Scam....google it.
.
It's called "synfuel" should be called "SINfuel". They wash the coal..that's it.
.
There was a special on TV about this it's a tax scheme......a rip off with AFTC spread far and wide. Just invest a smale ammount of money in a coal company and you get this tax credit...result pay no taxes....ya found a loop hole.
.
There was a time a few years ago when Congress was looking into this scam bit all was dropped and it remains in the new "energy bill".
.
Where's the OUTRAGE?

[Hydra]

12. The outrage candidates are buying the official line

"Renewables are too expensive!"

And ethanol isn't? Especially when you use fossil fuels to process it?

We've been had, but most people would rather believe we're doomed with "peak oil" rather than look at a real solution.

[OKIsItJustMe]

13. Not all sites are suitable for wind power

Take our beloved New York State for example:


Not all sites are equally suitable for nuclear, coal, gas, hydro or solar power either.

One disadvantage of wind power is that (unlike nuclear power for example) it tends to... well... vary with the wind (whereas nuclear power is relatively constant.)


Wind and solar make a good combination; in that when one is weak, the other tends to be stronger. A good storage battery is useful to level off the peaks and valleys.

[hunter]

10. When, for example, Vermont Yankee is shut down...

... what is the very first consequence of that?

MORE coal and natural gas is burned to take up the slack.

Good intentions here don't mean a thing, and have, in fact, made the world a more awful place.

The same goes for Germany's abandoning nuclear power.

If we worked to shut down every last coal mine in the world, and it turned out to be true that nuclear power is not an acceptable replacement for reason of economy or safety, then we still would have shut down the coal industry in much the same manner as the nuclear industry was shut down.

But we didn't do that. It was easier to frighten the public about nuclear power than it was to frighten them about coal or natural gas, even though it's becoming quite clear that coal, not nuclear, was the environmentally catastrophic energy choice.

If climate change continues to accelerates and the oceans rise and agriculture is disrupted then billions of people are going to die because of that choice.

The United States might have pursued nuclear energy with the same intensity of the French, and if we had, the coal industry in this country would be dead. In our typical NIMBY U.S. American way we probably wouldn't even be digging coal out of the ground for steel production as that is a very dirty business exportable to other nations.

I was very involved as an anti-nuclear activist in the late seventies and early eighties. I was in San Luis Obispo very near the stage at a Diablo Canyon rally when Jerry Brown declared "No new Nukes!" for California. I exposed a few lies told by government and utility officials. I was introduced to both Helen Caldicott and Amory Lovins. I have a Bachelor's degree related to this subject. I traveled all over the state doing research, even dumpster diving, to try to see behind the habitual wall of secrecy that then surrounded all things nuclear.

Sadly, at some point the lies and misrepresentations of the anti-nuclear cottage industry started to seem as pernicious to me as those of the nuclear industry so I walked away and tried to stay away until recently when I found myself posting on the issue here in E/E.

More than a quarter century has passed since the accident at Three Mile Island. The anti-nuclear activism of those times accomplished very little in terms of protecting the natural environment, and may have hastened the environmental catastrophe that we're now facing.

As a personal philosophy, I think more of us should move back to the city, quit buying so much stuff (including cars!), and figure out just and equitable ways of reversing human population growth. Explicit opposition to nuclear power is no longer one of the foundations of my environmental ethic. If I would oppose nuclear power, it would be on development grounds -- if we are building nuclear reactors to power low density suburban sprawl I'm against it, if we are building nuclear reactors to power electric railroads in place of short-haul passenger flights and long-haul trucking, then I'm for it. If we are building nuclear power plants to process tar sands I'm against it, if we are building nuclear power plants to replace coal plants, I'm for it.

All said, I'd rather not build nuclear power plants, but I don't see how wind or solar is suddenly going to ramp up and deliver the quantities of energy that will be required to reshape this society into something sustainable. We're going to be throwing a lot of machines that are useless without cheap oil or natural gas into the electric furnaces to make things that will be useful to a society that runs mostly on renewable energy.



We are going to need every tool at our disposal to get modern civilization past this fossil fuel crisis. The more fossil fuels we leave in the ground forever, the better off we will be.

[losthills]

14. It's time to grow up.

Nuclear power is by far the worst option. So much so, that it's not worth comparing it to anything else or even considering it's use.

Nuclear power and nuclear weapons should be outlawed for all time. It should be the main purpose of the United Nations to work out the details of a complete and total nuclear ban.

I have no use whatsoever for the nuclear apologists on this site or any other. They are fools. They have fired the coal bullet until their gun is empty and the barrel is melting.

Comparisons to coal, or ridicule of solar and wind power, or road warrior prophesies of peak oil and global warming armogedden do not make the use of nuclear power anything other than what it is:

Insane.

[hunter]

22. You're just upset because I want to ban coal mining.

:hi:

[NickB79]

23. Actually, scientists DO compare nuclear to other options

Burning fossil fuel (mainly coal), for example, kills several MILLION people per year from air and water pollution. The CO2 emitted from burning fossil fuels is causing global warming, which has the potential to kill HUNDREDS of MILLIONS of people over the next few decades. Can the same be said of nuclear power plants?

[garybeck]

15. "but I don't see how wind or solar is suddenly going to...."

http://home.apolloalliance.org

Now do you see?

[Nihil]

21. Ah! Mmm! Wow! Gosh!

I think I see ...

From the home page ...

... "if we get this right the whole world will be our customer" ... Go Team!

... "gala dinner keynote" ... yum ...

... "We need to get everybody on board" ... definitely, definitely ...

... "explore the potential for pubic (sic) incentives" ... :rofl: ...

... "gala dinner & presentation" ... yum burp ...

... "including renewable energy, clean coal, carbon sequestration" ... huh?

... "These experts will explain the nuts & bolts of putting together
wining (sic) coalitions" ... that explains the dinners I suppose ...
but what's this about some "experts" explaining nuts & bolts of putting together
a coalition (wining, whining or winning)? You mean that not only does this
"coalition" not deliver anything, it hasn't even been properly assembled yet?
And *this* is supposed to provide the answers to people who dare to
question the viability of a non-nuclear future?

... "This is a marriage made in heaven" ...

No, it's an expensive junket made in Marketing World with a bunch of the
usual bandwagon jumpers getting their photo-ops while doing FUCK-ALL.

The only thing on the "Take Action" page is to "Urge Congress to Vote
for Clean Energy Jobs". Ah. "Action" eh? Emailing those unresponsive
parasites who are supposed to represent you to support yet another
meaningless page of waffle that will be voted down, watered down or
simply vetoed by a signing statement.

This is the sum total of their "action".

Yep, guess *that* showed him "how solar or wind is suddenly going to ..."

[garybeck]

25. maybe you need to look past the home page.

try this

http://www.apolloalliance.org/docUploads/RevisedReport11-21-03.doc

[Nihil]

69. Maybe I'll wait for them to do something first ...

... i.e., when their expert consultants have finished burning money while
explaining the "nuts & bolts" of putting together a coalition ...

Mind you, they might manage to buy a dictionary and spell-check their
"flagship" web site if those time-wasters want their photo-ops to be
appreciated rather than snorted at.

In the meantime, I'm holding out for the "pubic incentives" :-)

[struggle4progress]

16. This silly line of "reasoning" will continue because it's scripted talking point

None of the people who claim anti-nuclear activists are fans of "big coal" ever seem to notice that the nuclear and coal companies are interlinked at high levels: Lehman Brothers controls the megacoal company Peabody Energy, for example, but seems happy to send folk to advise Congress about how to jump-start nuclear reactor construction; they'll hope to make money either way or both ways.

http://energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Hearings.Testimony&Hearing_ID=1053&Witness_ID=3003

[losthills]

17. Thanks.

You always hit the nail on the head.

[Dead_Parrot]

19. Actually, I think that was his thumb

SkyPower sells equity stake to Lehman Brothers
Lehman Brothers joins Cape Wind

Presumably, this makes wind and solar part of the evil empire of coal, right?

[NNadir]

18. It is not reasonable, logical and rational to be against both.

It's pure nonsense in fact.

Coal produces 120 exajoules. Anyone who can't get their tiny head around that big number can hardly be described as reasonable.

This is especially the case because the anti-nuke folks have been talking up there silly "alternatives" for 50 years without ever producing a single exajoule for any one of them.

The position is hallucinatory. There is no nice way to put it. The anti-nukes are big on talk, tiny or non-existent on action and they want to us to buy into this crap on faith.

Of course, it would be somewhat more convincing if, after 50 years of bullshit talk they produced one (1), uno, un, ein, exajoules of energy with their little fantasies, but they don't. The solar industry burns more energy promoting itself on websites than it produces. Wind isn't particularly better. Biofuels are more and more a joke. That leaves hydro and nuclear as the only 10 exajoule scale forms of energy. Hydro's tapped out and could never produce 120 exajoules.

