Argentina begins enriching its own uranium, plans to add two more reactors.

[NNadir]

Argentina has formally reactivated its gaseous diffusion uranium enrichment plant at Pilcaniyeu over two decades after production there halted. The plant is expected to become operational in September 2011...

...Argentina currently has two operating nuclear reactors, at Embalse and Atucha. The reactivation of Pilcaniyeu is part of an Argentinian nuclear energy policy that has also seen the resumption of work on the partially built Atucha II pressurised heavy water reactor, due to go online in 2011, with plans for a third reactor at the site to follow. To that end, Argentina has been pursuing contacts with likely reactor suppliers over recent months, signing a memorandum of understanding with South Korea in September and a cooperation agreement with Russia in April 2010. Talks have also been held with China about the possibility of building a second unit at Embalse.

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/ENF-Argentina_celebrates_enrichment_plant_reactivation-2610107.html">Argentina celebrates enrichment plant reactivation

They actually do not need enriched fuel, since they could operate the PHWR with used nuclear fuel from many other countries, including the United States, but maybe they are looking to sell fuel to China.

[RaleighNCDUer]

1. Guess we better invade them. nt

[kristopher]

2. Can you imagine a war over solar, wind, or wave energy?

Or the proliferation of solar weapons of mass destruction?

:rofl:

[joshcryer]

3. Yes.

[kristopher]

4. Yeah, those solar enrichment facilities to produce the highly enriched sunshine...

... used in SunBurst candy can be turned into weapons in a heartbeat.

:rofl:

[NNadir]

7. There is a difference between IMAGINATION and reality. Anti-nukes IMAGINE all. kinds of things not

remotely connected with reality, and because they are OWNED out right by dangerous fossil fuel companies, care not a whit about dangerous fossil fuel wars which are actually observed.

They are so indifferent to the dangerous fossil fuel wars covering the Pacific, all of Eastern Europe, much of Africa, all of the mid East (nearly continuous war, that they giggle about this state of affairs, the status quo, which being bourgeois, indifferent, solipsistic, uninformed, unenlightened and uneducated, they couldn't care less about it.

Have a nice giggly face day.

[jpak]

21. The NJ molten salt breeder reactor is I M A G I N A R Y

yup

:rofl:

[Festivito]

5. Is this weapon's grade and do they still have more generals per capita than any other country?

I doubt it would be useful for A or H bombs, and I would hope they have been reducing the military bloat since the old leftist killing days.

[GliderGuider]

6. Nuclear power is a crock of shit

Regardless of whether is safer than its opponents claim;
Regardless of whether it is cheaper than renewable options;
Regardless of whether it will supply relatively GHG-free electricity;
Nuclear power is a crock of shit.

Nuclear power is simply one more manifestation of the septic infection of the human spirit by dreams of control, conquest, domination and dominion.

Carbon dioxide is not the only visible pus seeping from humanity’s self-inflicted wound. Nuclear storage tanks, tar sands waste water ponds, mining tailing ponds and slag tips, eutrophic dead zones and oceans contaminated by oil all join CO2 in spreading our infection deep into the heart of natural world.

Nuclear power needs to be resisted not because it is inherently more dangerous or more expensive than any other energy generation technology, but simply because it IS an energy technology. The exact same criterion applies to coal, oil, natural gas, wind, solar and hydro. All such technologies are in a deep sense expressions of violence and repression that wound both the planet and the human spirit.

As I would object to the rape of any family member, I do not consent to the rape of the planet and humanity that these technologies represent.

[NNadir]

8. Well of course, we all COULD return to pre-industrial times, a life expectancy of about 25-30 years,

short, brutish and ignorant lives.

That is an option, maybe, or maybe it's an inevitability.

Personally, my philosophical view - and I realize to have the luxury of having a philosophical view I must be inherently bourgeois - is that the purpose of humanity is to see things. I may be an atheist in practice, but there is something sacred for me in extending human vision.

For me, the highest expressions of humanity are apprehension of the scale and history of the universe, both at its smallest and its largest. Thus I believe the purpose of humanity is to build things like the Hubble and the super collider.

