A challenge for the nuclear "environmentalists" frequenting DU EE

[kristopher]

I posted these six FALSE claims frequently made by the commercial nuclear power arm of the military industrial complex in order to promote public acceptance of their product.

1. nuclear power is cheap;

2. learning and new standardized designs solve all past problems;

3. the waste problem is a non-problem, especially if we’d follow the lead of many other nations and “recycle” our spent fuel;

4. climate change makes a renaissance inevitable;

5. there are no other large low-carbon “baseload” alternatives;

6. there’s no particular reason to worry that a rapidly expanding global industry will put nuclear power and weapons technologies in highly unstable nations, often nations with ties to terrorist organizations.

Naturally since the supporters of nuclear energy repeat these false claims every chance they get, the response was filled with vitriol and tended to be more hyperbolic rather than substantive.

In order to address number one, I challenge these supporters to answer these questions. If one understands why the nuclear industry is the ONLY power source that is not able to be built under a turnkey contract, then one also understands why the economics of nuclear fail.


Answer these questions -
1) Why are no turn key nuclear plants being built?

2) Why are all the planned projects in the US being abandoned, even when there are unprecedented levels of governmental support?

3) Why were no plants even being proposed for jurisdictions that do not have construction work in progress (CWIP) policies on the books to allow the builders to recoup cost overruns and the costs of abandoned projects?

Answer those three questions and we'll have something to talk about.

Turnkey

A public agency contracts with a private investor/vendor to design and build a complete facility in accordance with specified performance standards and criteria agreed to between the agency and the vendor. The private developer commits to build the facility for a fixed price and absorbs the construction risk of meeting that price commitment. Generally, in a turnkey transaction, the private partners use fast-track construction techniques (such as design-build) and are not bound by traditional public sector procurement regulations. This combination often enables the private partner to complete the facility in significantly less time and for less cost than could be accomplished under traditional construction techniques.
In a turnkey transaction, financing and ownership of the facility can rest with either the public or private partner. For example, the public agency might provide the financing, with the attendant costs and risks. Alternatively, the private party might provide the financing capital, generally in exchange for a long-term contract to operate the facility.



Edited to remove "supposed" from header

[kristopher]

1. Imagine that, crickets...

[TheWraith]

105. Why should anyone answer your questions when you'll never accept the answers?

You've got a long history of ignoring any and all proof and evidence presented to you, repeating the same falsehoods, and trying to move the goalposts through weasel words.

[Nederland]

2. I will answer your three questions...

...on the condition that you will answer three of my questions in a separate post BEFORE you follow up on my answers.

To clear, I will answer your questions first. Deal?

[kristopher]

3. The challenge is there, reply or not.

Your choice.

[Nederland]

4. Right back at you

The deal is on the table, take it or leave it.

Your choice.

[FBaggins]

20. Don't be silly. He debates only straw men. N/t

[Dead_Parrot]

5. Although I haven't seen your questions...

...I can guarantee he won't answer them if they're awkward.

edit: need more coffee. :)

[Dead_Parrot]

6. An interesting thread of straw running through these...

...is that according to Kris, the solution has to fit within the US's own brand of capitalism - the brand that brought you the worst healthcare in the developed world, an education system that the rest of the world make jokes about, public transport inaccessible to the people who need it, and Fox News.

Oh, and a quarter of the worlds emitted CO₂, even though you've got less than a twentieth of the population.

The answer to all three questions is the same: The Corporations can make make money elsewhere. A much more interesting question is, why does Kris think more US capitalism is the answer?

[kristopher]

7. It is the NUCLEAR INDUSTRY making the claim, ask them why they are promoting the lie.

They are the ones who apparently think that cost is important enough to lie about.

From my perspective the issue of cost is vital because it tells us where we get the most bang for our noncarbon buck.

[Dead_Parrot]

8. Yet you refuse to look at world prices, only US ones.

Why is that?

[Nederland]

9. Please don't ask Kristopher any questions

They obviously make him nervous...

[DrGregory]

61. That's how lie detectors work.

They obviously make him nervous...
----------------------------------

That's how LIE detectors work.

When a person lies, he gets nervous,
and the sensors detect the nervousness.

Dr. Greg

[kristopher]

11. I asked about turnkey plants; any examples anywhere are acceptable for discussion.

I posted these six FALSE claims frequently made by the commercial nuclear power arm of the military industrial complex in order to promote public acceptance of their product.

1. nuclear power is cheap;

2. learning and new standardized designs solve all past problems;

3. the waste problem is a non-problem, especially if we’d follow the lead of many other nations and “recycle” our spent fuel;

4. climate change makes a renaissance inevitable;

5. there are no other large low-carbon “baseload” alternatives;

6. there’s no particular reason to worry that a rapidly expanding global industry will put nuclear power and weapons technologies in highly unstable nations, often nations with ties to terrorist organizations.

Naturally since the supporters of nuclear energy repeat these false claims every chance they get, the response was filled with vitriol and tended to be more hyperbolic rather than substantive.

In order to address number one, I challenge these supporters to answer these questions. If one understands why the nuclear industry is the ONLY power source that is not able to be built under a turnkey contract, then one also understands why the economics of nuclear fail.


Answer these questions -
1) Why are no turn key nuclear plants being built?

2) Why are all the planned projects in the US being abandoned, even when there are unprecedented levels of governmental support?

3) Why were no plants even being proposed for jurisdictions that do not have construction work in progress (CWIP) policies on the books to allow the builders to recoup cost overruns and the costs of abandoned projects?

Answer those three questions and we'll have something to talk about.

Turnkey

A public agency contracts with a private investor/vendor to design and build a complete facility in accordance with specified performance standards and criteria agreed to between the agency and the vendor. The private developer commits to build the facility for a fixed price and absorbs the construction risk of meeting that price commitment. Generally, in a turnkey transaction, the private partners use fast-track construction techniques (such as design-build) and are not bound by traditional public sector procurement regulations. This combination often enables the private partner to complete the facility in significantly less time and for less cost than could be accomplished under traditional construction techniques.
In a turnkey transaction, financing and ownership of the facility can rest with either the public or private partner. For example, the public agency might provide the financing, with the attendant costs and risks. Alternatively, the private party might provide the financing capital, generally in exchange for a long-term contract to operate the facility.

[Dead_Parrot]

12. Exactly

New Zealand hospitals aren't turnkey projects. Nor are Finnish schools, French public transport, or the BBC.

All of these out-perform their US equivalents by a long, long way, which is why I'm curious to know why you think nuclear power should emulate the US's crappy contemporaries.

[kristopher]

14. Are you saying that turnkey projects are a *bad* way to build a nuke plant?

Then explain why:


1) Why are no turn key nuclear plants being built?

2) Why are all the planned projects in the US being abandoned, even when there are unprecedented levels of governmental support?

3) Why were no plants even being proposed for jurisdictions that do not have construction work in progress (CWIP) policies on the books to allow the builders to recoup cost overruns and the costs of abandoned projects?

Answer those three questions and we'll have something to talk about.

Turnkey

A public agency contracts with a private investor/vendor to design and build a complete facility in accordance with specified performance standards and criteria agreed to between the agency and the vendor. The private developer commits to build the facility for a fixed price and absorbs the construction risk of meeting that price commitment. Generally, in a turnkey transaction, the private partners use fast-track construction techniques (such as design-build) and are not bound by traditional public sector procurement regulations. This combination often enables the private partner to complete the facility in significantly less time and for less cost than could be accomplished under traditional construction techniques.
In a turnkey transaction, financing and ownership of the facility can rest with either the public or private partner. For example, the public agency might provide the financing, with the attendant costs and risks. Alternatively, the private party might provide the financing capital, generally in exchange for a long-term contract to operate the facility.

[Dead_Parrot]

15. Kris, I gave an answer in post 6

Repeating the questions in every reply just makes you look like a five year old. If you need me to expand on the answer, please use your big boy words and form a sentence.

And yes, "turnkey" is not some magic word that automatically makes something wonderful, unless you have a serious boner for quarterly profits. I have presented examples of non-turnkey projects that are very high performers, and as per post 12 I am waiting for an explanation from you as to why the best solution has to be a turnkey-based one.

[kristopher]

16. The question was specific and you haven't addressed it at all.

Answer this -
1) Why are no turn key nuclear plants being built?

2) Why are all the planned projects in the US being abandoned, even when there are unprecedented levels of governmental support?

3) Why were no plants even being proposed for jurisdictions that do not have construction work in progress (CWIP) policies on the books to allow the builders to recoup cost overruns and the costs of abandoned projects?

Answer those three questions and we'll have something to talk about.

Turnkey

A public agency contracts with a private investor/vendor to design and build a complete facility in accordance with specified performance standards and criteria agreed to between the agency and the vendor. The private developer commits to build the facility for a fixed price and absorbs the construction risk of meeting that price commitment. Generally, in a turnkey transaction, the private partners use fast-track construction techniques (such as design-build) and are not bound by traditional public sector procurement regulations. This combination often enables the private partner to complete the facility in significantly less time and for less cost than could be accomplished under traditional construction techniques.
In a turnkey transaction, financing and ownership of the facility can rest with either the public or private partner. For example, the public agency might provide the financing, with the attendant costs and risks. Alternatively, the private party might provide the financing capital, generally in exchange for a long-term contract to operate the facility.

[Dead_Parrot]

17. That's not using your big boy words, Kris.

No turnkey nuclear projects are being built because greater profits can be made by other means. You'll notice, however, that there are 61 non-turnkey reactors under construction in countries that do not share the US's version of economics.

Now, please, why is so important to you that the solution be a turnkey one?

[Dead_Parrot]

18. I'll make the question easier...

...by turning it into a multiple choice one: You're evidently having trouble.

You think it's important nuclear power stations should be turnkey because:

a) You own lots of shares in power companies and don't want to see you shareholder earnings threatened;
b) You believe that the version of capitalism currently practised by the US is the pinnacle of economic policy;
c) It frames the question in a way that - in your eyes - makes nuclear look bad;
d) Other. Explain, and please try to use your big boy words when answering.

Take your time, I'm off to do some real work but I'll check in later to see how you're getting on. :)

[kristopher]

21. Another transparent attempt to divert from the question

I addressed that in the OP:

I posted these six FALSE claims frequently made by the commercial nuclear power arm of the military industrial complex in order to promote public acceptance of their product.

1. nuclear power is cheap;

2. learning and new standardized designs solve all past problems;

3. the waste problem is a non-problem, especially if we’d follow the lead of many other nations and “recycle” our spent fuel;

4. climate change makes a renaissance inevitable;

5. there are no other large low-carbon “baseload” alternatives;

6. there’s no particular reason to worry that a rapidly expanding global industry will put nuclear power and weapons technologies in highly unstable nations, often nations with ties to terrorist organizations.

Naturally since the supporters of nuclear energy repeat these false claims every chance they get, the response was filled with vitriol and tended to be more hyperbolic rather than substantive.

In order to address number one, I challenge these supporters to answer these questions. If one understands why the nuclear industry is the ONLY power source that is not able to be built under a turnkey contract, then one also understands why the economics of nuclear fail.


Answer these questions -
1) Why are no turn key nuclear plants being built?

2) Why are all the planned projects in the US being abandoned, even when there are unprecedented levels of governmental support?

3) Why were no plants even being proposed for jurisdictions that do not have construction work in progress (CWIP) policies on the books to allow the builders to recoup cost overruns and the costs of abandoned projects?

Answer those three questions and we'll have something to talk about.

Turnkey

A public agency contracts with a private investor/vendor to design and build a complete facility in accordance with specified performance standards and criteria agreed to between the agency and the vendor. The private developer commits to build the facility for a fixed price and absorbs the construction risk of meeting that price commitment. Generally, in a turnkey transaction, the private partners use fast-track construction techniques (such as design-build) and are not bound by traditional public sector procurement regulations. This combination often enables the private partner to complete the facility in significantly less time and for less cost than could be accomplished under traditional construction techniques.
In a turnkey transaction, financing and ownership of the facility can rest with either the public or private partner. For example, the public agency might provide the financing, with the attendant costs and risks. Alternatively, the private party might provide the financing capital, generally in exchange for a long-term contract to operate the facility.

If one understands why the nuclear industry is the ONLY power source that is not able to be built under a turnkey contract, then one also understands why the economics of nuclear fail.

So the challenge is still there - explain WHY nuclear power plants are not built as turnkey operations. It is obvious you know that such an understanding will, in fact, expose the myth of "cheap" nuclear power and how the new generation of nuclear is going the same way the the first 2.

[Dead_Parrot]

28. Hmm. Since you are not actually answering...

...I'm going with option (c), framing the question.

Have fun with that.

[DrGregory]

62. It's no guarantee.

3) Why were no plants even being proposed for jurisdictions that do not have construction work in progress (CWIP) policies on the books to allow the builders to recoup cost overruns and the costs of abandoned projects?
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just because you may be entitled to recoup the costs is no guarantee
that you are actually going to collect.

Dr. Greg

[madokie]

22. Have you noticed all the bullshit you've gotten so far

but not one answer to one question that I've seen so far. gobble gobble, what a bunch of turkeys if you ask me. :rofl: gobble gobble

[Dead_Parrot]

29. Hey, I did

- the corporations can make more money elsewhere. (same answer covers all three)

Getting an answer as to what's so wonderful about turnkey builds - now that's hard.

[kristopher]

30. Why are you so afraid of basic facts related to making an informed energy choice?

You spend a great deal of time trying to hide the most relevant information that the public needs to make an informed choice about energy. Why is that? It seems like an extremely perverse sort of hobby...

Why is it nuclear power is the only type of generation that CANNOT be done on a turnkey contract?

You claim it is cheap.