As for conservation, I have seen zero people on this website who are willing to live like Malians and consume what Malians consume per capita. Zero. That too is all talk and talk that is contemptuous of Malians to boot.

[Kolesar]

20. Caterpillar ads in National G. said: "There are no easy answers. There are only intelligent choices"

That was back in the 1970s. Decades later, we can see the marks their machines left on the landscape in our consumerist society. People want stuff. Our economy is built on marketing, manufacturing, transportation and consumption.

Maybe what you want to say is: "You have to pick one of the two, coal or nuclear". "We have about 40 years to solve the carbon problem, and the solutions have to be in place in less than 20 years. Your call". But don't let me put words in your mouth.

[NNadir]

28. Actually there were lots of dopey remarks in the 1970's. Take Amory Lovins

for instance.

That shit for brains cretin was telling us the world would be safely run on biofuels, solar, wind and conservation by 2000. He said it in 1976. Even though not one of his predictions have been borne out, he is celebrated as a genius by people who know as little about genius as you know about me.

Actually one, exactly one and only one, prediction made in Amory Lovins shit-for-brains 1976 Foreign Affairs article proved to be more or less true. Of course, it wasn't his prediction but one he "borrowed."

Many analysts now regard modest, zero or negative growth in our rate of energy use as a realistic long-term goal. Present annual U.S. primary energy demand is about 75 quadrillion BTU ("quads"), and most official projections for 2000 envisage growth to 130-170 quads. However, recent work at the Institute for Energy Analysis, Oak Ridge, under the direction of Dr. Alvin Weinberg, suggests that standard projections of energy demand are far too high because they
do not take account of changes in demographic and economic trends...

Lovins, A. "Energy Strategy: The Road Not Taken," <em>Foreign Affairs</em>, pg 76, Summer, 1976.

Who was Alvin Weinberg? He was the inventor of the nuclear reactor that provides the bulk of the world's nuclear energy today, the pressurized water reactor. He was also the inventor of a much better reactor - one that was never commercialized - the molten salt reactor.

Who is Amory Lovins?

He's a fat lazy asshole living in McMansion in Snowmass growing bananas in his greenhouse, working in an office that you can only get to by driving, and hawking hydrogen hypercar SUV's that will be in showrooms by 2005.

After appropriating the ideas of the world's greatest nuclear engineer, the shit for brains Lovins went on to predict in 1980 that nuclear power would disappear, except maybe in communist countries like France, by 2000 "because it wasn't economic," at least compared to banana plantations in Snowmass.

By 2000, nuclear energy was producing 4 times as much energy as it was in 1980.

The most disgusting thing about anti-nukes besides the times they demonstrate again and again and again and again that they couldn't care less about the damage done by coal - which they wish to sweep under the rug with a bunch of delusional <em>empty</em> promises - is that they don't have the moral courage to confess that they just didn't start being full of shit in 2001. They have been full of shit for decades.

You have no idea what I am saying and you are not qualified to put words in my mouth, because you have consistently failed to comprehend a single thing I have written anywhere at any time. This is, I suspect, because many of my posts are involved with a subject that is called "science." I don't know if you have heard of this subject, but I couldn't care less.

If you are trying to evoke some vision of "peak uranium," we'll just pile that with the rest of the scientific illiteracy that characterizes the anti-nuke religion. The earth's crust contains more than 3.5 billion tons of uranium and it is continuously recycled from earth's mantle. So large is the amount of energy associated with this uranium that it accounts - along with thorium - for the bulk of the earth's internal heat.

[bananas]

37. If you are anti-Amory Lovins, then you are pro-coal

http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2007/07/26/lovins/

<snip>

Q. Does the same critique apply to liquid coal?

A. Yes. I was delighted when both the Chinese State Council and the U.S. Senate about a week apart canceled programs.

Q. But I'm sure you're aware that the political push behind liquid coal is still very much pushing.

A. Of course, including some people who should know better. It has fundamental problems in economics, carbon, and water, and bearing in mind that we can get the country completely off oil at an average cost of $15 a barrel, something in the $50s to $70s range doesn't look viable. Those who invest in it, publicly or privately, will lose their shirts, and deservedly so.

I think a good way to smoke out corporate socialists in free-marketeers' clothing is to ask whether they agree that all ways to save or produce energy should be allowed to compete fairly at honest prices, regardless of which kind they are, what technology they use, where they are, how big they are, or who owns them. I can tell you who won't be in favor of it: the incumbent monopolists, monopsonists, and oligarchs who don't like competition and new market entrants. But whether they like it or not, competition happens. It's particularly keen on the demand side.

Q. Will Big Coal fall on its face?

A. It's already clearly happening in the global marketplace -- although the U.S. lags a bit, having rather outmoded energy institutions and rules. Worldwide, less than half of new electrical services are coming from new central power plants. Over half are coming from micropower and negawatts, and that gap is rapidly widening. The revolution already happened -- sorry if you missed it.

<snip>

[NickB79]

38. So, is Germany Lovin's greatest accomplishment?

They are phasing out nukes, after all.

They're also building new coal-fired plants and importing more coal from South Africa.

[Dead_Parrot]

39. Presumably, China is

y'know, those micro-power plants they're building at the rate of 2 or 3 a week. Or does Chinese coal produce negawatts as well as CO₂? I forget.

I expect Lovins will be going to Beijing to report on how clean the air is for the Olympics, now that the revolution's happened.

[bananas]

49. we put your in these fancy uniforms

and try to get you to laugh...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=2982765

[bananas]

50. Do you think the girl on the end...

is using a strap-on?
"Do the locomotion..."

[NNadir]

43. Oh bullshit. Hydrogen Amory? Amory Lovins couldn't care less about coal.

That's why the shit for brains is selling hydrogen hypercars. Well not really selling. I mean it's not like they actually showed up in show rooms in 2005. Or 2000. Or 1995.


Amory Lovins says lots of things, but all of them are fraudlent.

By the way, speaking of frauds, his Enron buddy, Jeff Skilling - the felon doing 24 years for fraud - the one that Lovins quoted as being a wizard because he would eat every new nuclear plant that was built is seeking a new trial on his conviction that lead to a 24 year sentence in the Federal Penitentiary. (I don't know if they serve nuclear plants on the menu in his prison.)

http://units.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/2001/october/a3oct01.cfm

http://www.newsvine.com/_news/2007/09/07/947962-enrons-skilling-seeks-new-trial

Skilling was sentenced last October to more than 24 years in prison for his role in the collapse of Enron Corp., once the nation's seventh-largest company. He was convicted along with company founder Kenneth Lay on May 25, 2006, on 19 counts of fraud, conspiracy, insider trading and lying to auditors.

Skilling reported to a federal prison in Minnesota in December. Lay died on July 4, 2006, and his convictions were vacated.

Skilling is the highest-ranking executive to be punished for the accounting tricks and shady business deals that led to the loss of thousands of jobs, more than $60 billion in Enron stock value and more than $2 billion in employee pension plans after the company imploded in 2001.

If you want to get someone to believe this line of credulous horseshit from the oracle at Snowmass, I'm afraid you'll need to find an illiterate anti-nuke to believe it, not someone who reads.

Amory Lovins, like most anti-nukes, is a fossil fuel shill, pure and simple, rather like Gerhard Schroeder. Schroeder takes his pay from Gazprom and Lovins takes his pay from Walmart. If Amory Lovins gave a rat's ass about coal, he wouldn't be taking big fat piggish consumerist paychecks from China's biggest American customer.

http://www.triplepundit.com/pages/wal-mart-hires-rocky-mountain--002118.php

[losthills]

40. Actually, "Peak Uranium" is already upon us.

Most of the world's uranium is dispersed throughout the mantle in tiny grains and fragments. It occurs in easily mined oar in only a few places in the world. Demand from China and Japan has driven the price up from seven dollars a pound to 36 dollars a pound in the last couple years. Now they are resorting to the truly scary process of in situ leach mining, where they pump chemicals into the earth to flush out the tiny fragments of uranium, leaving poisoned aquifers behind.

That's how crazy they are...

http://www.nmenvirolaw.org/news/gfrspring07/nuclear.htm

[greenman3610]

42. Actually, if you read the energy forcasts during the late 60s

the plan was not only for thousands of nuclear plants, but thousands of
coal plants as well, most of which (luckily) turned out not to be needed due to those
pesky laws of supply and demand. We may be in a similar
situation now, as coal plants are being cancelled left and right due to
rapidly increasing costs and uncertainty about carbon regs.
Nuclear is so slow to site and build, even under accelerated
conditions, that it will, I believe be overtaken by renewables before
it makes a major contribution.