It's, um, I know, very bourgeois, although not as bourgeois as pretending one can run an SUV type thing - or any piece of similar garbage - with cute fantasy wind turbines and cute fantasy solar panels.

That said, and thus, I am not in favor of short, brutish, ignorant lives.

I note that people who are most concerned about the "return to nature" often rail against humanity, but seldom commit suicide as a expression of their intellectual purity. It always seems that it is everyone else, particularly those who still lead short brutish lives who is the problem, and never the philosopher himself or herself.

Nuclear power is decidedly not perfect. But it is very, very, very, very, very, very, very clearly the best form of energy there is, and to the extent that allows humanity to see beyond the cocoons of individualist hubris, it is, in my view a necessary thing.

I personally have no intention of committing suicide, as much as that may disturb the anti-science types here.

I have two children. I don't want them to die. I want them to live and I want them to see.

[GliderGuider]

9. Ah, the "I don't want to die" meme.

Good luck with that!

You know that there are many ways of seeing, right? How about I grant you yours, and you grant me mine?

[txlibdem]

12. Anti-nukes are like your least favorite children, you want to love 'em but they make it so damn hard

Children, let's all get along. Can we. Please.

Who is the real enemy? Oil and Coal, that's who our common enemy is (and always has been). The well-meaning but deluded tools of the Coal industry who succeeded in killing off the nuclear power industry here in the USA should be slapping themselves right in the face about now. For every nuclear power plant they killed off the utilities had to build two or three Coal powered plants. Slap yourself -- NOW! You claim you were trying to stop the threat of radiation by stopping nuclear but every coal plant spews 5.2 TONS of uranium and about 11 Tons of Thorium each and every year they are in operation. How STUPID do you anti-nuke folks feel? You ought to feel like the biggest idiots the Earth has ever produced.

And don't get me started on oil, where the drilling pipes get coated with caked on radioactive material and then they just stack them on the ground and leave them to rust and leach their radioactive (and other toxic) contaminants into the ground water. Plus, nobody has forgotten the Gulf disaster, which was right after a refinery explosion and just before a pipeline explosion. Death and pollution. Those are the only two permanent fixtures of the oil industry.

So while you childish little brats are whining about how much you hate nuclear power you are guaranteeing the very radiation that you CLAIM to be against.

Grow a pair, learn the facts, and (most importantly) work together to get our nation off of these deadly poisons Coal and Oil! Quit bickering and GET ALONG.

[kristopher]

13. I'll help you build 12 coal plants if you help me build 1 nuke plant, they said.

INTERVIEW: EDF CFO: No Provisions After Constellation Deal

PARIS (Dow Jones)-- The $250 million agreement between French state-controlled power behemoth Electricite de France SA (EDF.FR) and U.S.-based energy group Constellation Energy Group (CEG) restructuring their nuclear partnership won't lead to any potential provisions ...
...EDF and Constellation said they agreed to end a joint venture to develop nuclear power plants after the relationship soured in recent months.
...Also, EDF will transfer to Constellation 3.5 million of the shares worth about $110 million and will relinquish its seat on the Constellation board. Constellation will terminate its rights under an existing put option under which EDF would have been required to buy 12 power plants--most of them coal-fired--from Constellation for as much as $2 billion.
http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20101027-703038.html

The deal seems to have been one where Constellation would help French company EDF get US loan guarantees and subsidies to build a new nuclear plant. In return, EDF would buy up to a dozen new coal plants from COnstellation.

Constellation looked at the economics and IN SPITE of the 80% loan guarantees AND the ability to recoup the other 20% plus any cost overruns from ratepayers, Constellation thought the deal was too financially risky and walked away. Now it looks like EDF will not be buying the coal plants.

That's what you call a win - win for the people of the planet.
(originally posted at:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x263303 )

The team at work is never going to be renewables and nuclear; in reality it is composed of a set of stakeholders whose common interests are largely served by EITHER nuclear power or coal. To them, large scale penetration of renewables is an existential threat because in a decentralized renewable grid they are not needed.