You claim it is the best technology for our energy needs.

Yet when confronted with some very simple proofs that it isn't you spend time to create dozens of posts trying to hide behind empty rhetoric, snark, and misinformation.

Why?

Why is the truth such a threat to you?

[Dead_Parrot]

31. On the contrary, I like facts

It's getting them out of you that's an issue.

[kristopher]

35. Why are nuclear power plants unable to be built under turnkey contracts?

I asked the question in the OP and I'm still asking it at post 30. For someone who says "I like facts" you are remarkable reluctant to provide them.

Why are you supporting nuclear power if you can't justify it?

[Dead_Parrot]

36. I'll repeat the answer for the third time:

Because there are more profitable alternatives for the corporations involved.

That you are still asking me the question when I answered it in post 6 says more about you reading ability than it nuclear power.

BTW, You'll notice I've assumed the answer to the question "why do you think the 'turnkey' aspect is so important?" is "Because I'm framing the question", due to the lack of any information to the contrary.

Now, why you don't you ask me the question again, just to be sure?

[kristopher]

39. That is an evasion, not an answer.

You also have not and cannot explain your support for nuclear power with reasons founded in true facts.

[Dead_Parrot]

44. It's just not an answer you like.

Tough.

Rather amusing, by the way, that you chose a graph that showing fossil fuels as having a positive effect of society as a way of making your position clear.

Good news - it worked.

[One_Life_To_Give]

48. The "Big Dig" in Boston was Turn Key

But like all big construction projects the cost changed with each change order that was put thru. It's speculated that some contractors intentionally lowball a contract to get the job. On the assumption that they will make up that and more on the change orders to the project. McMansions to Trump Towers are full of change orders and the costs frequently rise as a result of them.

Question is why do you assume "Turn Key" would be some type of a prerequisite?

Ref. Question 2. Why do you present that only one country be considered when discussing a global/regional commodity? Wouldn't the multinational companies behind such endeavors consider the entire globe when planning their strategy?

Ref. Question 3. Put yourself in the shoes of a Multinational Vice President. Explaining to the Board of Directors why you chose to expose the company to extra risk by choosing a project that didn't have such guarantees when others were available that did.

[kristopher]

49. Would you like to attempt to actually answer the questions...

before you start editorializing?

Your mention of The Big Dig is helpful, though. Thanks.

[One_Life_To_Give]

54. Fishing for a particular answer?

Reading below I get the impression you have so constrained the definitions that most probably can't answer as we are not experts in the type of Public Projects you are discussing. A generic Turn Key solution implies that the project is completed with no further work required on the part of the purchaser. Technically that can be done for anything in which there are no "Unknowns". That may have been possible for the Reactor built in North Korea. I wouldn't think anyone would similarly commit to a project in the US where the probability of delays from public opposition will happen and laws/regulations may change during that time frame.

[kristopher]

58. Paticular only in that I'm asking specifically about nuclear power and the problems unique to it...

...when compared to other energy sources. (You might want to review the OP at this point)

You've expressed well what the generally accepted characteristics of a turnkey contract are.

You've linked that to N. Korea and nuclear.

Then you speculate on causes - that is what we are after.

However, the public opposition excuse is a canard. The current legislation and regulations supporting nuclear power are designed very specifically to limit the ability of the public to interfere with construction schedules. There is, in fact, an excellent discussion on that point related to oversight failure from a too close relationship between business and regulators but for the present the nuclear industry has received EVERYTHING they asked for as being necessary for success. That includes a subsidy of up to (IIRC) $500,000,000 for each project to reimburse for regulatory delays incurred through no fault of the vendor.

No, that is a popular legend pushed by the nuclear industry to obscure the actual issues.

If you don't mind, would you keep digging. I'm going to PM you a reference for an article by a supporter of nuclear power that attempts to solve this problem with market mechanisms instead of command and control government authority.

[DrGregory]

79. Market Forces would be nice.

If you don't mind, would you keep digging. I'm going to PM you a reference for an article by a supporter of nuclear power that attempts to solve this problem with market mechanisms instead of command and control government authority.
------------------------------------------------

It would be nice if we had "market mechanisms".

However, when State / Local governments can effectively
VETO a $6 Billion project like Shoreham, the $0.5 Billion
guarantee you cite about won't cover the cost.

As long as we have the ability for a State / Local
government to VETO the project like Shoreham, then
there is no "market mechanism".

If the State / Local government can shut you down, just
because you are a nuclear project and they don't like
nuclear, then how can "market mechanisms" counter that?

Dr. Greg

[NNadir]

10. Why do you think that people who are educated about nuclear science owe anti-nukes anything.

We don't owe anything to anyone who is close minded, dogmatic, uninformed and completely uneducated about nuclear science or to anyone who hates nuclear science on the grounds that it is clearly over their heads.

[kristopher]

13. "you have no shame"

Vestas calls itself in its company reports, the Vestas OIL, GAS and WIND company.

Posted by NNadir on Sat Oct-16-10 09:29 PM

Vestas, OIL, GAS and wind company.

They know what they are, even if mathematically illiterate purveyors of self delusion and indifference don't.

It's notable that this piece of shit dangerous fossil fuel company suffered huge losses in the middle of the decade for being required to meet five year warranties on their worthless hunks of metal.

Their "solution" to this problem with their reliability did not lead them to improve the crappy gearboxes on their subsidized garbage, but rather to reduce the warranty period from five years to two years.

It is interesting to note that the most transparently dishonest people are the first to accuse others of dishonesty.

Have a nice day.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=261737&mesg_id=262014

They were never in fossil fuel, they started in engineering
Posted by muriel_volestrangler on Sun Oct-17-10 06:17 AM

NNadir was talking a load of complete bollocks about 'oil and gas'.

# 1898 - Vestas founded by H.S. Hansen, a blacksmith, in the small town of Lem in Denmark. He and his son, Peder Hansen, manufactured steel windows for industrial buildings.
# 1945 - Peder Hansen established the company VEstjyskSTålteknik A/S, whose name was shortened to Vestas. The new company, which initially made household appliances, started to produce agricultural equipment.
# 1970s - During the second oil crisis, Vestas began to examine the potential of the wind turbine as an alternative source of clean energy.
# 1979 - Vestas delivered the first wind turbines. The industry experienced a genuine boom at the start of the 1980s, but in 1986 Vestas was forced to suspend payments because the market in the United States was destroyed due to the expiration of a special tax legislation that provided advantageous conditions for the establishment of wind turbines.

http://www.vestas.com/en/about-vestas/profile/vestas-brief-history.aspx

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x261737#262053

No, you are very, very wrong; they have NEVER been a fossil fuel company
Posted by muriel_volestrangler on Sun Oct-17-10 06:14 AM

Vestas is a wind turbine company. It does not sell oil or gas. It never has. What it says, in one part of its website, is "Wind, Oil and Gas is Vestas’ vision, which expresses the ambition of making wind an energy source on a par with fossil fuels." So, they want to be as big as the huge oil and gas companies that supply so much of the world's energy. That's where the 'oil and gas' phrase comes from.

I realise that you're hoping no-one will check to see what your link says, because you're counting on them thinking "yet another boring piece of crap from NNadir, why bother looking?", but you are being highly misleading.

It is not a fossil fuel company. Your claim is incorrect, wrong and misleading. You have the gall to accuse others of dishonesty in the same post. You have no shame.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x261737#262052

[madokie]

23. Answer me this,

And why do you not owe us an explanation, I ask

[madokie]

24. my bad wrong place

[DrGregory]

34. Because..

And why do you not owe us an explanation, I ask
-----------------------------------------------

Because you wouldn't understand the explanation
if it was given.

Dr. Greg

[madokie]

57. So far I haven't read an explanation you've given that was coherent yet

so you're probably right that I wouldn't understand it

[DrGregory]

75. Same explanation as Professor Muller.

So far I haven't read an explanation you've given that was coherent yet
so you're probably right that I wouldn't understand it
==========================================================

As I stated, I have given you the same explanation that
Professor Richard Muller of the University of California
at Berkeley Physics Department gave in his book
"Physics for Future President".

You evidently didn't understand it.

However, the vast majority of the readers of Professor
Muller's book understand that very same explanation.

If they can understand it, why can't you?

On second thought, never mind. The answer is OBVIOUS.

Dr. Greg

[kristopher]

76. The only thing obvious is your intent to misdirect attention and misinform the discussion.

Your answers are some of the most bizarre, incoherent screeds I've ever witnessed on this forum. I say "some of" because they are eerily similar in content and construction to two other posters here. The formatting is different, but the verbiage and linguistic mannerisms are so close it is startling.

[DrGregory]

81. Just because you don't understand them...

Your answers are some of the most bizarre, incoherent screeds I've ever witnessed on this forum.
--------------------------------------------------------------

Just because you don't understand them doesn't mean that they
are incoherent.

I've noted that about people who are poorly versed in science.
When they encounter a real scientist, they can't understand them.

I attempt to "stoop low" and simplify the concepts, but one can
only simplify a concept so far before the basics of the concept
are just not there.

It's like attempting to explain the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics
to a dog. No matter how hard one tries, the dog just doesn't
have the brain power.

Dr. Greg

[kristopher]

86. Let's let readers form their own conclusion

Here is a blast from the past:

Your original post where you quote me and respond is provided, as is my response:


Dr Greg on energy efficiency

For example, did you know that for our personal transportation fleet, about 80% of the energy in the petroleum fuel doesn't even need to be replaced as it is simply wasted as heat and serves no functional purpose?
=========================================

The above is a disingenuous half-truth. While it is true that the engine of a
automobile is about 20% efficient and 80% of the energy goes as waste heat.

However, what he is NOT saying is that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics states
that you HAVE to have waste heat in order to get the 20% useful work.

He is attempting to imply that we could somehow get that 20% desired useful
energy without the 80% waste heat.

This shows IGNORANCE of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. We MUST according to
the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics have that waste heat because that is what carries
away the entropy.

The mechanical work energy of the engine doesn't carry away any entropy - so
you would have a source of entropy and no sink for the entropy. Such an engine
could not continue running in a cycle.

So that 80% waste heat DOES HAVE a purpose - it carries away the entropy and
it ALLOWS us to get that 20% useful work.

Without the 80% "waste heat" - you can NOT GET the 20% useful mechanical work.

This is high school level physics - get a high school physics text and turn to
the section of the Laws of Thermodynamics.

Dr. Greg

Leaving aside the other peculiarities of your statement, I'll focus on the main point - why we DON'T have to replace the wasted energy from an internal combustion engine when we consider how to power our personal transportation fleet.

The short version is that you only have that degree of waste heat in this application when your energy carrier is petroleum, not when the energy carrier is electricity.

To assist those not familiar with the topic (like "Dr." Greg):

Petroleum is an energy carrier that requires a chemical reaction to release the solar energy stored in the hydrocarbon bond. To harness that stored energy requires harnessing the heat released on combustion and converting it to mechanical energy via an internal combustion engine. So we have solar energy stored by living organisms that has been sequestered away for eons, then extracted, transported, refined, transported some more and then used in a contained explosion. Further, that mechanical energy must be transferred from the point of the reaction (cylinder) to the point of work (turning the wheel). All of those transactions are a debit against the original solar energy stored in the hydrocarbons.

The fuel 'tank to wheel efficiency' of most autos is actually between 12-20% with most vehicles coming in around 15%.

Alternatively, we can harvest the solar directly with PV or solar thermal, or we can harvest it indirectly by capturing the mechanical force of the wind or water currents (both motions are a product of solar input).

The output of all of those technologies is electricity. This electricity might be distributed for immediate use or it might be stored in various types of batteries (ie thermal, chemical or gravity).

Petroleum has been difficult to replace because of its high energy density. However, as noted above, because of waste from the process of harnessing the stored energy of petroleum, that degree of energy density isn't what needs to be replaced. All that we need to replace is the amount that turns the wheel and propels the auto down the road.

State of the art electric motors turn about 95% of their input electrical energy into mechanical energy. Since the shaft of the electric motor directly turns the wheel of the auto all of the mechanical output goes to pushing the car.

State of the art lithium batteries used in the electric vehicles (EVs) and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) that all manufacturers are now turning to can store and deliver the input electric energy with efficiencies greater than 85%, almost always higher than 90% and often as high as 99%.

We derive the 'tank to wheel efficiency' for an electric vehicle by putting those numbers together:

From a low of 100%(input) X 85% (battery) X 95% (motor) = 80.75% efficiency

to a high of

1oo% of input stored in a 99% efficient battery through a 95% efficient motor = 94.05% efficiency for a loss to heat of between 6-20% depending on the technology versus a loss of 80-88% for internal combustion technology.

Battery technology is rapidly developing and technologies in the production design phase are capable of storing sufficient energy in battery packs of the weight used today to give an auto the weight of today's Volt or Leaf a range of about 800 miles.

When you hear all the talk about "energy efficiency" being a large part of the solution to our energy problems, this is the type of solution that is under discussion.

So we can waste between 80-88% of the energy in a gallon of gasoline used for our personal transportation or we can waste between 6-20% of each kilowatt of electricity we use.

88% waste or 6% waste.

"Dr." Greg, all of that is consistent with the laws of physics.



Also see:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=115&topic_id=256645#258302

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=115&topic_id=256645#258337

[DrGregory]

92. Gee - I thought you would have learned something by now.

Look at the first part of your response where I quote
you saying "waste heat" has no useful purpose.

That demonstrates your MANIFEST IGNORANCE of the laws
of Physics. Waste heat HAS a purpose. The purpose of
waste heat is to discharge entropy. Evidently you must
not have learned anything about entropy and the
2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

Is it that you are UNWILLING to learn, or are you
UNABLE to learn?