My take is, pull out all the subsidies, slap a reasonable tax or
cap and trade fee on carbon, let everyone line up at the
starting gate and say "go". Whichever energy source
gets there first, wins.

My guess is that efficiency, plus wind, with a smattering
of nuclear and carbon capture coal will be what
shakes out. The farther out you go, the more competitive the
renewables become.

[Kolesar]

51. Insult me and your posts don't get a second read

Not that there is anything to learn from your rant about bananas and carbon cars.

You have no idea what I am saying and you are not qualified to put words in my mouth, because you have consistently failed to comprehend a single thing I have written anywhere at any time. This is, I suspect, because many of my posts are involved with a subject that is called "science." I don't know if you have heard of this subject, but I couldn't care less.

If you are trying to evoke some vision of "peak uranium," ...

Nope

This online activism isn't working for you. Even at the polite www.dailykos.com , your diaries are dismissed. I suggest activism where you are on your feet.

[hunter]

60. I enjoy NNadir.

And whether or not Amory Lovins is a deliberate greenwasher, that's what he is.

Last time I saw Lovins in person he was waving his arms trying to justify his work for the military. I'm a pacifist so that sort of rubbed me the wrong way. From my perspective, if you want to conserve energy in the military, you could simply get rid of at least 90% of the military. But Lovins was too interested in funding his toys to admit this obvious solution.

It's like all the car people and their Quixotic quests for alternate fuels, most of which are worse for the environment than the worlds most godawful oil developments. They won't admit the most simple solution of ending our economic dependence on automobiles.

[Kolesar]

64. Sorry,you are off base. Nothing in my post or subthread is about Lovins.Notice the TTroll has fled

...from this thread. He is pursuing his lifelong quest to denigrate a foundation-funded environmentalist by acting like he is a bicycle expert. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=111417&mesg_id=111498 http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=115&topic_id=111417#111598 http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=115&topic_id=111417#111672

And you don't even know my opinion about Lovins.

[hunter]

66. Okay, I'm lost.

Which foundation funded environmentalist are we talking about?

Hard to say who's talking to who in a thread like this, mostly it's people talking past one another.

[garybeck]

26. the reason there is not much solar production is not technical.

it's political, and you know it. the fact that solar panels don't produce an exajoule has nothing to do with their capability to produce power.

Speaking of nonsense... why don't we go back to 1975 when no one had a computer and tell everyone that we shouldn't develop computer technology, just because it isn't in wide use yet?

you really should stop using this as an argument against solar and wind, that they don't produce significant power today. that argument makes no sense. if you look at the technology and the resources available, it can be done. you don't not do something just because it hasn't been done yet.

[oldhippie]

31. What law prohibits the production and deployment of PV panels?

Other than economics laws, of course. Solar panels are not producing an exajoule because they're too fucking expensive. That's not political, it's economics. And don't give me that lame, "...if only the gov't would invest more ...." If the economics are there, no gov't meddling is necessary.

[losthills]

32. There's more to it than just economics.

Nuclear is the most expensive source of power on the planet, but it's promoted and exploited and heavily subsidized by governments because of it's role in the nuclear arms industry.

Solar power is proven technology that will come on line as other sources becaome more expensive, through progressive legislation, or when they figure out how to make a weapon out of it...

[NickB79]

33. What does nuclear currently cost, per watt?

And what does solar currently cost, per watt?

[losthills]

34. Ask Dick Cheney

if you don'y know how to use Google...

[NickB79]

35. You made the claim

I assumed you had sources for it.

[losthills]

41. Claim?

Nuclear power is not viable in a free marketplace. Nuclear powerplants would never be built, and are never built without massive government subsidies. That is a fact. In a free marketplace nuclear power ranks as the most costly, even without factoring in the enormous costs of uranium mining. Hydro-electric power is the cheapest, followed by wind, followed by oil and coal, then solar and then nuclear at dead last.

And then there is the cost of dealing with nuclear waste, which cannot be measured....

http://www.nmenvirolaw.org/news/gfrspring07/nuclear.htm

[Dead_Parrot]

46. Yes, claim

We discussed this before, remember? About why electricity in France is half the cost of that in Denmark?

Jumping up and down and claiming something is a fact (when it doesn't actually exist outside your head) doesn't work terribly well in an argument. Maybe Denmark's increased wind subsidy will help. Or are subsidies a bad thing?

[losthills]

47. Okay Genius,

Show me a nuclear power plant, anywhere in the world, that was built and operated without government subsidies.

[Dead_Parrot]

48. Ok, Dresden-1.

Or Vallecitos. Or whatever gets built in the UK.

None of which explains why you feel you can just make shit up and post it: So please, give us some links that show how nuclear energy is the most expensive method of getting joules into the electric system.

Easy, right?

[losthills]

52. More Bollshit.

I could post a link to a stone tablet handed down by God from a burning bush, and you'd say God works for Amory Lovins.

I'm sure you encounter the truth for yourself when you're cruising the net for more of your inane propaganda.

No nuclear power plant gets built without government backing, and they are not built for the purpose of providing the public with clean, green electricity.

......

The Money Pit

For more than 50 years, the nuclear industry has been heavily subsidized by your federal tax dollars to a tune of $66 billion for research and development alone. Yet today no construction can occur without massive federal subsidies. In addition, in 2005 congress renewed the Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act, which covers all non-military nuclear facilities constructed in the United States before 2026. The act establishes a no fault insurance-type system in which the first $10 billion is industry-funded, but any claims above that figure should an accident occur, would be paid by the federal government. Sandia Laboratory calculated in 2004 that the cost of a serious nuclear plant accident would likely run $600 billion or more.

In the 2005 Energy Bill, according to the non-profit group Public Citizen, the nuclear industry was the clear winner, raking in more than $12 billion in subsidies. This included tax credits for each kilowatt-hour of nuclear generated energy produced from new reactors during the first eight years of operation, which will cost the US Treasury more than $5.7 billion in lost revenue. The bill also authorized a $2 billion “risk insurance” to pay industry for any delays in construction of new power plants. To compare, the oil and gas industry received about $6 billion in subsidies, while the coal industry got $9 billion. However, it is clear that it isn't solely building nuclear plants that required subsidies, but also keeping them in operation. In the end, pages could be written about the loan guarantees, monies for R&D, as well as the travesty knows as the Advanced Hydrogen Reactor Co-Generation Project for the nuclear industry.

(from the link I posted above, from the New Mexico Environmental Law Center...)

[NickB79]

53. So you respond to a post about UK nuclear reactors

With information for US reactors?

[losthills]

55. Yawn...

If you read the article yourself, you would have discerned that it's the British Government pushing for more reactors, not the private sector.
.....

Ex-minister Morley says figures are a fix


Patrick Wintour
Wednesday May 17, 2006
The Guardian


The sacked environment minister Elliott Morley, speaking for the first time since his dismissal a fortnight ago, yesterday rejected the case for new nuclear build, saying a true comparative analysis would prove the economic case for investment in energy efficiency and renewables.
..."To have new nuclear power is going to involve very large sums of money," he said. "If nuclear power was so great then you would have the private sector willing to invest in it. The reality is that economically the risks are great and the returns are low. No private-sector company is going to take on the long-term risks, the costs of decommissioning, the storage, reprocessing and the responsibility for the waste."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/nuclear/article/0,,1776514,00.html

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/james_meek/2006/05/post_95.html

[Dead_Parrot]

56. I'm suprised you haven't...

Given that you seem to have an allergy to discussing anything resembling science, it comes as no surprise that your first thought is to go looking for a stone tablet.

"All your so called "evidence" and "facts" may be interesting, but they are irrelevant..."

Ahh, happy days.

[losthills]

58. Cheney's calling you.

He needs another "back rub..."

[Dead_Parrot]

59. Wow

Those conclusive data just fly from your keyboard, don't they?

[hunter]

57. I built an electronic computer in 1975.

I built simple computers before that using telephone relays.

I had a handful of solar cells then too, they were rejects from various space systems.

The first modern sort of computer I built was in 1979, which was, not quite coincidentally, the first year I logged onto the internet.

The progress I've seen in solar vanishes in comparison to the progress that's been made in computers. I have sitting on my desk a machine that would have been called a super computer not long ago, and is built entirely of cast-off junk. If solar and other alternative energies had progressed as quickly as computers or the internet I'd have a roof full of solar panels that cost less than asphalt shingles and a flying supersonic electric car.

I'm very skeptical that any juggling of government subsidies can result in the significant replacement of coal with solar energy, and I'm fairly certain the German experiment will eventually be seen as a failure.

