All New Stuff: NJ 'renewables' plan suggests building houses to subsidize the rich.

[NNadir]

I am pretty contemptuous of the consumerist idea that the solution to the dire emergency in which we live is "all new stuff."

It isn't.

I hear all the time about the so called "renewable" portfolio in my state and how it's going to save the world, supposedly by 2050, when many of us here will be dead.

We hear all the time how building new renewable facilities is "faster" than building new nuclear plants.

Now the "renewables will save us" industry is crowing over it's success here.

http://www.njcleanenergy.com/renewable-energy/program-updates/core-activity/core-activity

What do we see: First a trick by referring to so called "renewable" energy in kilowatts rather than megawatts as significant plants are.

Looking at the numbers we see that the entire state actually installed 64 Mega"watts" of New Solar in eight years. Moreover one of those "Megawatts" is in the form of fuel cells, which do not actually run on renewable energy but rather on dangerous natural gas.

The solar facilities of course, have a capacity utilization of about 20%, meaning that they are the equivalent of, at 58 mega"watts," of an 12 Megawatt continuously fueled plant (rounding up).

How much has the state of New Jersey paid to rich people to obtain this wonderful new capacity?

$233,358,770 dollars.

This means that to replace the Oyster Creek Nuclear Station, as is suggested by stupid people, with solar energy - an idea which pure nonsense because solar is nowhere near as reliable or as continuous as the Oyster Creek nuclear station - would require a subsidy to the rich of $20 billion dollars out of State Funds.

The summer capacity of New Jersey electric plants is 18,971 Megawatts, meaning that all of the solar toys in New Jersey amount to 0.06% of NJ capacity.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/st_profiles/new_jersey.html

This is just another example of the "welfare for the rich" focus of our country and our State.

[kristopher]

1. This message brought to you by the Nuclear Energy Institute

Dedicated to the creation and dissemination of fine, high quality propaganda supporting the John McCain policy platform of denigrating renewable energy while increasing the supply of centrally controlled energy resources.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

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

[The Croquist]

4. Two points for NNadir with a free throw coming up.

Very good.
Present facts, back them up with links, wait for someone to insult you and then launch a counter attack pointing out how ridiculous their reply was and how they should try to actually refute your argument. That was much better then starting it wasn't it? "Kristopher" tried giving you the boxing tactic of the old "one, three" (two you gave). Don't expect the three. The two put him against the ropes.

PS: Good initial post. Too bad most people won't listen to logic.

Edited to add: I was wrong. The "three" is here.

[lakeguy]

5. just because someone from a different political party

thinks nuclear is a good thing doesn't automatically make it bad.

you are a partisan tool dooming the rest of us to a world full of coal fumes.

[kristopher]

6. Presicely the thinking promoted by the industries behind the Republican platform.

You are regurgitating nuclear INDUSTRY propaganda that is contradicted by substantial analysis done by some of the best nonpartisan, non-industry analysts out there. "Refuting" this nonsense gives credence where none is due.

Much more relevant is exposing the genesis and distribution of the attitudes and arguments being proffered. To call that a logical fallacy ignores the existence of a broader propaganda effort that is created predominately by PAID or financially vested advocates juxtaposed against the large body of contradictory analytic work created by independent researchers.

How do you think all the people behind the Democratic platform (ex:Gore) arrived at the conclusion that additional nuclear is not only not needed, but is in fact, a harmful diversion of funds and political commitment from more long term cost effective technologies? Do you believe they just ignored positive information about nuclear because they "dislike" it?

tokoro de: This *is* the DEMOCRATIC Underground so if you don't want the political part of the picture I don't know what to tell you. The NEI is a propaganda outlet, pure and simple.

Facts not subject to debate: The NEI hires corporate communications specialists and provides them with materials to promote the message they think will help promote public acceptance of their policy agenda. These corporate communications specialists from the NEI advertise on their resumes experience in the blogosphere.

The Republican party supports the NEI agenda, the Democratic party does not.

[kristopher]

3. "The lobbying / PR wing of the U.S. nuclear industry"

"The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI)<2> is described by Dr Helen Caldicott - a pediatrician and long-standing nuclear critic - as "the propaganda wing and trade group for the American nuclear industry spends millions of dollars annually to engineer public opinion".<1>

NEI’s objective is to ensure the formation of policies that promote the "beneficial uses" of nuclear energy in the United States and around the world. It has over 280 corporate members in 15 countries, including companies that operate nuclear power plants, as well as design and engineering firms, fuel suppliers and service companies, and labor unions.<2>

NEI is governed by a 47-member board of directors and has more than 130 employees. NEI's board includes representatives from the nation's 27 nuclear utilities, plant designers, architect/engineering firms, and fuel cycle companies. Eighteen members of the board serve on the executive committee, which is responsible for NEI's business and policy affairs.<3> NEI also takes part in Alliance for Energy and Economic Growth, a group funded by the gas, oil, electric and nuclear industries. <4>

In recent years, the NEI has used a variety of approaches to try and win the PR battle to secure a new generation of nuclear power plants."

Much more at http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Nuclear_Energy_Institute

[jpak]

7. Why are self-proclaimed bloggers for the NEI and John McCain nuclear policy cheerleaders

allowed to post on DU - and break DU rules again - and again -and again...

Someone had to say it.

[The Croquist]

8. Apparently supporting nuclear power is wrong

but throwing insults at people that do support it without actually challenging facts is considered to be "fair and balanced".

[Indenturedebtor]

9. You know what's awesome about Nuclear?

No rich people profit when a Nuclear plant is built or through it's continuing use. I heard that when you buy an ounce of yellowcake an angle has an orgasm.

[The Croquist]

10. As opposed when when you build or use a coal plant?

I've got bad news for you. When you buy a Prius rich people make money too.

[Indenturedebtor]

11. Well given that this was a central premise of the OP

I think that it's a nonargument. Quite aside from all of the other issues with this nuclear industry post. It's classwash.