I posted a link to a very readable tutorial courtesy
of the Physics Dept. at Georgia State University:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/seclaw.html


You state:
"The short version is that you only have that degree of waste heat in this application when your energy carrier is petroleum, not when the energy carrier is electricity."

If there is a statement that shows your COMPLETE LACK of
understanding of the physics of energy, it is this one.
Once we make electricity, which has zero entropy, we no
longer have to discharge entropy, and hence we don't have
to discharge waste heat. What you miserably FAIL to
comprehend is that we can't make electricity or any other
type of zero entropy work without the discharge of waste
heat.

Your statement above is a nonsensical as if someone said:

"The short version is that if you get your wooden furniture
from the furniture store, you don't have to cut down any
trees..."

Just because you didn't see the trees being cut or in the
case of the energy, you don't know where the waste heat
is exhausted, doesn't mean it is not happening.

Please tell me you are NOT one of these IDIOTS that think
that PV cells convert all the sunlight into electricity
without waste heat.

PV cells are NOT 100% efficient. Additionally, the laws
of Physics tell us that PV cells will NEVER NEVER NEVER
be 100% efficient. In fact, they won't even get close.

Just as Pierre Carnot derived the Carnot efficiency limit
from the 2nd Law, and even today about 200 years later,
we are still limited by Carnot's calculations; the laws
of Physics put limits on PV cells that they will NEVER
exceed. Evidently you don't know about those limits.

Try looking up "quantum efficiency". The Laws of
Quantum Mechanics which dictate how electrons behave
put limits on PV cells. These are basic physical laws
that will NEVER be circumvented. The basic laws that
electrons obey give us those limits and electrons will
always obey those laws regardless of what device they
are in. No scientist is working on circumventing those
limits, because they know it can NOT be done.

I have colleagues that work in making PV cells more
efficient, but they know the limits. Those scientists
are also EXTREMELY DISGUSTED with the unintelligent
cheerleaders that make uninformed promises for solar
that they will be expected to deliver on. They say
the cheerleaders are NOT being helpful.

"Dr." Greg, all of that is consistent with the laws of physics.

WRONG!!! You are NOT the physicist here, I am!!

It's as if you said to the Justices of the US Supreme Court,
"all of that is consistent with the Constitution", when the
9 Justices have UNANIMOUSLY ruled against you.

You are NOT the expert in law - you have no place to
counter the rulings of the US Supreme Court Justices.

Likewise, you demonstrate a level of knowledge of physics
and science that an elementary school student should be
ashamed of. Yet you portend to tell a physicist what is
and is not consistent with the laws of physics.

Take your ill-founded statement above that waste heat
serves no functional purpose. Why do you think the
engineers that designed the engine or whatever device
made provisions for the discharge of heat?

Do you think that the engineers decided it would be "fun"
to throw energy away? Do you think it is there just to
make the consumer pay for something useless?

The engineers made those provisions because they HAVE to.
The laws of Physics dictate the necessity for the discharge
of waste heat.

Do you think ( term used loosely ) that the laws of Physics
just decided to pick on energy sources that derive their
energy from oil?

Sorry to burst your "greenie" fantasy; but NO!! The laws
of Physics put limits on us EVERY time we generate energy.

BTW - your comparison of the efficiency of a motor and that
of an engines is INAPT!! You still have FAILED to learn the
difference between an "engine" and a "motor".

You have a LONG LITANY of MISUNDERSTANDINGS and TOTAL LACK
of the vast majority of physical principles.

That's why I find it so "amusing" when you tell me everything
is consistent with the laws of physics. It is only consistent
with the 0.00001% that you MISUNDERSTAND.

Dr. Greg

[kristopher]

93. Thank you, I couldn't have asked for a better sample...

to confirm my characterization of your writings as "bizarre, incoherent screeds".

My statement regarding waste heat is one in a series of ideas that go together to form a sentence, which, when taken with other ideas in other sentences form the matrix of meaning within which my use of "waste heat" is placed.

What actually happened is that you were completely and utterly incorrect about the relative efficiencies of an auto with an ICE and one with electric drive and you have tried to gluff and bluff your way through it with the same type of hysterical rant we were just treated to. I think they might have meds that could help you BTW.

The "waste heat" from an internal combustion engine and the transfer of usable power to the wheels represents energy not being applied to perform the work we are trying to accomplish - it is precisely labeled as such in both common parlance and in countless scientific publications of every discipline -including physics. Your diversion attempts to play on a lack of awareness of how boundaries are set for an analysis; it fails.


Now, what *was* that other brilliant pronouncement you made that involved 90%? I do seem to remember it was something where "you demonstrate a level of knowledge of physics and science that an elementary school student should be ashamed of."

For some reason the details escape me at the moment, but I'm sure they'll come back to me. I'll let you know when they do. There have been so damned many times you've proven beyond doubt that you are a sham that it is hard to keep them all straight.

[DrGregory]

94. BALONEY!

to confirm my characterization of your writings as "bizarre, incoherent screeds".

My statement regarding waste heat is one in a series of ideas that go together to form a sentence, which, when taken with other ideas in other sentences form the matrix of meaning within which my use of "waste heat" is placed.
==========================================

Again, just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean that
it is an incoherent screed.

Rather than just labeling it an "incoherent screed", could
you possibly EXPLAIN why you "think" it is incoherent?

Do you not know that the laws of physics, in essence,
REQUIRE you to "waste" energy?

If you took the time to READ the material at the
Georgia State University Physics Department web page
that I reference, then you will see that I am ACCURATE
as to my portrayal of the physics.

However, you won't do that will you? You will just
make uninformed pronouncements that I must be a fraud.

Tell me truthfully - did you take physics in high school?
Did you take any science in junior high or middle school?
Did they give you any instruction at all in elementary school?

Tell us just what education you have in the "hard" sciences
like physics. Be prepared to answer some questions for
that level of science training. Let's see how well you
really understand science.

Dr. Greg

[NNadir]

26. In whose universe have I "no shame." I simply read the Vestas report. You obviously didn't.

It says right on the report, "Vestas, Wind, Oil & Gas Company."

Here is the company "vision":

Wind, Oil and Gas. Our ambitious vision for the future We have a three-cornered vision for the future for our energy-hungry world – wind, oil and gas.

This particular line of horseshit can be seen right on a Vestas link, which of course, neither you nor your pal will read, comes from something with the Orwellian name "
http://www.vestas.com/en/about-vestas/sustainability.aspx">Sustainability. The shape of things to come"

You are free to spectacularly misinterpret this from the Vestas website, and engage your obvious bias indicating that you - and everyone else - is in denial about the relationship between the gas (and oil) industry and the wind industry.

I favor the immediate phase out of oil, gas and coal. Neither you, your pal, nor Vestas do.

[kristopher]

27. Your wrote what you wrote, no one is spinning your words.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=262189&mesg_id=262215

Your assertion that I do not "favor the immediate phase out of oil, gas and coal. Neither you, your pal, nor Vestas do" is completely contradicted by the FACT that deploying nuclear energy is a slower, more expensive solution to climate change. You can point all you want to numbers created by the past 50 years of energy policy, but that tells us nothing about the circumstances going forward. For that we need to look at detailed comparative analyses of all the carbon reducing technologies, strategies, and policies that are available to us; and those analyses tell us that nuclear power is a slow, expensive technology encumbered with a range of problems that do not exist with the renewable alternatives.

So in spite of your rhetoric, the policies you endorse tell us that you are far more concerned with promoting the product of the nuclear power industry than you are with "the immediate phase out of oil, gas and coal."

[madokie]

25. All knowing one how is it that we're supposed to learn

if you won't explain yourself. My bet is you have no answers and only smart mouth bullshit instead

[DrGregory]

63. The UNWILLING to learn..

if you won't explain yourself. My bet is you have no answers and only smart mouth bullshit instead
=========================================

Because for some, it is a waste of time to explain.

We have people who are UNWILLING to learn.

For example, do you remember my explanation in the thread about
the Canadian steam generators when I said that "radioactivity is
not contagious". Stable isotopes are usually made radioactive
only by neutron irradiation or if some radioactive material sticks
to you. You called me a fraud.

From Professor Richard Muller of University of California - Berkeley
in his book, "Physics for Future Presidents" (highly recommended)
excerpted here:

http://books.google.com/books?id=Ogs_4gPqvv4C&pg=PA121&lpg=PA121&dq=Muller+radioactivity+contagious&source=bl&ots=KFGV3kUEnw&sig=37jBoutr0Miv_u79BevBculst_c&hl=en&ei=oGq-TNTfMojAsAPJhYneCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&sqi=2&ved=0CBMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

"In the movies, people exposed to atomic bombs come away glowing in
the dark. In the real world, the answer is no, it is not contagious -
at least most of the time, for most radioactivity....
There is an exception - a kind of radiation that can make you
radioactive: neutrons."

All EXACTLY as I described; and was called a "fraud" by the
UNWILLING to learn.

Dr. Greg

[DrGregory]

33. AMEN!!! Brother AMEN!!!

We don't owe anything to anyone who is close minded, dogmatic, uninformed and completely uneducated about nuclear science or to anyone who hates nuclear science on the grounds that it is clearly over their heads.
---------------------------------

Well said!!! Well said!!!

Dr. Greg

[XemaSab]

19. I'll play

Here's what Wikipedia says about baseload power:

Baseload plant, (also baseload power plant or base load power station) is an energy plant devoted to the production of baseload supply. Baseload plants are the production facilities used to meet some or all of a given region's continuous energy demand, and produce energy at a constant rate, usually at a low cost relative to other production facilities available to the system. Examples of baseload plants using nonrenewable fuels include nuclear and coal-fired plants. Among the renewable energy sources, hydroelectric, geothermal, biogas, biomass, solar thermal with storage and OTEC can provide baseload power. Baseload plants typically run at all times through the year except in the case of repairs or scheduled maintenance. (Hydroelectric power also has the desirable attribute of dispatchability, but a hydroelectric plant may run low on its fuel (water at the reservoir elevation) if a long drought occurs over its drainage basin.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_load_power_plant

[DrGregory]

32. "Shoreham Effect" has yet to be addressed...

Answer these questions -
1) Why are no turn key nuclear plants being built?

2) Why are all the planned projects in the US being abandoned, even when there are unprecedented levels of governmental support?

3) Why were no plants even being proposed for jurisdictions that do not have construction work in progress (CWIP) policies on the books to allow the builders to recoup cost overruns and the costs of abandoned projects?

Answer those three questions and we'll have something to talk about.
======================================================================

One of the biggest problems that has yet to be addressed is the
"Shoreham Effect". A little history is needed.

Shoreham was one of the last nuclear power plants built when the USA
was building nuclear power plants in the '70s and '80s. Shoreham
is located on Long Island, New York; just north of Brookhaven National
Lab.

The LILCO power company went through all the legal processes and
obtained a construction permit to build the plant. The plant was
built properly, the NRC inspectors approved the construction. Then
LILCO applied for an operating license to actually operate the plant.

However, New York now had an anti-nuclear Governor in one Mario Cuomo.
Governor Cuomo ordered that the local governments not approve the plant
emergency plans. The approval of the local governments is required under
the NRC rules. There was nothing deficient about the emergency plans.
There are nuclear reactors at the nearby Brookhaven National Lab. The
emergency plans for Brookhaven were approved. The Shoreham plans mirrored
the already approved plans for the Brookhaven reactors.

Additionally, Governor Cuomo appointed anti-nuclear members to the New York
Public Utilities Commission. Before Shoreham could operate, it had to get
a ruling from the Commission as to what it could charge for the electricity
generated by Shoreham. LILCO was told they could charge $0.00 for the
Shoreham electricity. They could give the electricity away, but because it
was a nuclear power plant, they could not charge for it.

Like all power plants, LILCO had borrowed the money to build Shoreham. Now
Shoreham could not get a license, and if it got a license, it could not charge
for the electricity. There was no way that LILCO could pay back the cost of
building Shoreham, let alone make anything in the way of a profit.

The State of New York offered LILCO some relief, but only if it agreed not to
operate the Shoreham plant. It was too little, too late, and LILCO went bankrupt
and had to be taken over by the State.

One of the big problems with nuclear regulatory laws is that it allows for a
company to be given assurances that they can build / operate a nuclear power
plant at a given site. A construction license is given with those assurances.
The company then spends LOTS of money building the plant. However, when it comes
time for operating the plant, the State has another chance to change its mind.
The Governorship may have changed. The agreements as to being allowed to build
and operate the plant are NOT binding; and so it remains so today.

The local government has an effective veto on the plant AFTER it is built.
A relatively small group can veto a facility meant to service a much larger
group.

In the late 1980s, the city of Oakland, California had a "no nukes" ordinance.
The city prohibited anything that had to do with nuclear power or nuclear weapons
within the city limits. The Dept of Energy then had a field office in Oakland.
The purpose of that office was to oversee the operation of Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory located about 40 miles east in Livermore. Lawrence Livermore
is one of the two labs in the USA that designs the US military's stockpile of
nuclear weapons. Therefore, the field office in Oakland was in violation of the
city's "no nukes" ordinance.

The Reagan and George H.W. Bush Administrations challenged the Oakland ordinance
in Court. In the late '80s, Judge Stanley Sporkin ruled the Oakland ordinance
unconstitutional. The US Congress authorized the Dept. of Energy to build and
maintain nuclear weapons for the US military on behalf of the people of the
USA as a whole. It made no sense to give a smaller group, the citizens of
Oakland, a veto power over an enterprise authorized for and by the duly
elected representatives of the USA as a whole. The Oakland ordinance was
ruled unconstitutional.