And the opposite is also true - To renewables, both coal and nuclear are an existential because in a centralized system such as we've had for 75 year renewables are largely redundant.

When you say "we need both" it is:
1) factually untrue

2) counterproductive to the goal of moving away from coal because nuclear is slower to roll out and more expensive

3) nuclear is shown very clearly to "crowd out" renewables and energy efficiency; thus making support of nuclear power AS PART OF THE MIX a defacto choice against renewable energy. The evidence is rather unambiguous.

FINDINGS: CROWDING OUT ALTERNATIVES
The commitment to nuclear reactors in France and the U.S appears to have crowded out alternatives. The French track record on efficiency and renewables is extremely poor compared to similar European nations, as is that of the U.S. States where utilities have not expressed an interest in getting licenses for new nuclear reactors have a better track record on efficiency and renewable and more aggressive plans for future development of efficiency and renewables, as shown in Exhibit ES-3.

These states:
 had three times as much renewable energy and ten times as much non-hydro renewable energy in their 1990 generation mix and
 set RPS goals for the next decade that are 50 percent higher;
 spent three times as much on efficiency in 2006;
 saved over three times as much energy in the 1992-2006 period, and
 have much stronger utility efficiency programs in place.

The cost and availability of alternatives play equally important roles. In both nations, nuclear reactors are substantially more costly than the alternatives. The U.S. appears to have a much greater opportunity to develop alternatives not only because the cost disadvantage of nuclear in the U.S. is greater, but also because the portfolio of potential resources is much greater in the U.S. The U.S. consumes about 50 percent more electricity per dollar of gross domestic product per capita than France, which have the highest electricity consumption among comparable Western European nations...

-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

[GliderGuider]

14. I'd be happy with a polite "Agree to disagree"

There are simply too many points of view in the world to try and force everyone into one preferred box.

I try not to lecture people any more, I've found they don't appreciate it and they stop listening.

[txlibdem]

16. What was that you said? I tuned you out when you started to disagree with me

:hi: can I get a rim shot, Smitty! (ba-dum-pum!)

[NNadir]

17. Sorry, but I don't believe that right and wrong are relative things.

It's not personal in the smug "I don't want to die" kind of "meme."

(Have I ever mentioned in this space how much I detest the word "meme." It's so, um, um, um social "sciency".)

Abraham Pais described his conversations with Einstein on objective reality, and how Einstein's argument with Bohr involved - as Einstein put it to Pais - whether Pais or Einstein or Bohr should believe that the moon existed when it was out of their sight.

But this was an artifact. Einstein, Bohr and Pais all knew that the moon exists.

There are physical constraints on energy. The population of the planet exists, and, it is, in my view, very clear as a moral point that we must do what we can to help as many as we can.

I insist that those who regard much of humanity as a kind of vermin, never take a break from doing so to consider whether they themselves are human and therefore themselves a kind of vermin. Specifically, we seldom observe them killing themselves because they regard themselves as vermin.

Similarly, if one regards all form of energy as a kind of "pus" to use your words, how on earth does one have the moral weakness to say so on a computer?

You are writing on a computer powered, almost certainly, by dangerous fossil fuels very smugly about some abstraction. You complain about all sources of energy using charged words about which I sincerely doubt you have any concept.

"Pus?!?"

You speak of the "wanting dominion" as pestilential, and yet you assert your own "dominion."

Frankly, I don't think you are intrinsically more worthwhile than the poor slob just south of Dafur who is trying to keep his kids alive just one more day. His reality is no self declared intellectual abstraction.

Ted Kazinsky at least effectively lived in a cave and had an anti-technology fantasy running quite well in his own day to day reality. There is no evidence he ever blogged to get attention, although we may wish he had blogged rather than seek attention as he sought it. We may all also note that he wasn't, at least, a hypocrite. Further he clearly was, by all accounts, a brilliant man. But sorry, the way he saw things was wrong. He killed people and clearly saw them as objects. The best we can say of him was that he was as crazy as a loon. The worst we can say is that he was evil.