Sorry, that computer argument is just dismal and makes me sad.

[struggle4progress]

44. Exajoules for conspicuous waste

http://ec.europa.eu.nyud.net:8090/comm/space/esw/pressroom/library/images/earth_at_night.jpg

http://supersmallgallery.com.nyud.net:8090/London/garbage_pickup.jpg

http://truckphotos.freeservers.com.nyud.net:8090/traffic_jam.jpg

[hunter]

61. Or this...

etc., etc., etc.

[struggle4progress]

62. I absolutely agree with you on that one

[struggle4progress]

45. Why Japan needs nuclear energy

http://www.citynoise.org.nyud.net:8090/upload/7359.jpg

[Bread and Circus]

63. OMG he used the EXAJOULE DEFENSE!!!!

for about the 100th time...

honestly, I don't think that word means what he thinks it means...

inconceivable!!!

[phantom power]

65. It means 10^18 joules, yes?

[Bread and Circus]

70. Yes, simply stated that's what it means...

have u watched The Princess Bride?

If u watch Nnadirr's posts, you will see two patterns. One, he nearly always adds the exajoule argument (as if exajoules were some kind of magic fairy power as opposed to a number of joules) to nearly every post. Two, if he doesn't mention exajoules, he mentions the world "brazillions". Both of these are putdowns to make the non-nukies look stupid as if we don't know what he is talking about.

I think you can see the loose link in the overuse of these two words and my Princess Bride reference.



Here's another way of looking at it:

Earth's surface 150,000,000,000,000 square meters
Earth SA / 2 (because half of earth is lit, other half is lee to sun) = 75,000,000,000,000 square meters of atmosphere =/- is exposed to sun at any given second.
Multiply solar constant 1366 watts = 1366 joules/second per square meter

1366 x 75,000,000,000,000 = 102,450,000,000,000,000 joules per second fall on the earth's atmosphere so that in 10 seconds you get roughly 1 exajoule of energy. World use is 471 exajoules per year the last time I checked. So that in 4,710 seconds (about 1 1/4hrs) the sun delivers to the earth the amount of energy humans use in a year.

Of course not all of that is usable (some is reflected, some is plain heat, some is light, etc..) however a lot of energy is straight-up solar irradiance, or wind, water etc....

The energy is there, all around us. All we need to do is capture it, channel it, and use it.

If you listened to Nnadir, you'd think that not very much energy at all comes from the sun however the contrary is quite true and the sun gives the earth more energy than our current nuclear plants give us x magnitudes.

Yes, there are baseload, peak energy issues, there's also power transmission issues, power storage issues. There's also externalities, environmental impact, lifecycle cost, $/energy, lifecycle cost issues. WE understand all this bullshit.

But these are problems that can be solved and we don't need coal or nuclear waste in order to solve them.

[GliderGuider]

71. I think you misread his intentions.

When NNadir uses terms like "exajoules" or "brazillions" he isn't necessarily trying to make it look as though you don't know what he's talking about (at least insofar as the meaning of the term "exajoule" is concerned). I think he's implying that you don't grasp the issues of scale at work in the problem.

What I've noticed is that the promotion of alternative energy is more often than not sprinkled with articles of faith ("I believe...", "The industry projects...", "All society needs to do is...") rather than promoting a realistic assessment of the probabilities of social and technological change. This leads me to conclusions similar to NNadir's. Either you haven't grasped the consequences of scale, or you have and you can't afford to admit that the path you had hoped would lead us out of the haunted forest merely leads to a different sort of ruin.

[Bread and Circus]

73. I grasp the scale as much as he does and that's why his bullshit

is insulting. I know exactly what he's implying. We've done our homework too you know.

[GliderGuider]

75. Fair enough.

If you've done your homework let's hear some discussion about the implications of the limits of renewable energy.

Even from someone as supposedly numerate as Vinod Khosla all I hear is an obdurate refusal to even acknowledge limits, as though admitting to them would somehow be admitting defeat. I'd take the whole subject of renewables a lot more seriously if I heard just one advocate say, "You know, we're going to have major problems despite all this, and my pet technology probably isn't going to save humanity." You may think that in your heart of hearts, but damn few of you are willing to come out and say it.

Look, I bought a diesel car because i intended to run it on biodiesel. I believed it was going to be a real player in the post-petroleum world. When I actually ran the numbers my heart sank. I see no evidence of such sinking feelings on the part of its advocates, and I'd feel more sure that they had in fact done their homework if they admitted to harboring a misgiving or two.

[Bread and Circus]

79. The biggest problems I see with renewables are these:

Uneven energy supply: The sun's not always shining, the wind's not always blowing, etc. That is a real problem with renawables.
Power transmission issues: A lot of the time, actually most of the time, the best sunshine is not near where people live nor is wind necessarily useable where people live either.
Externalities: Land use, resource use to build energy harnessing equipment, etc. But this is true for every sort of energy supply, including coal and nuclear.

So really, the first too issues are particularly an issue with renewables and that's something that would have to be addressed w/ an overhaul of the grid on both accounts, which is exactly what Kosla is saying.

However, the implication is that there is not enough renewable energy which is a bold faced LIE because there's more renewable energy in the course of a year than ever will be extracted from the ground by coal, oil, nuclear fissible material or otherwise for all time coming.

And that gets back to the main and very most important reason why we need to move past nuclear fission - and that is because fissable material is in short supply and in order to meat the kind of global demand we are talking about easily gotten fissable material would run out in a very short (12 years according the the studies I've read) period of time. Sure, right now we've got 100+ years of fissable material but that's only at current useage levels. Get rid of coal, ramp up nuclear like the nukies suggest (about 10,000 nuclear plants or more) and that easily gotten fissable material will run out.

Nuclear fission energy is not renawable in the same sense that sun related power is. If you don't wholly embrace solar based power (in the farm of water, wind, sunshine, etc.) someday the clock will run out and the well will be empty and that is less than the space of time our grandchildren and great grandchildren, people we know or will likely come to know, will become adults.

So what legacy are we going to leave them? A flooded florida? Tons of nuclear waste but no infrastructure for renewable energy when the fissable material is used up? Raped mountains that contained all the coal and uranium we burned up? Or will we leave them with an infrastructure that is based on the sun, something that gives us enough energy every for every possible population and industrialization prediction that could be reasonably imagined?

What kind of world do you want to leave to your great grandchildren, people that you will likely know?

[hunter]

80. But the clock did run out.

We had the opportunity to get off this wild ride thirty or forty years ago, but we didn't.

Now the crash is imminent and these thirty year old anti-nuclear arguments have in fact increased our dependence on coal.

Nuclear waste is almost a negligible problem in comparison to the horrors of global climate change.

Our grandchildren will despise us not for our use of nuclear power, but for our use of fossil fuels.

There is no excuse to burn coal for electricity, none at all. Burning coal is killing this ecosystem.

[Bread and Circus]

82. again, the choice is not just nuclear vs coal. That's the straw man

argument and the whole reason for this thread.

So, if you say "OMG how many years are we going to have to wait for renewables, by that time we will be all underwater!" I will reply in this way: First and foremost, you can't just snap your fingers and make all the nuclear energy you want. It would take decades to ramp up the nuclear energy levels you guys are talking about. Second, once you ramp those levels up you have 12 years of fissable material (less considering the spread of industrialization). So it would take a while to get there and then you'd have a short time frame to capitalize on the investment. But after 30 to 40 years you'd be at the same desparate place, having to find a new energy source. So why not go directly where we are going to have to end up anyway - solar related power?

[Bread and Circus]

85. I think you are talking about the point of no return as it relates to

carbon dioxide emissions, and that may be true.

But consider that the main "carbon" oracle on this is Al Gore, and he clearly states he does not embrace nuclear power as the solution.

The clock I'm talking about is the limited supply of non-renewable energy and believe it or not nuclear fission materials would become scarce a lot sooner than coal supply.

[phantom power]

87. Gore is an accomplished climate change advocate....

but I don't personally consider him the "main oracle" of anything. He's one voice among many, many people who study the problems of climate, environment and energy. Gore is more of a consolidator and advocate, than a primary expert on climate change or energy issues.

All that is to say, Gore's pronouncements on nuclear energy don't carry any particular overriding weight with me. Not to say that I'm uninterested in his opinion, but I don't consider his expertise infallible.

[Bread and Circus]

89. I'm just saying he's fairly versed in the matter and seems to care a lot...

He is fairly ahead of the curve and is likely a bit smarter than both us, at least certainly me.