Why do we not have a similar ruling in the case of nuclear power plants. They
are built and service a large group of people. However, our laws permit a
relatively few people to veto a facility to serve the masses only on the basis
that they live nearby.

Some States like California have outlawed the building of any new nuclear
power plants. Others, like Maine, put onerous restrictions on nuclear power
plant operators. Under a 1998 law, if a company wants to operate a nuclear
power plant in Maine, then 1/3 of the energy generated by the company has to
come from "renewables". If Exelon or Entergy wants to operate nuclear power
plants, their "specialty", why not let them? Do we say to the airlines that
if they want to operate airliners, then they also have to operate railroad
trains, and that at least 1/3 of their passenger-miles have to be by rail?

Our legal system has evolved into a system that is EXTREMELY nuclear
"unfriendly". Sometimes I wonder that companies haven't shutdown the
100+ plants we now have operating. Of course, that is what the anti-nukes
would like.

How about a legal system that plays "fair"? How about one where legal
decisions are binding. How about one that can't give a company assurances,
have the company commit large funds to the project, and then the government
gets to change its mind?

The reason nuclear power flourishes in countries like France, but not in
the USA has a LOT to do with the legal environment.

Dr. Greg

[kristopher]

37. Nowhere in the world are nuclear plants built under turnkey contracts.

The US has more nuclear power installed than anywhere else.

The commercial nuclear industry of the military industrial complex got EVERYTHING they asked for in the way of policy support from Shrub. Then they got a hell of a lot more. Included in that are payments to the vendor for delays incurred as a result of what you term "the Shoreham Effect".

So your explanation fails both on the fact that the same factors are at work worldwide, and the fact that the current regulatory regime is 100% and MORE than what the Commercial Nuclear Arm of the MIC has asked for.

[Nederland]

38. Why are turnkey contracts so important to you?

Please explain. Oh wait, I forget, you are scared to answer my questions...

[kristopher]

40. Turnkey contracts are merely the vehicle that exposes the economic failure of nuclear power.

That is why the nuclear supporters here have spent 2 days using every snake-in-the-grass tactic to avoid actually answering this very simple question.

[Nederland]

41. Really?

Are you claiming that anything that is not build under turnkey contracts is automatically an economic failure?

[kristopher]

42. There you go again taking an A and claiming it is a J.

My words were selected because they conveyed the meaning I intended.

If you want to write my words for me, submit your suggestions in triplicate 48 hours in advance of planned publication for disapproval.

I have to add that your method of argumentation is, quite literally, so disgustingly dishonest it almost makes me want to hurl.

[Nederland]

43. I'm sorry

I was under the illusion that the form of your argument was this:

Statement #1: There are no nuclear plants being built under turnkey contracts.
Statement #2: Anything not being built under turnkey contracts is an economic failure.

Therefore: Nuclear is an economic failure.


If that is not the form of your argument, please enlighten all of us with the correct one. Thanks.

[kristopher]

45. Statement 2 is entirely your creation and it is not possible to attribute it to anything I wrote

That is precisely why I find dealing with you disgusting - it is like having to take a slimy eel off the hook.

[caraher]

46. Then correct the logic

You feel free to issue challenges like the OP but can't even provide more nuanced logic for your own position?

The fact is that right now every alternative to business as usual faces severe economic obstacles (from a variety of sources, ranging from the legal environment to systemic hidden subsidies for fossil fuel use). Please explain (this is a sincere request!) why this particular economic obstacle is a uniquely compelling one - or if it isn't, at least what you take the force of this argument to be in your portfolio of anti-nuclear arguments.

[kristopher]

47. If you *are* sincere, then provide a sincere response to the OP.

[Nederland]

52. The answer has already been in Post #32

...which if you look up, is the origin of this sub-thread.

[caraher]

67. I wasn't being addressed in the OP

Your challenge in the OP was to nuclear supporters. I'm best described as a nuclear agnostic. I think there are serious problems with nuclear power but that it might also be an essential element of weaning ourselves off fossil fuels. I've been slammed by the "usual suspects" on both sides of the nuclear argument on DU, for saying very little, really.

If you can't be bothered to persuade someone in the middle that this turnkey issue is crucial to the economics of nuclear power, why emphasize it so much?

By the way, it's extremely off-putting to be subjected to an arbitrary challenge to prove one's sincerity.

[kristopher]

68. Patience is a virtue.

It is obvious you understand I've attempted to engage a segment of DUers on a specific and well defined set of questions.
Those are:

1) Why are no turn key nuclear plants being built?

2) Why are all the planned projects in the US being abandoned, even when there are unprecedented levels of governmental support?

3) Why were no plants even being proposed for jurisdictions that do not have construction work in progress (CWIP) policies on the books to allow the builders to recoup cost overruns and the costs of abandoned projects?


Frankly, I'm not sure why you think I should discard that effort to cater to your personal view of how my side of the discussion should be conducted.

If I were you reading this I'd have done some research myself to find the answers (they are easy to discover - this isn't a secret) or if I were a bit less aggressive at seeking information than I actually am, I would have been pointing out to the nuclear "environmentalists" that out of dozens of posts, only one person has even begun to actually address the questions asked. It is amazing to me that a disinterested, objective person would feel my insistence on actually maintaining the challenge is somehow a problem more significant than the obvious stonewalling by those who routinely bash renewable energy while promoting nuclear.

[Nihil]

72. And, strangely enough, you're still not being addressed, just dismissed ...

... with the same spam as in the OP ...

> If you can't be bothered to persuade someone in the middle that this turnkey
> issue is crucial to the economics of nuclear power, why emphasize it so much?

Because it appears to provide another paste buffer to throw at people instead
of actually answering questions.


> By the way, it's extremely off-putting to be subjected to an arbitrary challenge
> to prove one's sincerity.

You are correct but don't expect any change in behaviour from the person concerned ...
:shrug:

[Nederland]

50. Yes it is my creation

I was forced to create it because you never specified the missing step in your argument. In symbolic logic terms, a syllogism takes the following form:

Statement #1: A is true
Statement #2: If A is true, then B is true

Conclusion: B is true


The problem is your argument until now basically consists of two parts:

Statement #1: There are no nuclear plants being built under turnkey contracts.

Conclusion: Nuclear is an economic failure.

The conclusion does not immediately follow from the statement. What is missing is a logical premise (a Statement #2) that allows your conclusion to flow from your Statement #1. I provided a possible Statement #2 that would work, but you rejected it. That's fine, but until you prove such a statement, your argument is incomplete.

[kristopher]

51. An accurate description of why nuclear is not suitable for turnkey projects...

fills in the missing statement.

It isn't secret information, it isn't hidden information; it is widely discussed and well known.

Now pay attention carefully, this is going to be complicated for you:

What I want to see is how many nuclear "environmentalists" are actually honest agents for their stated positions.

Since this has gone on for three days with not one actual response that addresses the questions from the context of the well known and widely discussed problems affecting the ability to deliver on turnkey projects, it has to be concluded that the nuclear "environmentalists" on the EE forum are actually far more interested in HIDING and OBSTRUCTING honest discussion than they are in finding the best solution for the environment and society.

That is why I try to remember to put the word /environmentalist/ in the term /nuclear environmentalist/ in scare quotes. The appeal to environmental motives has all the appearances of being a total sham.

[Nederland]

53. No it does not

An accurate description of why nuclear is not suitable for turnkey projects cannot possibly fill the missing statement. The missing statement must contain logical criteria that specifies the conditions under which the statement and the conclusion are linked.

It just now occurs to me that you do not have a clue about how to construct a logical argument. Here is an example of a deductive argument:

All men are mortal
Socrates is a man
Therefore, Socrates is mortal

The first premise states that all objects classified as 'men' have the attribute 'mortal'. The second premise states that 'Socrates' is classified as a man--a member of the set 'men'. The conclusion states that 'Socrates' must be mortal because he inherits this attribute from his classification as a man.

Here are a couple primers on the subject:

http://www.philosophypages.com/lg/e01.htm

http://www.buzzle.com/articles/deductive-reasoning-examples.html

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wcs.20/pdf


Learning how to correctly construct a logical argument is the key to understanding the world and engaging in conversation. I recommend you go through them so you will have an easier time of things around here.

[kristopher]

55. Then why are you still afraid to engage on the questions asked?

Why do you prefer instead to engage in slimy sophistry and pathetic attempts to divert the discussion?

Bwaaaak, bwaaaak.... bwaaaak!!!

No?

I asked three questions in the OP. Those questions were:

1) Why are no turn key nuclear plants being built?

2) Why are all the planned projects in the US being abandoned, even when there are unprecedented levels of governmental support?

3) Why were no plants even being proposed for jurisdictions that do not have construction work in progress (CWIP) policies on the books to allow the builders to recoup cost overruns and the costs of abandoned projects?

Answer those three questions and we'll have something to talk about.

[GliderGuider]

56. Stop.

Who would cross the Bridge of Death must answer me these questions three, ere the other side he see.

[DrGregory]

60. I know...

Who would cross the Bridge of Death must answer me these questions three, ere the other side he see.
================================================

I know..red. No BLUE!! Arrrrgh...

Dr. Greg

[Nederland]

64. I'm not afraid, it's just pointless

Intelligent conversation requires that both sides understand the rudimentary aspects of logic. You sadly, do not.

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

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

[kristopher]

69. You are most definitely very afraid to engage on wubstance.

If you were not you would have long ago addressed directly the three questions I asked and torn my poor logic to shreds (as I do to yours on a near daily basis) by wielding the truth as a precision sword.

Instead you attempt to divert the subject; base arguments on false attributions; and just generally attempt every slippery, slimy Karl Rovish method of altering reality you can think of.

These are the questions. If you are not afraid, then answer them forthrightly.

1) Why are no turn key nuclear plants being built?

2) Why are all the planned projects in the US being abandoned, even when there are unprecedented levels of governmental support?

3) Why were no plants even being proposed for jurisdictions that do not have construction work in progress (CWIP) policies on the books to allow the builders to recoup cost overruns and the costs of abandoned projects?

[Nederland]

70. Right back at you

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x262189#262198

The deal is still on the table. Take it or leave it. Your choice.

[kristopher]

71. No, it isn't "right back at you"; it is an evasion.

1) Why are no turn key nuclear plants being built?

2) Why are all the planned projects in the US being abandoned, even when there are unprecedented levels of governmental support?

3) Why were no plants even being proposed for jurisdictions that do not have construction work in progress (CWIP) policies on the books to allow the builders to recoup cost overruns and the costs of abandoned projects?

[Nederland]

74. Right back at you

If me refusing to answer three of your questions is evasion, then you refusing to answer three of my questions is evasion too. The difference is I offered to answer your questions first, so long as you simply promised to answer mine afterwards. Presented with this deal, you ran away like a scared puppy dog.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x262189#262198

The deal is still on the table. Take it or leave it. Your choice.

[DrGregory]

78. puppy dog?

Presented with this deal, you ran away like a scared puppy dog.
---------------------------------------------------------

What an insult to our young canine friends.

I think Tommy "One Note" discovered a new word, "turnkey" and
is going to BORE us all to death with it.

I think it is simple to understand. Contrary to the assumptions
of Tommy "One Note", the problems are NOT within the control of
the vendors. The problems are political, specifically politicians
ABUSING their offices, as well as the sorry excuse we have for
nuclear regulatory laws in the USA. The vendors would be foolish
to accept responsibility for circumstances they have no control over.

That's been explained to Tommy "One Note", but the cut / paste keys
are mightier than the neurons appears to be his credo.

Dr. Greg

[Confusious]

82. Only nuclear power

It's an exception, as evidenced by his answer.

[DrGregory]

59. What reality distortion field are you living in?

Nowhere in the world are nuclear plants built under turnkey contracts.
===================================================================

Actually the very first nuclear power plants WERE turnkey contracts.

http://econpapers.repec.org/paper/cltsswopa/175.htm

The whole problem is uncertainty. Uncertainty due to the legal system.
In the USA, we had a sniveling weasel of a Governor in one Mario Cumomo
who ABUSED the law for his own politics. When the State of New York
passed the laws creating a Public Utility Commission, it was solely for
the protection of utility consumers. It was NEVER meant to be used as
a foil to use against the power company because it used a particular
energy source. When Congress passed our nuclear regulatory laws, they
assumed the States would work with the US regulators in good faith and
not be intransigent as New York was. Governor Cuomo swore an oath to
uphold the law, and the sniveling little weasel didn't live up to that
oath. How the Courts allowed him to ABUSE the laws so flagrantly is
beyond me. I guess the judges didn't have any scruples either.

When the provisions of the laws allow delays to occur that are unrelated
to the performance of the parties to the contract, can you really blame
them for not wanting to engage in a turnkey contract.

Wouldn't it be nice if we had the legal principle that they have in
British Courts called "loser pays". If you are a anti-nuke, and you
file a lawsuit and hold up the construction and / or operation of the
power plant and either the constructor or the utility amasses additional
debt due to the delay, and the Court rules against the anti-nuke; then
the anti-nuke should foot the bill for the damages he / she caused. That
would only be fair.

I keep hearing this nonsense about the nuclear industry being part of the
"military industrial complex". How is the commercial nuclear power industry
part of the military complex?

Additionally, they didn't get everything from Bush 43. There were NO changes
in the regulatory laws under Bush 43. We still have the same uncertainty
promulgating legal system that we have always had. Bush tried to support
the nuclear industry with the GNEP program which essentially went nowhere.

My argument does NOT fail because the same factors are at work world wide.
For example, in France, once the decision to build / not build a nuclear
power plant is adjudicated, then the decision stands. If the French Government
and Courts reject the protestations of the anti-nukes and say the project
can go forward, then the anti-nukes have to pack their bags and go home.
They can't wait around a few years and file another Court action to stop
the plant.