I tend, frankly, toward the latter view, the view in which we say the worst of him.

[GliderGuider]

18. I actually don't think "right and wrong" exist at all in any objective sense.

Since right and wrong are value judgments, they are by nature subjective.

My reference to "pus" was mainly about CO2, though I included toxic and dangerous waste from other forms of energy generation and human activity as well: "nuclear storage tanks, tar sands waste water ponds, mining tailing ponds and slag tips, eutrophic dead zones and oceans contaminated by oil" all figured into that, but not energy itself. You were probably a bit triggered when you read that, and didn't read the words as carefully as you normally do.

Moral imperatives are fine, we all have them. Most ordinary people don't apply exact moral equivalence to everything in their lives though, and I'm no different. Using a computer isn't a sign of moral weakness. Certainly not one on a par with using bad cement in a Gulf oil well to make a bit more profit. The electricity that goes into my computer here in Ontario is about 50% nuclear and 25% hydro, so I don't feel too bad about that.

My complaint isn't actually about energy per se, it's about heedless, unconscious human activity. If we were more thoughtful and circumspect about the consequences of our actions, we could probably use the same amount of energy and cause less than a quarter of the damage we do. Since we use energy to power our activity and don't have the awareness to avoid the negative consequences, I wish we were less active as a species, using less energy. Ultimately though, the answer is to become conscious, caring human beings.

Regarding intrinsic worth, I believe that every member of every species on the planet has intrinsic value, and that applies to human beings as well. I have no more nor less intrinsic value than a Somali farmer, a Canadian mill worker, a French corporate CEO or an American president. We all, in the final assessment, have exactly the same worth. We also each have exactly the same intrinsic value as a deer, dolphin or dormouse, but that's a discussion for another day.

I certainly don't see human beings as "vermin" - that's your word - and I would never counsel either murder nor suicide to anyone. Life has far too much value for that. On the other hand, as I said above my life has no more value than the Somali farmer's, and that would apply no matter how much or little energy I used, or how materially comfortable or uncomfortable I was. I don't wish his death and I don't wish my own. In the end death is inevitable of course, as it has been since the beginning. The trick is to get from here to there with a maximum of living, and to arrive with as clear a conscience as possible.

Yes, Ted K was a brilliant sociopath. IMO it wasn't his views about civilization that were evil, though, it was his actions. We all have a right to our thoughts and opinions whatever they may be, but no right to harm others. That applies to you and me the same as it did to Ted. It wasn't his beliefs that got him in trouble, it was his actions. We both have the same luxury to hold beliefs (even unpopular ones), but I suspect we'll be a little more empathetic in our actions than he was.

[Odin2005]

10. Oh what a bunch of luddite nonsense.

And insulting rape victims, too. :eyes:

[GliderGuider]

15. It's a pisser when people disagree with you, isn't it?

Thankfully there is only One Right View in this world. Too bad we each have our own version of it...

[txlibdem]

11. How can we oppress them and stage coups if they get too "leftist" for our taste?

Why, if they have nukes we won't be able to overthrow their democratically elected leaders and install a pro-corporate stooge. This just can't be.

[madokie]

19. And you can bet your ass

that this has something to do with the news of Chavaz and russia's announcement of building a couple nuke plants in Venezuela. It is a perfect example of nuclear bomb proliferation

[txlibdem]

22. Just in time for another "nuclear power means nuclear bombs" screed

That's just as laughable as some idiot saying that a solar power plant means "DEATH LASERS" are coming to kill you!!! OMG!!!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

You anti-nuke zealots make me laugh. Oh no's! They're putting up another HURRICANE GENERATOR on top of that hill! Run for yer lives!!!

PS, (shhh!) I'll take my check from the Coal Industry now please... (shhhhh!)
:rofl::rofl:

[kristopher]

23. You are ridiculous and your denial borders on pathological.

The ONLY place you will find denial of the link between nuclear power and nuclear weapons proliferation is either on the pages of nuclear industry propaganda websites like the Nuclear Energy Institute, on the pages of Republican think tanks, or in the writings of people who get their information from those sites.