Here's a definition of oracle:

or·a·cle (ôr-kl, r-)
n.
1.
a. A shrine consecrated to the worship and consultation of a prophetic deity, as that of Apollo at Delphi.
b. A person, such as a priestess, through whom a deity is held to respond when consulted.
c. The response given through such a medium, often in the form of an enigmatic statement or allegory.
2.
a. A person considered to be a source of wise counsel or prophetic opinions.
b. An authoritative or wise statement or prediction.
3. A command or revelation from God.
4. In the Bible, the sanctuary of the Temple.

I think he fits #2 a quite well.

And wouldn't you agree that in any scenario nuclear fission is not the end goal?

[phantom power]

91. If I had my way, the "end goal" would be to move off-planet altogether.

The entire planet would take on a role something like "historic nature preserve, and fallow field for future evolution, and natural observation laboratory, etc." Humans would visit under permit, for recreation or study.

What energy sources we might use in that pipe-dream future are anybody's guess. I like to think our descendants might get to live in such a future, but I rather doubt we can get from here to there without using nuclear power. If anybody ever invents a commercializable fusion technology that doesn't depend on isotopes constructed in fission reactors, then maybe we could get there using fusion and no fission.

That's my concept for an "end goal" (our descendants of the far future would consider that the beginning), but as you can see it's all hypothetical and wishful thinking. First we have to gut it out through peak-fossil and climate change. If we can.

[Bread and Circus]

100. Nuclear fusion, what a goal, if only there were a huge nuclear fusion

reactor in the sky that beamed down on us exajoules of energy everyday for the next few billion years or so....

If only, if only....

[hunter]

88. So you think of coal as your transition fuel?

Coal should be left in the ground. Period. And we don't know what the supply of economically fissionable materials is to any large degree, but it's certainly greater than coal.

Reprocessing fuel, recycling weapons, breeding fuel, using thorium, etc., are messy, but still more desirable than coal.

The true horror of modern society is that it isn't sustainable in any way; everything we might do is stop-gap -- there will always be some limiting resource. If someone invents a perfectly safe and inexpensive "Mr. Fusion" today, the earth will be worse off for it, not better, because we would use that energy to fuel an even more destructive consumer society. Durable solar roofing as cheap as asphalt shingles would cause similar problems.

People here talk about tidal energy, hydropower, and energy from agricultural products as if they are benign things. They are not. They are incredibly destructive, and worse than nuclear power in many ways. If the environment was our first concern we would tear down every dam. The Colorado River and Columbia rivers would flow freely into into the sea. The environment has never been our first concern.

I've always thought it would be most honest to oppose nuclear power because it works. Maybe cheap clean electricity is a bad thing if all you get out of it is air-conditioned mini mansions, golf courses on the desert, and consumerist cornucopias of Wal-marts and fast food places.

[Bread and Circus]

90. No, not at all. If anything nuclear fission my be a partial solution

transitional energy source.

It is definitely not the goal.

You guys lose more and more credibility every time you try to put words in people's mouthes or act like an environmental snob (as if you don't contribute to the problem yourself).

[hunter]

92. "peeps"

That says a lot.

I'm hardcore social justice, and then I'm an environmentalist.

I think most self-proclaimed environmentalists are tie-dye libertarians.

[Bread and Circus]

98. self deleted... I put response in the wrong place.

[GliderGuider]

81. That's a good beginning. You're sliding around one issue, though.

You say,

However, the implication is that there is not enough renewable energy which is a bold faced LIE because there's more renewable energy in the course of a year than ever will be extracted from the ground by coal, oil, nuclear fissible material or otherwise for all time coming.

This is, of course, not the issue of scale that the critics keep harping on. I know all about Dyson spheres (to toss out the ultimate example of solar energy capture technology), and the staggering amount of energy they could capture. The scalability problem occurs in the implementation, not the energy resource itself. It's the material (200 tons per megawatt for a large wind turbine), the fabrication facilities, the installation capacity, the cost of ancillary installations like roads, monitoring facilities, distribution stations etc.

There is also the simple sniff test of how fast an industry can grow continuously over the long haul.

Finally then there is the fact that electricity can't do what oil does. It can't even be an effective fuel for vehicles on non-fixed routes unless we lick the storage density problem (pace EEstor, you're not there yet). And all the alternative vehicular fuels we've come up with have serious externalities that kick in long before you get to 10% of the required energy.

The whole edifice seems to be built on prayer - pray we can ramp up production/installation facilities fast enough, pray we can solve the intermittancy problems, pray that some basement company like EEstor can crack the storage nut, pray we can find a liquid fuel that doesn't compete with food... If there were only a couple of unsolved problems (or undemonstrated solutions) standing between us and Valhalla, I'd be on board. When I see the tangled pile of barriers we have yet to conquer, and know that we have no time left to do it, I get a little bummed out.

I don't care whether we do nuclear power or not. A non-nuclear future would be fine with me. I want my grandchildren to live in the Garden of Eden. However, the world I truly believe we will bequeath to them is the damaged, resource depleted world we already live in, only with added entropy: almost no fossil fuels, dead oceans, CO2 pushing 600 ppm because we burnt the fossil fuels anyway, a chaotic climate with a runaway greenhouse effect, a few beleaguered enclaves powered by renewables, and a vastly diminished (though still vast) population living in fear, want and misery. And I don't think all the brave talk about wind turbines or concentrating solar or cellulosic ethanol is going to change that. Not at this point.

[Bread and Circus]

83. My reply

That's cool, here are my replies:

Me: However, the implication is that there is not enough renewable energy which is a bold faced LIE because there's more renewable energy in the course of a year than ever will be extracted from the ground by coal, oil, nuclear fissible material or otherwise for all time coming.

You: This is, of course, not the issue of scale that the critics keep harping on. I know all about Dyson spheres (to toss out the ultimate example of solar energy capture technology), and the staggering amount of energy they could capture. The scalability problem occurs in the implementation, not the energy resource itself. It's the material (200 tons per megawatt for a large wind turbine), the fabrication facilities, the installation capacity, the cost of ancillary installations like roads, monitoring facilities, distribution stations etc.

And nuclear plants are made out of what? Puffed rice? Marshmallows? External lifecycle costs for nuclear plants and nuclear waste is huge (include the mining of fissable uranium in that as well). Nuclear fission may be at it's cost effective peak but renewable technology is in its infancy and gains are being made (see things like Stirling Engine solar plants over traditional PV's, etc)

There is also the simple sniff test of how fast an industry can grow contunuously over the long haul.

Yes, and nuclear has the same scalability issues. You can't just snap your fingers and nuclear power plants appear overnight. Actually, in some ways nuclear has more scalability issues than renewables because you can't start making energy until a plant is done, if it gets done.

Finally then there is the fact that electricity can't do what oil does. It can't even be an effective fuel for vehicles on non-fixed routes unless we lick the storage density problem (pace EEstor, you're not there yet). And all the alternative vehicular fuels we've come up with have serious externalities that kick in long before you get to 10% of the required energy.

And how is this a plus for nuclear? I think we all agree that eventually we will have to go to electric or hydrogen based vehicles (or some other non fossil fuel). Either way, nuclear energy offers no current advantage in this arena. In the long run if we have electric cars and people can power them up w/ local solar/wind, then that's a huge advantage for non nuclear energy.

The whole edifice seems to be built on prayer - pray we can ramp up production/installation facilities fast enough, pray we can solve the intermittancy problems, pray that some basement company like EEstor can crack the storage nut, pray we can find a liquid fuel that doesn't compete with food... If there were only a couple of unsolved problems (or undemonstrated solutions) standing between us and Valhalla, I'd be on board. When I see the tangled pile of barriers we have yet to conquer, and know that we have at most 10 years to do it, I get a little bummed out.

Granted, I can't really find fault with you there but I don't think it's going to be this mass human society collapse as it is portrayed to be. Things are gonna suck in some ways, but we will move on.


I don't care whether we do nuclear power or not. A non-nuclear future would be fine with me. I want my grandchildren to live in the Garden of Eden. However, the world I truly believe we will bequeath to them is the damaged, resource depleted world we already live in, only with almost no fossil fuels left, dead oceans, CO2 pushing 600 ppm because we burnt the fossil fuels anyway, a chaotic climate with a runaway greenhouse effect, a few beleaguered enclaves powered by renewables, and a vastly diminished (though still vast) population living in fear, want and misery. And I don't think all the brave talk about wind turbines or concentrating solar or cellulosic ethanol is going to change that. Not at this point.

and nuclear is fraught with the same perils. considering it's been around for 60+ years and hasn't solved our problems should be a cautionary tale.

[GliderGuider]

84. You seem to have the idea that I'm arguing in favour of nuclear power. I'm not.

Go back over my posts in this thread, I don't think you will see pro-nuclear advocacy in any of them. What you will see is anti-coal advocacy, skepticism about the claims of renewable energy to maintain anything resembling business as usual, an acceptance that nuclear has lost the public opinion war regardless of the true nature of its merits or problems, and an acceptance that coal will be used increasingly, regardless of the true nature of its problems

The question of nuclear power is moot, as far as I can tell.