The nuclear industry would like a single stage system similar to the way
a house is authorized with building permits. Before construction, the
decision is adjudicated, and a permit issued. If the construction proceeds
according to the permit as determined by the building inspector, then the
occupancy of the house is automatic. No need for more lawsuits.

Again with the nuclear power industry being a part of the military industrial
complex??? You don't know who the military gets its nuclear weaponry from
do you?

Dr. Greg

[kristopher]

65. False Bullshit Sourced Directly to the Nuclear Power Tentacle of the MIC

You already tried that same false crap upthread and I pointed out:

Nowhere in the world are nuclear plants built under turnkey contracts.

The US has more nuclear power installed than anywhere else.

The commercial nuclear industry of the military industrial complex got EVERYTHING they asked for in the way of policy support from Shrub. Then they got a hell of a lot more. Included in that are payments to the vendor for delays incurred as a result of what you term "the Shoreham Effect".

So your explanation fails both on the fact that the same factors are at work worldwide, and the fact that the current regulatory regime is 100% and MORE than what the Commercial Nuclear Arm of the MIC has asked for.

[Nihil]

73. Woohoo ... bonus points for the Hentai reference! (n/t)

:hide:

[DrGregory]

77. Tommy "One Note" strikes again.

The commercial nuclear industry of the military industrial complex got EVERYTHING they asked for in the way of policy support from Shrub. Then they got a hell of a lot more. Included in that are payments to the vendor for delays incurred as a result of what you term "the Shoreham Effect".
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Do you actually believe that repeating your previous post is any
way to answer a question to that post? Can you use your brain as
well as your cut / paste keys?

What the nuclear industry would like are some rewrites of the laws
with regard to nuclear regulation. You claim that the industry
got EVERYTHING it wanted from Bush. Could you name just ONE THING
besides the loan guarantees that they got from Bush. I don't
recall the Congress rewriting our laws....

Where is the commercial nuclear power industry beholding to the
military industrial complex? The nuclear power industry in the
USA is certainly in the doldrums.

The nuclear weapons industry is actually riding quite high,
especially in the budget President Obama put forth for FY2011.
Obama is giving the nuclear weapons industry MORE MONEY than
they EVER got out of Bush 43. From the Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/02/AR2010020203884.html

"President Obama's fiscal 2011 budget blueprint calls for an
increase in funding of more than 13 percent for the agency
that oversees the U.S. nuclear weapons complex, a greater
percentage increase than for any other government agency."

The biggest percentage increase in FY2011 under Obama won't be
renewable energy or health care, but NUCLEAR WEAPONS.

Dr. Greg

[Confusious]

83. CTRL-V for VICTORY! nt

[DrGregory]

80. Tommy "One Note" strikes again.

and the fact that the current regulatory regime is 100% and MORE than what the Commercial Nuclear Arm of the MIC has asked for.
============================================

When the State / Local governments can effectively VETO
projects just because they are nuclear, as in the case
of Shoreham, then that is something the nuclear industry
NEVER asked for. Therefore, it is totally DISINGENUOUS
to say that the current regulatory system is more than
they could ask for.

When projects that were approved at the construction
permit phase are stonewalled at the operating license
phase by lawsuits, and throngs of "rent a mob"s marching
on the facility, then why would a vendor take responsibility
for a delay when the delay is NOT the fault of the vendor
but the fault of "rent a mob"?

The answer to your question is TRIVIALLY OBVIOUS.

Do you have anything more of substance, or are you going to
continue to BORE us with this "turnkey" nonsense.

Dr. Greg

[txlibdem]

100. The anti-nukes explained

[GliderGuider]

84. In the last 45 years

the only thing that has ever made a dent in fossil fuel use is nuclear power.



When we consider humanity's primary energy use patterns, do we expect the next 45 years to be much different?

CO2 is a global issue. The pattern of primary energy use is a global pattern. Local mitigation isn't making any difference.

It's time to get on with adaptation.

(CTRL-V for Victory!)

[kristopher]

85. In the future the use of nuclear power is counterproductive...

to the goal of the pursuing most cost/time efficient solution to climate change.

YOU and others who like to spend their spare time speaking on behalf of the nuclear industry may like to pretend that garbage like you ceaselessly produce above is somehow "science" but the real analysts and planners working on the energy component of AGW are quite certain what represents reality - and in the real world the "opportunity costs" of nuclear mean it decidedly inferior to the tier 1 and 2 alternatives as shown below.

Abstract here: http://www.rsc.org/publishing/journals/EE/article.asp?doi=b809990c

Full article for download here: http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/revsolglobwarmairpol.htm


Energy Environ. Sci., 2009, 2, 148 - 173, DOI: 10.1039/b809990c

Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security

Mark Z. Jacobson

Abstract
This paper reviews and ranks major proposed energy-related solutions to global warming, air pollution mortality, and energy security while considering other impacts of the proposed solutions, such as on water supply, land use, wildlife, resource availability, thermal pollution, water chemical pollution, nuclear proliferation, and undernutrition.

Nine electric power sources and two liquid fuel options are considered. The electricity sources include solar-photovoltaics (PV), concentrated solar power (CSP), wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, wave, tidal, nuclear, and coal with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. The liquid fuel options include corn-ethanol (E85) and cellulosic-E85. To place the electric and liquid fuel sources on an equal footing, we examine their comparative abilities to address the problems mentioned by powering new-technology vehicles, including battery-electric vehicles (BEVs), hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs), and flex-fuel vehicles run on E85.

Twelve combinations of energy source-vehicle type are considered. Upon ranking and weighting each combination with respect to each of 11 impact categories, four clear divisions of ranking, or tiers, emerge.

Tier 1 (highest-ranked) includes wind-BEVs and wind-HFCVs.
Tier 2 includes CSP-BEVs, geothermal-BEVs, PV-BEVs, tidal-BEVs, and wave-BEVs.
Tier 3 includes hydro-BEVs, nuclear-BEVs, and CCS-BEVs.
Tier 4 includes corn- and cellulosic-E85.

Wind-BEVs ranked first in seven out of 11 categories, including the two most important, mortality and climate damage reduction. Although HFCVs are much less efficient than BEVs, wind-HFCVs are still very clean and were ranked second among all combinations.

Tier 2 options provide significant benefits and are recommended.

Tier 3 options are less desirable. However, hydroelectricity, which was ranked ahead of coal-CCS and nuclear with respect to climate and health, is an excellent load balancer, thus recommended.

The Tier 4 combinations (cellulosic- and corn-E85) were ranked lowest overall and with respect to climate, air pollution, land use, wildlife damage, and chemical waste. Cellulosic-E85 ranked lower than corn-E85 overall, primarily due to its potentially larger land footprint based on new data and its higher upstream air pollution emissions than corn-E85.

Whereas cellulosic-E85 may cause the greatest average human mortality, nuclear-BEVs cause the greatest upper-limit mortality risk due to the expansion of plutonium separation and uranium enrichment in nuclear energy facilities worldwide. Wind-BEVs and CSP-BEVs cause the least mortality.

The footprint area of wind-BEVs is 2–6 orders of magnitude less than that of any other option. Because of their low footprint and pollution, wind-BEVs cause the least wildlife loss.

The largest consumer of water is corn-E85. The smallest are wind-, tidal-, and wave-BEVs.

The US could theoretically replace all 2007 onroad vehicles with BEVs powered by 73000–144000 5 MW wind turbines, less than the 300000 airplanes the US produced during World War II, reducing US CO2 by 32.5–32.7% and nearly eliminating 15000/yr vehicle-related air pollution deaths in 2020.

In sum, use of wind, CSP, geothermal, tidal, PV, wave, and hydro to provide electricity for BEVs and HFCVs and, by extension, electricity for the residential, industrial, and commercial sectors, will result in the most benefit among the options considered. The combination of these technologies should be advanced as a solution to global warming, air pollution, and energy security. Coal-CCS and nuclear offer less benefit thus represent an opportunity cost loss, and the biofuel options provide no certain benefit and the greatest negative impacts.

Show us the same chart in 2045 after the world has given renewable sources the same support they gave the failed nuclear initiative in the 70s and 80s.

[GliderGuider]

87. Could be, could be.

I don't know much about the future. My crystal ball is in the shop. All I really know is the past and the present - where we've been and where we are. And I know that the picture so far isn't all that rosy...

Good luck in the future.

[kristopher]

88. You are going to wring your own neck twisting around like that...

You JUST wrote as an accompaniment to your graph:

the only thing that has ever made a dent in fossil fuel use is nuclear power.

When we consider humanity's primary energy use patterns, do we expect the next 45 years to be much different?

CO2 is a global issue. The pattern of primary energy use is a global pattern. Local mitigation isn't making any difference.

It's time to get on with adaptation.

(CTRL-V for Victory!)

The obvious inference you're intending is that "if only we were not so stupid as to reject nuclear we could address climate change, but since we don't..."

That is dishonest bullshit, as is your latest response. You are all too happy to trot out a sliver of the evidence needed to determine the future and then try to manipulate people with it. You exhibit a total disregard of the historical context of what caused nuclear to be built and eventually collapse. You didn't WANT to address why the circumstances are different now in your previous post and when that is brought into the discussion suddenly it is all "crystal ball" nonsense.


Slimy, just slimy.

Blech.

[GliderGuider]

90. ???

How on earth do you know what inference I intended? All you know is the inference you drew.

I'll tell you what I actually think, so you won't have to do that any more:

I think that the only thing that has ever made any difference to fossil fuel consumption in the past is nuclear power. I know that the nuclear industry is currently moribund in the US, and it's also flat across the entire globe, with bits of activity here and there. I don't think that nuclear power will be riding to the rescue this time. I would personally have no problems with nuclear power riding to the rescue, but I don't think it's going to. That worries me, because the world has shown a disturbing appetite for dirty black rocks, and wind power is only supplying about 0.25% of global primary energy at this time. Taken together, this makes me think that adaptation to the possibility of continuing climate change is a good strategy.

That's what I think. No inferences necessary.

[kristopher]

91. Which is exactly what I said.

Only I left out the nuclear industry slant you attempted to insert.

Nuclear energy actually only accounts for about 2% of global energy consumed by end users even it has received nearly 100% of all noncarbon subsidies and support for nearly 50 years.

You, of course, choose to use the metric of "primary consumption" which is a weighting that favors thermal generation like nuclear and coal dramatically since it counts the roughly 70% of energy input into such thermal generation which ends up as waste heat doing nothing but making another contribution to AGW.

Further, since renewable sources other than biomass do not combust fuels to run a steam generator to produce electricity the thermal losses they incur are negligable.

To demonstrate the significance of this misrepresentation, I happen to have the numbers for primary vs. consumed energy for 2002 in the US on hand; of the 92.1 quads of "primary energy" consumed 56.2 quads were wasted while only 35.2 quads were "useful" energy.

It is therefore quite easy to see that distributed energy infrastructure powered by renewables doe not need to replace anywhere near the amount of energy the "primary energy" statistics lead the unwary reader to conclude. Such an "efficiency move has huge implications for planning.

Stop trying to mislead people.

From a presentation by John Holdren.

The renewable option: Is it real?

SUNLIGHT: 100,000 TW reaches Earth’s surface (100,000 TWy/year = 3.15 million EJ/yr), 30% on land.
Thus 1% of the land area receives 300 TWy/yr, so converting this to usable forms at 10% efficiency would yield 30 TWy/yr, about twice civilization’s rate of energy use in 2004.

WIND: Solar energy flowing into the wind is ~2,000 TW.
Wind power estimated to be harvestable from windy sites covering 2% of Earth’s land surface is about twice world electricity generation in 2004.

BIOMASS: Solar energy is stored by photosynthesis on land at a rate of about 60 TW.
Energy crops at twice the average terrestrial photosynthetic yield would give 12 TW from 10% of land area (equal to what’s now used for agriculture).
Converted to liquid biofuels at 50% efficiency, this would be 6 TWy/yr, more than world oil use in 2004.

Renewable energy potential is immense. Questions are what it will cost & how much society wants to pay for environmental & security advantages.

What does he say about nuclear?

The nuclear option: size of the challenges

• If world electricity demand grows 2%/year until 2050 and nuclear share of electricity supply is to rise from 1/6 to 1/3...

–nuclear capacity would have to grow from 350 GWe in 2000 to 1700 GWe in 2050;

– this means 1,700 reactors of 1,000 MWe each.

• If these were light-water reactors on the once-through fuel cycle...
---–enrichment of their fuel will require ~250 million Separative Work Units (SWU);
---–diversion of 0.1% of this enrichment to production of HEU from natural uranium would make ~20 gun-type or ~80 implosion-type bombs.

• If half the reactors were recycling their plutonium...
---–the associated flow of separated, directly weapon - usable plutonium would be 170,000 kg per year;
---–diversion of 0.1% of this quantity would make ~30 implosion-type bombs.

• Spent-fuel production in the once-through case would be...
---–34,000 tonnes/yr, a Yucca Mountain every two years.

Conclusion: Expanding nuclear enough to take a modest bite out of the climate problem is conceivable, but doing so will depend on greatly increased seriousness in addressing the waste-management & proliferation challenges.

Mitigation of Human-Caused Climate Change
John P. Holdren

Conclusion: Expanding nuclear enough to take a modest bite out of the climate problem is conceivable, *but* doing so will depend on greatly increased seriousness in addressing the waste-management & proliferation challenges.

John P. Holdren is advisor to President Barack Obama for Science and Technology,
Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, and
Co-Chair of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology...