[Bread and Circus]

86. fair enough.

[hunter]

72. But honestly, most people are clueless about scale.

One of the classics of the E/E forum is the solar plant at Rancho Seco. It generates a small piddle of electricity compared to the torrent the nuclear plant produced, and yes mind you, this nuclear plant was a masterpiece of U.S. engineering comparable to the Chevy Vega. But people will still use it as an example of how solar power can replace nuclear.

[phantom power]

74. The word "Exajoules" is a way of characterizing the scale of the energy we use.

"Brazillions" is an insult preferred NNadir. It's easy to dismiss NNadir for his insults. I think it's much much harder to dismiss his arguments.

Generally, I've seen three responses to the fact that renewables are hard to scale up to multiple exajoules per year, which is the task before us.

1) Cite a long list of potential renewable resources
2) Invoke "conservation"
3) Attempt to ridicule the word "exajoule" as if it is some kind of content-free joke, or insult.

(1) doesn't really address the question of the economic cost or environmental impact of scaling up all these resources, either in isolation or in any linear combination. Nor does it address any costs or economic impacts of energy storage required to compensate for the intermittancy of most of these sources.

(2) Although conservation is both desireable and inevitable given current trends, it doesn't really make the "exajoule" problem go away. The world currently uses around 400 exajoules per year. Supposing we cut that by 90% with conservation, or demand destruction, etc, which is by any sane assessment an enormous cut with traumatic consequences (not saying it won't happen). The remaining 10% *still* leaves a world using 40 exajoules per year. So a scale of "exajoules" is still a characterization of the amount of energy we are trying to use. A world using less than one exajoule per year is essentially pre-industrial, and the humanitarian apocalypse implied by that kind of transition is mind-boggling. It might be the outcome, but it isn't an option to be advocated.

(3) obviously doesn't constitute an argument

[Bread and Circus]

76. Here's a real human reality you and Nnadir have to deal with...

nobody fucking wants nuclear waste in their backyard. Nobody wants it in their state, nobody wants in in their mountains, nobody wants it in their country if they can help it. Rational, reasonable, or not that's just the real human truth. Live with it. Proposing 10,000 new nuclear plants or more (which is really what you guys are talking about) is just not going to sit well with peeps.

Also add this other reality if you were to get your wish of a nuclear power plant on every corner: easily useable fissible materials would be gobbled up in about 12 years. After that you will be scrounging, which will drive the cost and environmental impact further up.

Here's my direct counter to your last points:



"Brazillions" is an insult preferred NNadir. It's easy to dismiss NNadir for his insults. I think it's much much harder to dismiss his arguments.

Generally, I've seen three responses to the fact that renewables are hard to scale up to multiple exajoules per year, which is the task before us.

The reality is that any form of energy would be hard to scale up to multiple exajoules per year, including nuclear. Furthermore, nuclear is still a very minor player that produces less energy than renewables if you include hydroelectric power which is a renewable energy source because unless we have a planetary cataclysmic the sun will always drive the water to make rain/snow which makes rivers, blah blah....

1) Cite a long list of potential renewable resources

Yes, and that's a good thing.

2) Invoke "conservation"

Another good thing, and probably the most important thing of all on a cost/energy basis.


3) Attempt to ridicule the word "exajoule" as if it is some kind of content-free joke, or insult.

"Exajoule" is a word, but how Nnadir uses it is the problem because the connotation is that he understands the scale of the problem and we don't.

(1) doesn't really address the question of the economic cost or environmental impact of scaling up all these resources, either in isolation or in any linear combination. Nor does it address any costs or economic impacts of energy storage required to compensate for the intermittancy of most of these sources.

This is a complicated issue, no matter what the energy source is.

(2) Although conservation is both desireable and inevitable given current trends, it doesn't really make the "exajoule" problem go away. The world currently uses around 400 exajoules per year. Supposing we cut that by 90% with conservation, or demand destruction, etc, which is by any sane assessment an enormous cut with traumatic consequences (not saying it won't happen). The remaining 10% *still* leaves a world using 40 exajoules per year. So a scale of "exajoules" is still a characterization of the amount of energy we are trying to use. A world using less than one exajoule per year is essentially pre-industrial, and the humanitarian apocalypse implied by that kind of transition is mind-boggling. It might be the outcome, but it isn't an option to be advocated.

Again, no one has ever said we don't need a fuck of a lot of energy. This is another putting words in the mouth of the non-nukies.

(3) obviously doesn't constitute an argument

No but the pattern of word abuse by Nnadir is a problem and deserves comment.

[GliderGuider]

77. You're night, nobody wants nuclear.

Now what?

Ordinary people have shown that they will grudgingly accept coal. Unless they can be convinced that alternatives can offer enough power at the same price, they will request coal.

Wind? Solar PV? Tidal? How do you convince people that these will be viable, economical alternatives in ten years when all the objective evidence says otherwise?

Here's the human reality. They hate nuclear, so they will get coal.

[hunter]

78. I find the word "peep" insulting.

But I'm not generally put off by "word abuse" especially when it is straightforward.

I have no patience for condescension dressed up in prettier clothes.

Mostly I suspect the rest of the world cares less and less what the superstitious and highly irrational people of the United States think.

When the magic of the petro dollar wears off we will be revealed for what we are -- just another pit of ruling class corruption in the Americas.

[Bread and Circus]

99. In my part of the country "peeps" is just slang for people..

The times I've heard it used it is often used in an endearing way, as in referring to one's group of friends.

I'm really confused how that's offensive but maybe you thought I meant it in another way.

[hunter]

101. "Peeps" is not a term of political empowerment, that's for certain.

I think of little yellow marshmallow birds.

[Nihil]

96. Just one point on "a real human reality" ...

I've been following the comments in this thread with interest
(on both sides) but would like to respond to one of your points:

> nobody fucking wants nuclear waste in their backyard.
> Nobody wants it in their state, nobody wants in in their mountains,
> nobody wants it in their country if they can help it.
> Rational, reasonable, or not that's just the real human truth.
> Live with it.

The "bottom line" is *your* bottom line: Live with it.

For the last twenty or so years, I've been living less than ten miles
from a nuclear processing and reprocessing plant complete with guarded
convoys and waste. I have no problem with the materials, the processes
or the level of security (physical or human) so, pedantically, you are
wrong: many people are quite content to "live with it" as they either
accept it or move ... and there are several hundred thousand people in this
same radius (only a small proportion of whom work at that establishment
thus being "tied to it" or "invested in it"). People live with it.

Now and then the local Greenpeace group will form a token protest but
everyone knows it's a joke really - both sides know they are just going
through the motions and there is no real gp support (or opposition).

My sole objection is that most of the work done at that establishment
is for military purposes, not civilian ones. I disagree with the principle
of nuclear weapons but that genie is out of the bottle so the best option
is to work to restrict funding.

Ironically, the fact that it's weapons processing means that the nuclear
materials present are FAR more concentrated & deadly than for any civilian
reprocessing operation ... but people take care and treat it accordingly.

Didn't mean to detract from your other points but thought I'd offer a view
of human reality that you seem to be ignoring - people *do* live with it.
:hi:

[Bread and Circus]

97. You're right, there are exceptions.

but there's a difference between "wanting" something and "living with it" or being "content" to endure it. My categorical generalization is not entirely true. However, how many people do you personally know who WANT (which is what I said) to have a nuclear reactor in their backyard.

And by the way, a nuclear reactor 10 miles away is not your backyard unless it is, and if it is then conceptually it has a psychological impact on you and therefore it probably bothers you more than you let on. But at any rate, is that something you want?

Answer me this, if you had small children would you WANT to live just downwind or downstream of a nuclear facility?

[Nihil]

102. Life is a series of trade-offs

> but there's a difference between "wanting" something and "living with it"
> or being "content" to endure it.

I agree and don't want to get into a fight about it. I was simply commenting
on the balance of risks in a real-world situation that isn't quite as rare
as you might think.

Why do some people put up with a high-stress lifestyle?
Because they prefer it to the alternative (whatever that may involve).
Why do some people choose what I consider to be high risk sports?
Because they prefer them to the alternatives.

> And by the way, a nuclear reactor 10 miles away is not your backyard

No but it is in my county (=state) and my country, both of which formed
part of your question. (Oh to have a 10 mile backyard!)

> Answer me this, if you had small children would you WANT to live just
> downwind or downstream of a nuclear facility?