Holdren was previously the Teresa and John Heinz Professor of Environmental Policy at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University,
director of the Science, Technology, and Public Policy Program at the School's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, and
Director of the Woods Hole Research Center.<2>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Holdren

[DrGregory]

95. Figures never lie...but...

Nuclear energy actually only accounts for about 2% of global energy consumed by end users even it has received nearly 100% of all noncarbon subsidies and support for nearly 50 years.
=======================================================================

Of course the only use for nuclear power that has been attempted
is for electric power generation.

For example, we don't even attempt to use nuclear for transportation
of anything smaller than a submarine or aircraft carrier. Nuclear
power would be totally inappropriate for powering an automobile.

So why do people generate meaningless ratios like the above 2%

One takes the amount of energy produced by nuclear power and divide
that by the "global energy consumed" which is the total energy used
for all sources including small vehicles.

The whole reason is to make the denominator as large as possible, to
"fool" the unintelligent into thinking that the 2% is such a small
number. It begs the question of why isn't the number larger?

It's small because the denominator includes energy uses for which
nuclear is inappropriate. I will say for the record that it is
inappropriate to attempt to put a nuclear reactor in a family car.

However, that is a pretty lame comparison.

Since we use nuclear power mostly for electric power generation,
why not just compare the total electric power generation to the
amount generated by nuclear.

In the USA, nuclear power gives us about 20% to 25% of our electric
power. It could be a greater fraction if the anti-nukes hadn't obstructed
so many nuclear plants.

In France, the percentage of nuclear power is almost 90%.

The 2% is a totally LAME comparison. As for the 20-25% in the
USA, there is absolutely NO REASON that we couldn't get 100%
of our electric power from nuclear.

You see, unlike anemic sources such as solar, which is limited
to a maximum capacity factor of 50% just due to the simple fact
that the Earth rotates on its axis, there is no reason that we
can't have abundant nuclear power in any amount / percentage that
we wish. We only have to make it happen.

Dr. Greg

[Confusious]

113. Wrong. Nuclear provides 6%

and your "100% of all noncarbon subsidies and support for nearly 50 years" is also wrong.

NASA got a lot of funding for solar cell development, but also, why would you include something that was nothing more then a novelty 30 years ago?

We didn't have the tech to make solar cells or wind any better.

It's like saying we should be taking all that money and spending it on fusion instead of solar and wind and nuclear. We haven't gotten over all the technical hurdles, and throwing money at the problem isn't going to fix anything.

[kristopher]

115. You must start checking your facts.

Nuclear provides 6% of PRIMARY ENERGY - that is the energy input INTO the generating systems. Of that 6%, 2/3s is wasted as heat in process of converting the heat from the fission reaction into steam to produce electricity.

Your take on subsidies and funding are similarly misguided.

[Confusious]

117. Only to you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_resources_and_consumption

You seem to be trying to tell me the sky is purple, when I can see for myself it is blue.

Nuclear provides 6% of PRIMARY ENERGY - that is the energy input INTO the generating systems. Of that 6%, 2/3s is wasted as heat in process of converting the heat from the fission reaction into steam to produce electricity.

The "problem" with your sentence, is that every other form of energy, coal, NG, nuclear, use the same methods of generation. So you're saying that they all do that. That has to be the biggest load of bull I have heard in a long time.

Along with the fact that you seem to think that people who do these studies include power that never reached the customer. You're going to be the one to unmask them. That's arrogant.

Lastly, you're going to tell me that the only people who don't are renewables. That's delusional.

[kristopher]

122. Are you denying heat losses in thermal systems or lack of same for renewables?

You say that the use of energy consumed as a metric is important "only to me"?

No, every energy analyst understands the difference between primary energy and energy consumed. If you DON'T understand it then you are incapable of discussing the losses that energy systems are subject to. For example, how can you talk about transmission line losses if there is no way to evaluate the amount of energy going into the maw of the generating system and compare it to the amount that is delivered finally to the end user? How do you evaluate and discuss ANY of the various elements of system that delivers power to the place where work needs to be done if you are missing one of the most vital pieces of the puzzle - how much is NEEDED to do that work?

It has been convenient to focus on primary energy inputs because most energy choices were based on large scale thermal systems; and they all share the same limitations imposed by the physics of turning water to steam and turning a generator with that steam.

You can see a system wide view of that by downloading this energy flow chart from LLNL.
https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/mmazzocc/shared/DOE%20Energy%20Flow%20EED%20LLNL%20GOV%20llnl%20ucrl-tr-129990-02.pdf

And whether you like it or not, there is no comparable point where such a loss is incurred in the production of energy from non-thermal renewable sources like wind or solar PV. And it is therefore an EXTREMELY relevant point in the discussion when doing a comparison of how much energy we get non-thermal renewable sources. Note that wording - how much energy we GET...

If we were to use your method of accounting to compare two businesses we were considering buying what would be the result?

The owner of business A tells you his shop grosses $500,000 a year.
The owner of business B tells you his shop grosses $250,000 a year.

Apparently you would buy business A.

On closer examination, however, you find that overhead for business A eats up 72% of the gross and that overhead for business B is only 3%.

500,000 minus 72% equals a net of 140,000.

250,000 minus 3% equals a net of 242,500.

I (and every other energy analyst out there) think that if you use only primary energy to compare renewable energy to nuclear energy it is like looking at a buying a business while ignoring the costs of doing business; in other words, it is a very bad idea.

[Confusious]

124. No, you misunderstand, as usual

Only you would define "Global energy usage" from a chart that says "Global energy usage in successively increasing detail (2005)<2><3>" as meaning something completely different. You twist yourself into a pretzel trying to prove your point.

I can see now where you would get the 2% number. Don't you think that people already thought about that? That maybe they calculated these numbers on the basis of what comes out of the reactor and not what could come out of the reactor? Why make your calculations so much harder by adding in thermal efficiency?

No of course you don't, because you are so much smarter then they.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_resources_and_consumption

us·age
 
 /ˈyusɪdʒ, -zɪdʒ/ Show Spelled Show IPA
–noun
1.a customary way of doing something; a custom or practice: the usages of the last 50 years.
2.the customary manner in which a language or a form of a language is spoken or written: English usage; a grammar based on usage rather than on arbitrary notions of correctness.
3.a particular instance of this: a usage borrowed from french.
4.any manner of doing or handling something; treatment: rough usage.
5.habitual or customary use; long-continued practice: immemorial usage.
6.an act of using or employing; use.

Global energy usage from nuclear is 6%. ( To make it clear: 6% of the electricity generated is from nuclear )

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_resources_and_consumption

Energy usage from nuclear in the United States is 20%. ( To make it clear: 20% of the electricity generated is from nuclear.)

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/analysis/nuclearpower.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_the_United_States

You're trying to tell me the the sky is purple, when I can see for myself it's blue.

[kristopher]

126. Short and sweet, here are the numbers

For once I don't think you are just being negative; this is genuinely a confusing area; so here you go.

Worldwide energy consumption in 2008 was 474EJ.
One EJ = 277.7Twh.**
The amount of electricity generated by nuclear in 2008 was 2658 Twh.

This is easy for you to confirm with some back of the envelope numbers:
The 439 global reactors have a total capacity of 372Gwe.
Assuming a slightly high global capacity factor of 80% that gives us average continuous generation of 298GW.
Multiply that by the 8760 hours in a year for 2611Twh.
So, based on the installed capacity and the average global capacity factor we see that the 2611Twh number is very close to the 2658Twh number I gave you.

2658Twh = 9.57EJ

World energy consumption in 2008 was 474EJ.

9.57/474 = 2%


Now, about how the numbers are recorded.

First you need to know that primary energy consumption and end user consumption are not the same thing. Primary energy consumption is calculated at the national level by taking the fuels consumed and deriving their energy content from the unit mass of the fuels used. It isn't a record of every retail energy transaction that occurs around the world.

The practice is to choose a "primary energy unit" for each source and use that as a basis of comparison across different sources.

The International Energy Agency makes comparisons by measuring the heat content of all the energy commodities in metric tons of oil equivalent - TOE.

A TOE = 0.012 Gwh

When nuclear is measured both electricity and heat are converted to units of heat and then converted to TOE.

For hydro, wind, wave and photovoltaic solar electricity production, total electricity is the primary form of energy and it is converted to heat.

So as you can see, my assertion was correct.

**How many terawatthour in 1 exajoule? The answer is 277.777777778.
http://www.convertunits.com/from/terawatthour/to/exajoule

[Confusious]

128. would you happen to have a link backing up your assertion?

I like to have a few more sources then just one.

Considering it's you making the assertion, two.

ahh I think I see what you're doing. "world wide energy consumption." That also includes oil. The same oil that we use in ours cars.

How about including the numbers spent on oil drilling technologies? They probably dwarf anything spent on nuclear.

You might want to include the money spent on cars in that number also, since they are so connected with oil.

Trying to shift the numbers around to make things look worse.

Well if you're going to do that, how about you give me the numbers for renewables and coal also?

[kristopher]

129. I used the numbers from YOUR links - the difference was I know knew to interpret them

And I am going to point out again that I do not blame you for your confusion. The information is (IMO) deliberately obscured to help paint a better picture of the status quo - which includes nuclear power.

The one thing you needed to add to the info at your link was the conversion from EJ - Twh; and I provided that.

I have no idea what you mean by or where you are going with your questions on "numbers spent on oil drilling technologies.

The discussion you and I just had has nothing to do with money spent, so your remark makes no sense. What I'm not doing, however, is "trying to make the numbers look worse." '

Go back to the analogy I gave you about buying business A & B and it should be clear that when we are discussing the choice of nuclear vs nonthermal renewable energy sources, the energy delivered to the end user is what counts.

[Confusious]

130. My points are

You used "global energy consumption" which would include oil. Oil used to run cars.

Since nuclear is only used to generate electricity, why would you use something like "global energy consumption" which includes oil?

There's been no other option given except to run cars on oil in the past 50 years. Only now are we talking about using electricity to run them.

There is really no point to it, unless you want to make nuclear look worse then it really is.

And yes, I skipped over reading your post in it's entirety, since it's usually just a reprint. I'll have to pay more attention in the future.

[Confusious]

131. One other point

You, of course, choose to use the metric of "primary consumption" which is a weighting that favors thermal generation like nuclear and coal dramatically since it counts the roughly 70% of energy input into such thermal generation which ends up as waste heat doing nothing but making another contribution to AGW.

Nuclear uses the splitting of the atom to generate heat, which is converted into power. Unlike a coal plant, it doesn't add to AGW, because it doesn't combust anything.

[Confusious]

132. Another point

Nuclear energy actually only accounts for about 2% of global energy consumed by end users even it has received nearly 100% of all noncarbon subsidies and support for nearly 50 years.

You're using a global metric. Why include those countries that don't have nuclear, unless you want to make it look worse then it is?

Do you happen to have access to every budget of every country for the past 50 years to show 100%? If so, please enlighten us.

If not, are you only talking about the United States? Then you're using two different metrics, which are incomparable.

[kristopher]

89. The 3 questions are answered and implications are discusssed here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x262570

[kristopher]

96. Kick.

[kristopher]

97. Come on, the challenge is still out here waiting for you.

You talked a lot of trash on this thread before the facts were laid out; now where are you?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=262570&mesg_id=262570

[Nederland]

98. Right back at you

The deal is still on the table, why are you so scared?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x262189#262198

[kristopher]

99. You ran from the questions, then you ran from the answers.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=262570&mesg_id=262570

Now run on home.

[Nederland]

101. I don't want to run home, I want to engage you

What makes you think we owe you answers when you refuse to answer questions?

The deal is still on the table.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x262189#262198

[kristopher]

102. Then engage. No one is stoping you but you.

[Nederland]

103. Cool

Then we have a deal? You agree to answer three of my questions after I answer your three?

[TheMadMonk]

104. First, let's address the words you put in our mouths as ABSOLUTES.

1) The actual cost of nuclear power IS very cheap. The vast majority of the cost is in amortizing and maintaining a huge amount of support equipment and multiply redundant safety systems. Yes they made sense at the time, but Russian overengineering, and US precision have both sufficed for seventy years now, demonstrating that much of that redundancy truly is redundant.

2) Few lessons learned so far have made it to "production", because what little hard fought for permission that has been grudgingly given has all too often come with stringent requirements for tried and trusted technology. ie. repeating a lot of old mistakes. We're now so loath to try anything "too radical" that the financial return on the baby steps actually taken is non-existant. We're also too ready to abandon promissing developments at the first sign of trouble/major engineering hurdle. There is nothing at all wrong with the pebble bed reactor concept. The major problem was in producing sufficiently flawless "pebbles" in sufficient quantity. And it just occured to me, that the obvious fix is to hand off the problem to the semiconductor industry and maybe the blokes who make jet turbines fans as well. Not throw umpteen million dollars worth of proven work on the too hard pile.

3) Waste is and isn't a problem. The single biggest OH&S issue is the amount of manual handling in the current processes. Given enough operational power plants, automation of waste reprocessing becomes a lot more affordable. Not that I believe that should be a reason not to go ahead with state of the art nuclear materials handling and reprocessing facilities right now. There are at least three known paths to true waste "incineration", all have been demonstrated at a level that makes it likely that they will viably scale to industrial levels.

4) Radical Antropogenic Climate Change (threat therof, or eventual reality) makes SOMETHING inevitable. We and the planet beneath us can probably manage to get along all the way through to 2000 ppm CO2 equvalent if not beyond. Most of the rest of the biome will be pared down to glory and we most certainly not get off scott free, but we could "manage."

Nuclear fission is one of a number of options available to avoid the above scenario. I also favour using power from intermittent sources to create artificial hydraulic heads for long term energy storage. I favour fully submerged solutions for harnessing the ocean's movement. I favour large scale deliberate geoengineering. (Right now we just let it happen pretty much as it will as a byproduct of our collective day to day activities.) I favour a return to durable goods.