Given the same set of choices as when I moved here (and subsequently
raised small children) the answer is "yes". I weighed up the risk (small
but non-zero) of a nuclear accident against not only the benefits of
living here but also the alternative risks & costs elsewhere (e.g., crime,
flooding, job scarcity, etc.). The answer came back (and still comes back)
that this is not a significant enough risk to worry about - hence we're
still here.

There are many more places where I would refuse to live due to any number
of higher risks. There are also places where there are *fewer* risks to
me & my family than our current location but there are different trade-offs
in each of those cases too. If/when the balance changes, I may reconsider.
You are a different person, with different priorities & different views
so you will probably make different decisions. It doesn't mean one of us
is "right" and the other "wrong", simply "different".

[Bread and Circus]

104. fair enough.

[jpak]

107. Who sez? Bloggers for the Nuclear Energy Institute????

Global solar thermal capacity is currently 100 GW(t)

Global thermal electric and PV capacity is ~9 GW(e)

Combined, these installations provide an ex-o-jewel of clean green solar energy per year.

Despite what the charlatans at the NEI (=GOP) say...

:evilgrin:

[NickB79]

36. This thread isn't complete without this link

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x111362

"Germany Set to Buy More Coal From S. Africa."

Nope, no evidence whatsoever that being anti-nuke is pro-coal.....

[NickB79]

54. Just as I thought, crickets chirping

The truth of Germany's nuclear phase-out and coal ramp-up is disturbing to read.

[NickB79]

67. 66 MILLION TONS PER YEAR OF S. AFRICAN COAL BY 2020!!!!

Does NO ONE fucking care???? Not ONE person here calling for the elimination of nuclear power has the guts to take a bite of the shit sandwich that is the German nuclear phase-out???

[malakai2]

68. It's okay

Solar and wind technology we don't currently have will materialize to save us without any need for us to do an honest risk assessment or learn basic physics. If only we had the courage to follow the Germans...

Reading this argument is like watching Invasion of the Body Snatchers. Just fall asleep, and everything will be okay.

[Systematic Chaos]

93. Welcome to DU, malakai2

I've been following the "logic" of the renewables crowd in this forum for quite a while now. They cry, whine, piss, bitch and moan about what a terrible thing nuclear energy is; but when the proof that - like it or not - there is no suitable alternative but an increase in nuclear power they just ignore the evidence and perpetuate the same old drivel. There's always another "record largest" solar or wind something to crow about, and of course the customary thousands of additional tons of CO2 spewed into the air in the time it took you to read the article.

It would be funny if it weren't the future of humanity at stake here.

[losthills]

94. Proof?

I'm sorry, but I must have missed it.

Maybe it was in the library at Hiroshima....

[NickB79]

106. Yep, everyone knows nuclear weapons and nuclear power are EXACTLY the same

That's why we tremble in fear of Sweden, with their fearsome nuclear power facilities.....

[losthills]

108. You don't think that Nuclear Power / Weapons are connected?

You should start reading the news....

Why do you think we are having to shut down North Korea's Nuclear power plant right now, and bribe them with tons of fuel oil? Do you think it might be because their "civilian" nuclear power plant is being used to produce fuel for their nuclear weapons program?

Your assignment is to start reading the news before you post.

Thanks....

[Dead_Parrot]

109. So, you think...

...that Argentina, Armenia, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, the Czech Republic, Finland, Germany, Hungary, Japan, Lithuania, Mexico, the Netherlands, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan and the Ukraine all have secret weapons programs?

Gosh, that's an alarming thought. Have you told anyone?

Are you going to call for the US to bribe Slovenia with lots of oil? Invade Lithuania? bring trade sanctions against South Korea?

I'll get no sleep tonight, now I know that Belgium are planning to nuke me in my bed at any second.

[losthills]

110. You have the ability to answer your own questions.

Tell us, if you will, the company, and country of origin that built the reactors for each of the nations you listed, and the nature of their treaty obligations to the country that installed their reactor.

Don't forget the word, "NATO..."

[Nihil]

112. From past evidence, you certainly don't.

Any question on facts and you put up the standard response
of "He's a shill! Burn him!" or similar fact-free crap.

Guess I'll just go back to waiting for Sweden's first-strike
with the hordes of nuclear missiles that they've been
developing ...

To be fair, I almost pity you.

How frightening it must be to live your life dreading the
proximity of a lump of granite, a flight through the air,
a swim in seawater or a bunch of bananas as they all have
scary amounts of that nasty radiation stuff beaming its
deadly rays into your delicate body.

Then I remember how many times people have tried to help
you to open your eyes and learn ... and I think "Fuck it,
he chose his state of ignorance so why should I care?"

[NickB79]

113. So, back to my original question

What is your position on Germany importing 66 MILLION TONS PER YEAR of coal to replace the power lost by it's nuclear reactors being shut down? Do you believe the HUNDREDS of MILLIONS of TONS of additional CO2 injected into the atmosphere per year will be worth it?

[losthills]

114. Now we're back to square one...

I thought the purpose of this thread was to let the Nuclear Avengers know that everyone is sick of their "Coal vs. Nuclear" spiel?

If you truly believe that nuclear power is a panacea, then please try to make your case without using the word, "Coal."

Thanks...

[NickB79]

115. Can't even answer a simple yes or no question?

"If you truly believe that nuclear power is a panacea, then please try to make your case without using the word, "Coal.""

Well, since Germany is replacing nuclear power with COAL power, how can I make my case without pointing out what is currently happening in Germany's energy industry? Are you asking me to, well, IGNORE REALITY?

Maybe if I spoke a bit louder, it will start to sink in.

DO YOU BELIEVE THAT 66 MILLION TONS PER YEAR OF COAL IS A SUITABLE TRADE-OFF FOR CLOSING GERMANY'S NUCLEAR REACTORS?

[losthills]

116. I think they should go to Granite Power.

Now that I have learned from you geniuses how radioactive Granite is. I've got a shit-load of it in my back yard.

I'm gonna be rich! If I don't die of granite-poisoning...

[NickB79]

117. I'm glad you've finally provided a concrete solution to global warming

Unfortunately, it will only be embraced by people who believe "The Flintstones" was a documentary.

Well, at least you have a good sense of humor. We'll all need a few laughs over the next 20 years as global warming caused in large part due to coal burning that you refuse to even acknowledge starts killing off millions of people a year.

If society doesn't completely collapse and DU still exists, maybe I'll go on a rant 20 years from now. In your honor, I'll title it "Granite Power and Global Warming: We're Yabba-Dubba Screw'd"

[Nihil]

118. No, he can't, thus proving a famous saying ...

... "It is easier to get energy out of a rock than a straight answer out of a troll."

It would appear that the words "yes" and "no" are a bit long for the level
of old missingmountains ... or maybe he simply can't keep his attention span
long enough to finish reading your questions?

:shrug:

[NNadir]

95. Oh please...

You're not expecting anyone to care about reality are you?

When you drink the "renewables will save us" koolaid you have to divorce yourself from real numbers. All you have to say is "by 2050..." and everything will be fine.

As it happens, the big, tremendous, fantastic, outstanding, best in the world, delicious, scrumptious, bodacious, superduperdelious renewable energy program put together by that great superhero Gazprom-man (whose undercover alter ego is Gerhard Schroeder) and his boy wonder sidekick SolarWindyBoy (aka Juergen Tritten) is failing even to keep up with the growth of dangerous fossil fuels, nevermind eliminate the previous reliance on dangerous fossil fuels.

Every single bit of nuclear capacity that is mindlessly vandalized by rote stupidity in Germany will produce <em>more</em> dangerous fossil fuel waste and Germany will do NOTHING as in NOTHING as in NOTHING to prevent the dumping of this dangerous fossil fuel waste into the atmosphere.

You will not see ONE anti-nuke, NOT ONE, who will protest. Instead they'll just mutter that the anti-nuke position is not pro-fossil fuels BECAUSE THEY SAY SO, fuck the numbers.

NUMBERS? WE DON'T NEED NO STINKIN' NUMBERS.

How many of the "we're not pro-fossil fuel" anti-nukes had the guts or integrity to mock their shit-for-brains leader Amory Lovins for becoming a Walmart advertisment?

Zero.

None.

NOT ONE.

NIL.

[AlecBGreen]

103. if you would allow me...

...for the first time in my life to quote Ronald Reagan - There you go again!

"You will not see ONE anti-nuke, NOT ONE, who will protest."

I dont think our future lies with a vast expansion our nuclear power program. A combination of conservation, energy efficiency, proper land use planning, etc etc will help us go a long way in reducing our need for fossil fuels. So yeah, you can call me "ANTI-NUKE." That said...

I think Germany's decision to shut down these reactors and import coal from halfway around the world is foolish at best, much closer to moronic. I might even be tempted to throw out a hearty "nice going shit-for-brains!"