5) Most other baseload options are hybrid entities. Relying on a mixture of geographical difusion and differing generation methods backing each other up plus much touted, but as yet nonexistant mass storage methods. I'll allow that there are many promising avenues under examination. As there are many promising avenues in reactor design and waste management. Just would like to point out the minor mypocrisy of your camp relying on future developments in a manner you won't allow us. While less than perfect, natural gas is also a viable baseload alternative.

6) Nuclear terrorism is not IMHO a major threat. The risk of making enemies of one's staunchest friends is far too great. Fear of being tainted by association would have the terrorist's friendlies handing them over bound hand and foot, quite possibly with the entrails of their families. How do you credibly take a city hostage while living to spend the proceeds? The potential for so called "Mad scientists", rogue geniuses capable of wreaking massive carnage, has existed for the best part of a century now. Fortunately, anyone smart enough to have a chance to pull off such schemes is also smart enough to recognise the ultimate futility of trying.

The true terror that is inspired by the threat of nuclear proliferation is in the minds of those who don't like potential war targets having a "final strike" capability. Nukes have little to no offensive value to countries like Iran, Venezuela etc. First use = death as a nation. Ergo the only viable time to employ a nuke is when the death of the nation is assured. This is assuming they are lying through their teeth and in fact do intend to assemble deployable nuclear devices. The US hates the idea of Iran with nukes not for any immediate threat it represents to Israel, but because it takes away the option to invade.

There are far easier ways to achieve comparable results via "conventional" means. eg. A bulk carrier loaded with fertiliser and a fuel tanker come together and then part with the first sitting a bit deeper in the water and the latter riding high. Sydney, Melbourne, Hong Kong, San Francisco... the list of cities vulnerable to a nuclear scale IED is a long one. A tens of kilotons explosion on the surface of a confined body of water surrounded by millions of people? Think about it. Terrorism on this scale would invite a comensurate response, thus the only ones who truly contemplate it are Authors like Clive Cussler and the "shadowy ones" who want YOU to contemplate it. The same goes for real nukes.


Q1) Answered more or less above.

Q2) Civil oppostion I believe is the biggest reason. Politically Nuke plants are not the sort of thing that can be rammed through. Calls for reviews, rethinks, redesigns, constant niggling oposition that saps anything shout of fiat backed with military might.

Q3) Hope I interpreted that nest of negatives right. Um, I refer you to your own Question 2. (Plus a number of your recent posts.) so few projects are making it through to completion that it is absolutely financially unviable to even contemplate a project that doesn't indemnify the builders provided they act in good faith.


Whether we go straight to nukes, or find something else to tide us over, the potential for nuclear energy, if we can get it right is so huge that we'd be fools to throw it all away without at least prototyping a few latest generation reactor designs. Since if they do pan out they would also serve to clean up a lot of the mess from existing nuke plants.


Yes there are a lot of ifs, but the only one not amenable to a technical solution is one we already have to deal with on so many levels that one more makes little to no difference. Every single piece of the puzzle needed to create "nuclear utopia" is a demonstrable scientific fact. Not all of them are yet demonstrably financially viable (though the numbers suggest they should be). However, we'll never know if we don't at least try.

[kristopher]

106. Wow! It is difficult to imagine how you arrived at most of those conclusions...

Your #1 demonstrates values so far removed from those of most people that I almost don't know where to begin.
You wrote, "The actual cost of nuclear power IS very cheap. The vast majority of the cost is in amortizing and maintaining a huge amount of support equipment and multiply redundant safety systems. Yes they made sense at the time, but Russian over engineering, and US precision have both sufficed for seventy years now, demonstrating that much of that redundancy truly is redundant."

So you claim that if we don't pay for the "support equipment" and multiple "redundant safety systems" then nuclear power IS very cheap.

I actually can't argue with that. IF we do not build to safety standards that are even today not considered adequate, then yes, nuclear power would be cheap. However since that is not an option that is even on the table, the fact stands that nuclear power is overall the most expensive and slowest way to move away from carbon.


#2 seems to try to make the point that all the abandoned technologies were actually abandoned for no good reason - I suppose just to spite the people who work in the nuclear industry. Especially given the degree of global government support for those abandoned technologies, there is absolutely no way the evidence supports your view of reality. These techs haven't made it into production because they always have fatal flaws when taken in the context of the entire range of needs they must meet. Just because you think that we should develop nuclear power no matter what doesn't mean most people start with that same assumption. In the real world, there are competing technologies that offer a better set of characteristics to meet our needs than does nuclear. Against that, your desire that everyone accept the idea that development of nuclear is worth any costs seems unlikely to carry the day.

The rest of your points are similar. I'm afraid I can find little that has its base in a balanced study of the characteristics of the energy sources under discussion.

For example you attempt to impart an equivalency to future developments in energy storage solutions with the far more difficult to achieve advances required to solve waste, proliferation, safety and costs issues associated with nuclear. That is patently absurd. There are many practical and fully viable energy storage solutions sitting on the shelf to make that claim realistic. We don't NEED storage yet, so it hasn't really started rolling out. There are a number of very solid approaches that have round trip efficiencies of 70% plus, and as market niches for storage become available, their value will be set by market forces in much the same way that a natural gas peaking plant's economics are. If viewed in terms of the overall cost of electricity peaking plant economics look insane, however when viewed in the context of the system they are serving their incredibly high per hour operating costs make perfect economic sense.

IN short, you clearly have some knowledge of some elements of the problem, but you are assuming a lot more than you have knowledge of. Your false assumptions are so numerous that refuting them point by point is far too time consuming. I say that particularly because you really have not addressed the questions I posed in my OP at all. You gave a recitation demonstrating your values and beliefs for us, and then made a very sloppy and shallow attempt to link that manifesto with the questions; an effort that failed completely.

If you'd like to specifically focus on the questions I asked and the explanation I've already provided (see first link below) then I'd be happy to continue that less wide-ranging discussion.

Three answers // 5 reactors started 1 completed // largest municipal bond default in history
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=262570&mesg_id=262570

See also: "Nuclear industry wants another $100B subsidies with less responsibility for failures"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x263311

[TheMadMonk]

107. I stick by my opinion. Backups to backups, which themselves are...

...backups to backups IS excessive. AND IS asking for trouble and failures. Failures of the sort you love to post about, in the alarming format: "The last ditch cooling pump failed yesterday." while failing to acknowledge that the three pumps it was "covering" were performing flawlessly.

Too many redundant systems results in problems like the tritium leaks from lost/forgotten pipework in Vermont.

If by inadequate, you mean fails to cover every single possible imaginable scenario, then that argument can of course always be made. If however, you mean there are credible and appreciably likely high risk failure modes not adequately addressed, then I say you are wrong.

Even the most inherently unsafe designs (uncontained, graphite moderated piles) perform reasonably adequately UNLESS a deliberate effort is made to cause the reactor to fail.

More recent designs accept the possibility of a runaway reactor core and arrange to have it "Deconstruct" itself in a controlled and fully contained manner. Much more simple safety systems and operational protocols for day to day operation and specially designed in "weak points" that cause the reactor core to come apart safely in the event that all control is ever lost.

"Always have fatal flaws" Now that's a massive overgeneralisation. A fatal flaw in my lexicon would be one caused by an incorect understanding of the science involved. AFAIK the vast majority of what you refer to as "flaws" are far better characterised as engineering hurdles. We know what's required and we know that it is physically possible to achieve those requirements. It's the how (to do it cheaply enough) that eludes us.


Yes. I do expect you to allow me the luxury of future developments. The same demand is made often enough on behalf of solar cells, batteries, and other green technologies and I reasonably allow them. The basic shape of development is discipline independant. Just as you can point to a curve graphing the improvement of photovoltaic devices, I can apply a similar curve to the known sciences of transmutation, glassification and isotopic separation and project: that it will be possible to transmute longlived waste; that shortlived waste can be adequately sequestered away from the environment until it no longer presents a danger.



A cycle of objection, delays, shifting goalposts and ever increasing costs seems like a reasonable enough explanation for the abandoned projects. You speak of government support as if it were coming from all corners and not the true situation that sees different levels of government and different govt. departments at complete cross purposes. A local authority legislates for a recent improvement to a safety system and the whole project stalls while the "modified" design in reapproved.


And what else is new? They just want what the banks got. Free money.

Offer them their 100 billion dollars of immediate accident coverage at an ongoing cost of y percent of revenue per annum. Make the fine for non payment one (1) operational nuclear power plant. Reward low incident rates with lower premiums. Offer them exactly what they ask for, simply insist they pay a fair market price.

If we were able to abandon pressurised light water reactors in favour of "inherrently safe" designs, worst case scenarios contaminate only the reactor site itself. There is no need to provide Chernobyl level coverage if such incidents can't occur. Cleanup costs also would be within the industry's financial reach.

I'm not saying I or nuclear power have all the answers. I'm saying the questions aren't unanswerable. And I'm saying that if properly tamed and with a properly managed waste stream, nuclear power (as part of a larger hyrid system) ticks the largest number of boxes when it comes to meeting the baseload needs for a post greenhouse world.

[kristopher]

108. So that is the view through the rose colored glasses of the nuclear industry...

Thank you for sharing your beliefs honestly but I think your optimism is unfounded in every respect. The list below highlights the nature of that optimism in some areas, but it is valid to extrapolate from that to the realm of technical viability you are focused on.

For what it is worth, I don't believe I've never made a post couched in the "alarming format" you refer to as I grant the ability of the safety systems (with redundancies) to meet *anticipated* problems. What I do post about are the failures that demonstrate that not all problems can be anticipated; events such as hole in Davis Besse's head; the delamination of concrete in containment domes; or the fact that the construction process is wide open for long range thinking by saboteurs. The nuclear industry routinely pretends that low probability/high consequence risk evaluation has no place in the planning process; in fact your outlook could be a case study in that very mindset. If they do consider those risks, they balance it against the false premise that climate change is a greater threat (true in the short term) and that there is nothing other than nuclear that can save us (not true).

Finally on that note, you are clinging to a disproved model when you refer to nuclear being required for "baseload". But rather than argue that point just the sake of discussion, what would be your position if you were to accept the (proven) premise that "baseload" is nothing more than an artifact of the economics of large-scale centralized thermal generation and not a technical necessity required for getting power to end users? What if baseload really is (as I claim) a myth? Does that alter your evaluation of the need to pursue nuclear power?


Here is a bit of the evidence that the view of the nuclear industry is overly optimistic:

COST ESCALATION, DESIGN PROBLEMS, DELAYS, CANCELLATIONS AND NEGATIVE FINANCIAL INDICATORS IN THE ‘NUCLEAR RENAISSANCE’

Month Event

Jan-08 MidAmerican cancels proposed Idaho reactor (1)

Feb-08 NRC suspends application for South Texas Project reactors because application is incomplete (NRG has since reapplied) (2)

Feb-08 Florida Power and Light revises cost estimates for Turkey Point reactors from around $8 billion to $24 billion (3)

Mar-08 Progress Energy triples cost estimates for Levy County reactors to $17 billion (4)

Aug-08 Constellation increases cost estimates for Calvert Cliffs reactors from $2 billion to $9.6 billion (5)

Oct-08 Progress Energy increases cost estimates for Shearon Harris reactors from $4.4 billion to $9.3 billion (6)

Nov-08 Duke Energy increases cost estimates for William States Lee reactors from $5 billion to around $11 billion (7)

Dec-08 TVA increases cost estimates for Bellefonte reactors from $6.4 billion to $10.4 billion (8)

Mar-09 Entergy suspends application for River Bend reactor in Louisiana (9)

Mar-09 Entergy suspends application for Grand Gulf reactor in Mississippi (10)

Apr-09 AmerenUE cancels proposed Callaway reactor (11)

May-09 Exelon cancels two proposed Victoria County reactors (Has since reapplied for an Early Site Permit) (12)

May-09 Progress Energy in Florida announces at least a 20-month delay on planned reactors at Levy County (13)

May-09 PPL‘s cost estimates for one reactor at Bell Bend skyrockets from $4 billion to $13-15 billion (14)

May-09 Moody‘s downgrades PPL to negative outlook over proposed reactor at Bell Bend (15)

Jul-09 Moody‘s and Fitch downgrade SCE&G due to proposed VC Summer reactors (16)

Aug-09 TVA cancels three proposed reactors at Bellefonte site (17)

Aug-09 Constellation delays NRC‘s review of Nine Mile Point application to September 2010, a one-year delay (18)

Aug-09 NRC delays the scheduled publication of the final environmental review for Constellation‘s Calvert Cliffs in Maryland to February 2011, a delay of 13 months (19)

Aug-09 TVA delays proposed Bellefonte reactor from 2016 to 2020-2022 (20)

Sep-09 AP-1000 design in 17th revision; NRC announces more problems that will likely delay AP-1000 designs like Shearon-Harris, Lee, and Vogtle reactors

Sep-09 Duke delays William States Lee reactors from 2016 to 2021 (21)

Sep-09 Moody‘s gives negative credit rating to Oglethorpe over planned investment in Vogtle reactors (22)

Oct-09 NRC identifies significant safety issues with AP-1000 shield design, potentially signaling delays with over half of the proposed reactors in the US (23)

Oct-09 New cost estimates for South Texas Project reactors go up $4 billion, a 30% increase (24)

Nov-09 Fitch downgrades SCANA over risks posed by SCE&G‘s two nuclear reactors at VC Summer (25)

Nov-09 Areva announces plans to modify EPR reactor design at the request of safety bodies in the UK, France, and Finland (26)

Dec-09 Unistar asks NRC to suspend application for Nine Mile Point 3 reactor (27)

Jan-10 FP&L announces that they‘ll suspend plans for Turkey Point reactors based on decision of Florida PSC to reduce proposed rate hike from $1.26 billion to $75.5 million (28)

Jan-10 Progress Energy announces that they‘ll slow the Levy County process based on the same Florida PSC decision, in which they got none of a $500 million rate hike request (29)

Jan-10 Fitch puts FP&L (Turkey Point reactors) on ratings watch ̳Negative‘ after decision by Florida PSC to not provide CWIP (30)

Feb-10 Progress Energy extends delay on Levy County reactors to at least 36 months. (31)

Feb-10 Toshiba and Westinghouse indicate that regulatory problems will delay reactors in Florida (Turkey Point and Levy County) for up to 3 years. (32)

Mar-10 FP&L announces delay of Turkey Point reactors past 2018, signals interest in federal loan guarantees. (33)

Apr-10 Moody‘s downgrades FP&L from low to moderate risk over Turkey Point reactors. (34)

Apr-10 NRC states that design-review certification of US-APWR will take at least an additional six months, shifting deadlines well into 2011. (35)

May-10 Cost estimates move from $17.2 billion for the two reactors to $22.5 billion for Levy County reactors. (36)

May-10 Fitch downgrades Progress Energy (Levy County and Shearon Harris reactors) to just above junk bond status. (37)

May-10 TVA opts to go with old Babcock and Wilcox design for single reactor at Bellefonte, citing untested status of new designs. (38)

May-10 The timeline for the two Levy County reactors has been pushed back again, with the first due in 2021, the second some 18 months later. The original timeline had the reactors set to come online in 2016 and 2018 respectively. (39)

- POLICY CHALLENGES OF NUCLEAR REACTOR CONSTRUCTION, COST ESCALATION AND CROWDING OUT ALTERNATIVES
LESSONS FROM THE U.S. AND FRANCE FOR THE EFFORT TO REVIVE THE U.S. INDUSTRY WITH LOAN GUARANTEES AND TAX SUBSIDIES

[Nederland]

109. Really?

The nuclear industry routinely pretends that low probability/high consequence risk evaluation has no place in the planning process.