So, there you have it. Im anti-nuke and I protest this decision by Germany. Lay off the sweeping generalizations NNadir. You have plenty of good arguments so stick to em and quit relying on senseless namecalling.

[Name removed]

105. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bananas]

111. Welcome to DU!

Speaking of black ops, I notice your post doesn't have the "profile" button (looks like this: ).
You're one of "them", aren't you?
:hi:

[leebert]

119. Clean coal is ready

For your convenience:

http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSL1481789120070914

http://luckydog.newsvine.com/_news/2007/08/30/932535-clean-coal-gets-a-boost-from-down-under

If we can scrub the soot, the sulfates, the CO2, the Hg & Ar then why shouldn't we just burn all the doggone coal we want? The world's billions can't all stay dirt farmers forever.

[NickB79]

120. Oh god, not the clean coal greenwashing again

Anyone find it amusing that we argue over where to store, say, 1 million tons of nuclear waste produced over the past 50 years, but somehow find it perfectly acceptable to talk about storing BILLIONS of tons of CO2 PER YEAR? Oh, and the nuclear waste is mostly solid, while the CO2 is gaseous?

The sad truth is that clean coal ISN'T ready. Your first link doesn't talk about storing the carbon from coal-fired plants, but simply buying carbon offsets (which are of debatable importance). Your second link talks about the first stage of the DRILLING for a clean-coal demonstration project. They haven't even begun injecting CO2 yet, so they have no information on the long-term stability of the trapped gas. The myth of capturing billions of tons of gaseous material every year, for decades to come, and ensuring that Earth doesn't "burb" it up for essentially forever (CO2 has no half-life) allows people to continue to believe that using coal can be acceptable.

[GliderGuider]

121. First off, we can't get rid of the CO2

There are some proposals for capture and compression, and some tests and pilots are underway, but the efforts are stymied at the outset by two problems. Scale and cost. There aren't enough geological formations to store anywhere near the amount of CO2 we generate every year, and the cost of capturing, compressing, piping and injecting the CO2 make it totally unattractive for the vast majority of plants that will be built in the immediate future (like the 150 to 200 plants the Chinese are planning for the next year). The economic argument also applies to particulate scrubbers, especially in developing countries where coal will be the biggest source of new power.

Then there is the problem that human activity of all kinds is the driver behind the utter destruction of the planet's ecosystem that we face today. Burning all the doggone coal we want will make that worse even if we sequester all the CO2 and get rid of the soot.

Yes, the world's billions can all stay dirt farmers. They won't want to, but they will. The energy resources it would take for them to be anything else (and made it possible for us to become anything else) are about to start running out. As that happens over the next hundred years most of us will go back to scratching in the dirt as thousands of generations before us did. There's no shame in that -it's called "living within your means".

[leebert]

123. Relegating ...

... the rest of the world to "dirt farmers" seems like wishful thinking to me.

With another 3-5 billion people, that'll be too many people w/ not enough land for small individual farmers, esp. if you want to prevent deforestation which leads to flooding (in places like Bangladesh, for instance, loss of microclimate precipitation (Kilimanjaro).

Industrialization is the only answer, on the farm, elsewhere. Or shall we just watch the rest of the rain forests get cut down for itinerant slash & burn dirt farming? Yes, I know about Costa Rica, but that's a different fettle of kitsch.

Back to the farm. Groovy. China tried it, didn't work. Even post-collectivization. Hence their big new, sooty, smokey plan...

[GliderGuider]

124. Of course.

There won't be anything like 5 billion farmers. By the end of the century there will only be 800 million. Of course, that will be out of a total population of less than 1 billion...

Industrialization of the current population won't work - it would require too much energy. I have published an analysis of the problem, couched in terms of implementing the Demographic Transition Model, in this article. It would take over 5 times the energy we are currently producing.

So if we can't industrialize our way out of the problem, and the planet can't support 5 billion small farmers (or 8 billion people doing pretty much anything at all) we are left with few options. The one that seems most probable to me is a rather chaotic collapse of industrial civilization starting within the next 20 to 30 years and proceeding until the end of the century. It will be precipitated by a combination of oil depletion, resource wars and climate chaos. The population reduction mechanisms that will power the decline will be quite traditional: famine and disease.

We will see a massive increase in disparity between the rich and the poor as the rich use their discretionary GDP to secure their circumstances, with the result that the brunt of the decline will be borne by poor nations. We will also see a tide of authoritarian governments sweep across the globe as people turn to strong men to cope with the worsening crisis.

In the end, about a billion people will survive the destruction of this cycle of civilization and form the seed stock for the next one. The problems they will face will be enormous, because in our death throes we will complete the rape of the earth's available resources and the destruction of the biosphere (including the death of the oceans, the dispersal and pollution of much of the world's fresh water, the degradation of the world's topsoil to an average of 60% or less of it's pre-industrial fertility, and the pollution of much of the remaining land and water.

In addition we will have completed the move of the climate into a new regime - one of 800 ppm CO2 or more - by burning all the remaining accessible fossil fuels. This will have released the methane in the Siberian peat bogs, and possibly some of the sea-floor clathrates, causing a further escalation in global temperatures and a massive expansion in the chaotic behaviour of both climate and weather. El Nino is likely to be out of control, possibly a permanent feature of the Pacific Ocean. The Global Ocean Conveyor will have changed dramatically, with parts of it shutting down altogether due to the loss of the global heat pump driven by the temperature differential between the equator and the poles. Droughts, floods, freak storms and intense heat waves will be commonplace.

This world of scarce resources, ecological collapse, chaotic climate and social upheaval is the one I think it is most likely we will bequeath to our grandchildren. I hate the idea, and think that we can, should and will do everything in our power to prevent it. I'm convinced, though, that we are in too deep to prevent most of it. Peak Oil is the canary in to coal mine as far as the decline of global energy resources is concerned, and the dismal state of the world's ecology is already telling us that there are too many people doing too much for the present situation to be sustainable in any conceivable way.

The only glimmer of hope I see is that in the next cycle of civilization the circumstances will be so dire that the values that drive the current one - primarily growth, competition and consumption - will have neither the physical nor the social environment needed to sustain them, and may be replaced in many places by more sustainable value systems built around cooperation, consensus and an understanding of limits.

Sorry to write a novel, but this is how I see the world unfolding. It's not a pretty picture, but understanding the evidence that points in this direction may make it more likely that we will make good decisions rather than bad ones. And by "bad ones" I mean such things as corn ethanol and more industrialization.

Paul Chefurka

[leebert]

125. I just can't buy into fatalism...

.. I don't see the factual evidence for it, I don't see the need for it. The hazard of risking the big die-off you cite would be more chaos than anyone would be willing to tolerate ... rationing & crash programs would happen first.

As for corn ethanol, that's a uniquely American screwup. We have plenty of sugar cane & sugar beet capacity in reserve. I'm not endorsing extensive ethanol, tho, b/c I don't see it as sustainable, risking working good land too hard.

Dystopian fatalism is naught more than nihilism once-removed. I believe in humanity's ability to respond to crises ... Toynbee's "Challenge & Response," etc.

Buck up. You might be wrong. ;-)

[GliderGuider]

126. I might be wrong.

But I'm not.

The fact that you see no factual evidence for it indicates to me that you are either a newcomer to the analysis or are carefully preserving your illusion that humanity is preternatural. Next you'll be calling me a reductionist, yes?

It doesn't matter what "anyone would be willing to tolerate". Our willingness cuts no ice with Mother Nature. She deals only in what is, and our wants and desires make very little difference in the face of the set of facts we have created on this planet.

[leebert]

127. Reductionist? No.

Pessimist? Yes.

I've been through the whole J-Curve apocalypsoes of Paul Erhlich, et al, back in the 1970's. This is nothing new. The sky was falling back then too. And it still is.

In 2037 Apophis might nuke our butts too. All hail the great NEO!

[GliderGuider]

128. My definition of a pessimist

is a realist who has crunched the numbers.

The only way to remain an optimist in the current situation is to believe that human ingenuity is more powerful than oil and tends to move us in the right direction more often than not. Sometimes ideas are indeed more powerful than oil, but my real problem is with the second requirement. Our consensus definition of what constitutes the "right direction" is totally fucked up. This happened because of an unfortunate (though survival-positive) combination of biological and psychological factors, along with the set of social, political and economic institutions that grew out of them. These all mutually reinforced each other to produce a paradigm of perpetual growth that is accepted by most people as axiomatic even though it won't tolerate more than a moment's honest examination.

[losthills]

122. Coal is not "ready."

And never will be ready.

Coal belongs to Charles Dickens, not to the future...