Please. Low probability/high consequence risk evaluation is required by law. A reactor design cannot be certified by the NRC without such an evaluation, and I have no idea how you can "pretend" that it doesn't.

[kristopher]

110. Really?

Then perhaps you could show us an analysis where there is quantification of the national consequences of the loss of much of the Hudson Valley and New York City with its surrounding areas for up to 100 years was included in the planning for Indian Point.

[Nederland]

111. Here you go

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CRAC-II

The NRC did a study in 1982 that analyzed the effect of a meltdown and radiation release at Indian Point. It estimated maximum possible casualty numbers of around 50,000 deaths, 150,000 injuries, and property damage of $274 Billion to $314 Billion.

Now while the CRAC-II study specifically used Indian Point as an example, the NRC and its precusor the AEC performed numerous low probability/high consequence risk evaluations of a wide variety of scenarios. The first such study was the WASH-740 study, done in 1957.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WASH-740

The point is that low probability/high consequence risk evaluations have been done from the very start of the nuclear power age. Your assertion that the industry likes to pretend that they have no place is laughable.

[GliderGuider]

112. pwned

nt

[kristopher]

114. That is an outstanding example.

But I'm guessing you didn't bother to read my post nor the wiki entry in its entirety. You just once again cherry picked a single term, took it out of the context of the discussion where the term was clearly described, and then tried to bluff your way through it with a site that includes a disclaimer about the material you are citing. That disclaimer is there for a reason; the modeling is known to be insufficient to address the actual worst case scenarios.

I was very specific:
"Then perhaps you could show us an analysis where there is quantification of the national consequences of the loss of much of the Hudson Valley and New York City with its surrounding areas for up to 100 years was included in the planning for Indian Point."

There is no way to quantify the scenario I described since the consequences could include things like the complete failure of the US economic system.

Edited to add link: http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/taleb08/taleb08_index.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_theory

[TheMadMonk]

116. Chernobyl demonstrated that it takes a fully uncontained reactor...

...forced to fail by the complete offlining of all safety systems to create the level of damage you speak of.

For Indian Point, this would include doing everything that was done at Chernobyl (a virtually impossible task given the oversight, safety interlocks in US reactors and complete lack of Academicians with carte blanche authority to perform any operation without question) PLUS a complete failure of several containment features and probably exactly the right weather conditions as well.

The bushfires we (and you lot) had not that long ago are "Black Swan" events. Should we thus fell every tree or forbid construction within x distance of any consolidated area of forest, to avoid them? Rocks from space are BS events. An earthquake and the catastrophic failure of the Hoover dam, just at the moment the spillways overtop, is a BS event.

It's called the "Shit Happens Theory" in my part of the world coz we gots lots and lots of big black "ducks" for European immigrants to shoot at during the appropriate season.


Characterise for me if you will the cost of parking a boat such as I described in an earlier post in NY harbour or somewhere along the Hudson? Site it right and we could go for a twofer with Indian Point.

And in the end, a true nuclear accident on the scale you speak of IS essentially impossible without some sort of intervention to MAKE it happen. A close enough meteor strike might do it. A sufficiently determined suicide mission might do it. A big enough earthquake might do it. There are any number of ways in which the worst can be MADE to happen, there are no credible scenarios that lead to such an incident spontaneously arrising from day to day operations.


However, while I acknowledge that it is possible to MAKE shit happen, I do not accept that it is at all likely that someone will actually make the attempt.

First off all there are any number of far easier ways to achieve comparable immediately destructive results far, far easier by "conventional" means: a ship loaded with a mixture of fertiliser and fuel oil; a truckload of methyl-isocyanate in a Manhattan swimming pool; quite small bombs placed strategically behind any number of dams; even something as inoccuous as a few dozen boxes of matches can if (im)properly used, start a wildfire burning along a 1000km front.

Secondly, I reitterate, the reason we don't see such attempts being made is that there are certain methods to the madness of terrorism. Too little, and you're nothing more than a pain in the arse. Too much and your victim goes straigh through scared, to mad enough to hold even your infant third cousin personally responsible for your actions. Look at how close 9/11 came to touching off total war with Islam as a whole. A nuke in Manhattan, and America might just have succeeded where all other invaders failed, by virtue of completely depopulating Afghanistan and surrounds. India and China would have the perfect excuse to carve up Pakistan between them. Russia would have opportunity to readsorb more than a few of the 'stans. Sadam would have shot his own sons if that had been the price of readmittance to the US fold. Iran would be anyone's guess, but probably stubborn enough to be wiped off the map. Islam might, just might hold onto the Arabian Peninsula. Africa, I wouldn't bet against a second wave of European colonialism.

We can forget nuclear terrorism as a credible threat, because unless we as a race figure out how to get along with each other, the ultimate outcome is inevitable anyway, WHATEVER the means we choose to commit multi-national sucide.

[Nederland]

119. Nice try Kristopher, but every knows you just got pwned

You can try to move the goalposts, but everyone can see it for what it is. There is a big difference between:

1) "The nuclear industry routinely pretends that low probability/high consequence risk evaluation has no place in the planning process."

and

2) "The nuclear industry does not perform low probability/high consequence risk evaluations that Kristopher finds sufficient."

#1 is an outright lie.

#2 is true but irrelevant.

On edit: Did you actually read the disclaimer? Let me quote it in full:

"The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has devoted considerable research resources, both in the past and currently, to evaluating accidents and the possible public consequences of severe reactor accidents. The NRC's most recent studies have confirmed that early research into the topic led to extremely conservative consequence analyses that generate invalid results for attempting to quantify the possible effects of very unlikely severe accidents. In particular, these previous studies did not reflect current plant design, operation, accident management strategies or security enhancements. They often used unnecessarily conservative estimates or assumptions concerning possible damage to the reactor core, the possible radioactive contamination that could be released, and possible failures of the reactor vessel and containment buildings. These previous studies also failed to realistically model the effect of emergency preparedness. The NRC staff is currently pursuing a new, state-of-the-art assessment of possible severe accidents and their consequences."

Tell me Kristopher, what do you think the phrase "unnecessarily conservative estimates" means? I ask because I'm pretty sure it doesn't mean what you think it does...

[kristopher]

120. The difference between legitimate discussion and harassment.

I'm pretty sure most people who read this know that the first rule in ANY *sincere discussion* is to make sure that the terms use mean the same to all parties of the discussion. You had a question about a term I used in a discussion with another person and asked about it. As is common in *sincere discussions* I defined it for you.

You then proceeded to pretend that such a process had not occurred and inserted YOUR definition in place of the one I explicitly stated in order to try and produce a "gotcha" - which to all appearance is your only reason for participating in discussions on DUEE. At least, I've never seen you engage in anything other than sophistry of the type just documented.

Since you disagree with using "low probability/high consequence event" as shorthand for low probability/high consequence events that cannot be quantified by the use of statistics but have the potential to destroy a nation (for example), how would you propose that I refer to that sector of reality where statistics fail to inform the decision making process?

Living In The Fourth Quadrant

Beware the Charlatan. When I was a quant-trader in complex derivatives, people mistaking my profession used to ask me for "stock tips" which put me in a state of rage: a charlatan is someone likely (statistically) to give you positive advice, of the "how to" variety.

Go to a bookstore, and look at the business shelves: you will find plenty of books telling you how to make your first million, or your first quarter-billion, etc. You will not be likely to find a book on "how I failed in business and in life"—though the second type of advice is vastly more informational, and typically less charlatanic. ...

Now you would think that people would buy my arguments about lack of knowledge and accept unpredictability. But many ... Students cannot understand the value of "this is what we don't know"—they think it is not information, that they are learning nothing. Practitioners on the other hand value it immensely. Likewise with statisticians: I never had a disagreement with statisticians (who build the field)—only with users of statistical methods.

<snip>

... risk perception is subjected to framing issues that are acute in the Fourth Quadrant. ... the perception of rare events is subjected to severe framing distortions: people are aggressive with risks that hit them "once every thirty years" but not if they are told that the risk happens with a "3% a year" occurrence. Furthermore it appears that risk representations are not neutral: they cause risk taking even when they are known to be unreliable.

[GliderGuider]

123. "Harassment"? Really????

You asked him to come up with an impact assessment you didn't think had been done.
He found one that completely met your stated criteria.
You then moved the goalposts.

Man up, kris. He nailed you right between the eyes.

[TheMadMonk]

118. All pretty much explainable by mutiple agencies and lobbies working at...

...cross purposes.

Why does a minor change in a tertiary sub-system require a major reevaluation of an entire project? Rinse & repeat for the next minor revision.

When the goal is perfection, the outcome is predetermined. Failure.

They wouldn't need the loan guarantees and subsidies if they could simply be guaranteed that once begun, nothing short of a true showstopper, will kill or massively increase the cost of a project.

In the short term we could achieve adequate and affordable results simply be taking the best performing of existing plants apart and duplicating it exactly as is.

However, we know that we can achieve better safety simply by accepting, rather than attempting to prevent outright the remote posibility of catastrophic failure in the reactor core and directing the failure in a safe direction. Liquid fuel reactors that melt saftey plugs in the bottom and dump the fuel into separate containers if they overheat. Solid fueled reactors can be immersed in a solution of cadmium salts to crash the nuclear reaction. We also now have the ability to burn nuclear fuels in arbitrary quantities without walking the tightrope of criticality.

[kristopher]

121. That begs the question of why it isn't being done anywhere, doesn't it?

There is HUGE government support for nuclear power in a number of countries. These are countries where the regulatory obstacles and public perceptions are not obstacles for bringing new designs online. Not only that, but the nuclear industries in these countries are ACTIVELY ENGAGED IN COMPETITION TO SELL THEIR PRODUCT to non-nuclear countries that also do not have to worry about entrenched policies or public opposition to new designs.

You cannot deny the existence of that realm described above where conditions are FAVORABLE for development of new systems that are safer, less expensive, or better in any respect than what is now on the market.

Therefore your claims of persecution against the nuclear industry seem little more than the ranting of someone claiming we could get 100mpg from water if only GM wasn't sitting on the patent. It is an irrational belief unsupported by the evidence.

[TheMadMonk]

125. And the US actively interfering at every turn.

Political conditions may well be more favourable. However, it's the US that hold most of the knowledge and patents.

And favourable, doesn't mean willing to be guinea pigs for an untested design with no guarantees.

India is developing thorium reactors FROM SCRATCH, because the US won't share what it knows on the subject unless India accepts what essentially amounts to client state status WRT nuclear technology.

Huge government support is very nice, but it's only useful if it comes with a budget to match. The sort of budget that can afford to build ten overengineered prototypes, knowing that perhaps 2 (or if they're lucky 3) of the ten designs under consideration will ever become operational, let alone make it into production.

I'm not saying getting there would be cheap or easy. I simply believe the benefits are more than worth the effort. I also believe that if India is openly working on Thorium technology, then China is also working on its own next generation nuclear plants even if it's not telling the world exactly what it's up to. If we won't someone else eventually will and they will be the ones reaping the benefits.


You might want to note that my argument WRT the use of nuclear weapons as anything but a last ditch deterent better be correct, because developing and building a simple bomb is becoming increasingly affordable. The ONLY hurdle is accumulating enough enriched uranium and realistically, doing that is now within reach of more than half of the World's nations.

Given the fuel, any halfway competent handyman can assemble a working device from materials available through any hardware store. Making a device small enough to load into a plane or onto a missile takes a bit more nouse, and sophistication, but not a great deal more. "Suitcase" nukes, dial a yeild, low fallout, plutonium, H-bombs, these are the things that require advanced degrees and a few decades worth of accumulated knowledge to pull off reliably.

[Name removed]

127. Deleted message

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