Even pronuclear academic studies have to admit that proliferation concerns are one of the primary obstacles to the widespread use of nuclear power.

Over the next 50 years, unless patterns change dramatically, energy production and use will contribute to global warming through large-scale greenhouse gas emissions — hundreds of billions of tonnes of carbon in the form of carbon dioxide. Nuclear power could be one option for reducing carbon emissions. At present, however, this is unlikely: nuclear power faces stagnation and decline.

This study analyzes what would be required to retain nuclear power as a significant option for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and meeting growing needs for electricity supply. Our analysis is guided by a global growth scenario that would expand current worldwide nuclear generating capacity almost threefold, to 1000 billion watts,by the year 2050.Such a deployment would avoid 1.8 billion tonnes of carbon emissions annually from coal plants, about 25% of the increment in carbon emissions otherwise expected in a business-as-usual scenario. This study also recommends changes in government policy and industrial practice needed in the relatively near term to retain an option for such an outcome. (Want to guess what these are? - K)

We did not analyze other options for reducing carbon emissions — renewable energy sources, carbon sequestration,and increased energy efficiency — and therefore reach no conclusions about priorities among these efforts and nuclear power. In our judgment, it would be a mistake to exclude any of these four options at this time.

STUDY FINDINGS
For a large expansion of nuclear power to succeed,four critical problems must be overcome:

Cost. In deregulated markets, nuclear power is not now cost competitive with coal and natural gas.However,plausible reductions by industry in capital cost,operation and maintenance costs, and construction time could reduce the gap. Carbon emission credits, if enacted by government, can give nuclear power a cost advantage.

Safety.
Modern reactor designs can achieve a very low risk of serious accidents, but “best practices”in construction and operation are essential.We know little about the safety of the overall fuel cycle,beyond reactor operation.

Waste.
Geological disposal is technically feasible but execution is yet to be demonstrated or certain. A convincing case has not been made that the long-term waste management benefits of advanced, closed fuel cycles involving reprocessing of spent fuel are outweighed by the short-term risks and costs. Improvement in the open,once through fuel cycle may offer waste management benefits as large as those claimed for the more expensive closed fuel cycles.

Proliferation.
The current international safeguards regime is inadequate to meet the security challenges of the expanded nuclear deployment contemplated in the global growth scenario. The reprocessing system now used in Europe, Japan, and Russia that involves separation and recycling of plutonium presents unwarranted proliferation risks.
- The Future of Nuclear Power
MIT 2003

From a presentation by one of the authors of that report:

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

Repeating that 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


He says this about renewables:

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.

[txlibdem]

24. So, once again, you are saying we should not build any nuclear plants designed 50 years ago

Or we should not build any nuclear power plants such as the ones in France or other places in Europe. I'll blow your mind and say I agree with you 100%. But who is talking about building such things here in the USA? Nobody. Not a soul wants to do that.

Argentina already has three nuclear power plants and another PHWR scheduled to come online in 2011. A PHWR can use un-enriched Uranium so they don't need the fuel enrichment anyway but it will give them one more option for what fuel to use. And I think it's a good thing for the Argentinians to fully develop their own technology, it's a unique technique for enriching Uranium for fuel and it may prove to be a valuable technology for them to sell one day (especially as oil resources continue to dwindle).

Unlike you, I don't think it would be a bad thing for "the brown people" to have a nuclear bomb. The history of US imperialism in South and Central America is nothing short of sickening. The CIA backed coups, violently removing the Democratically elected government in a bloody takeover are only one twisted and disgusting example. I don't think we'd be meddling in their affairs so damn much if they had nukes.

We aren't invading North Korea now are we? Why do you think that is?

[kristopher]

25. So your strawman is to support social justice...

My words were clear, they did not and do not need you to 'reinterpret' them into a different statement which you then proceeded to attack. The first line of the OP:

Argentina has formally reactivated its gaseous diffusion uranium enrichment plant at Pilcaniyeu over two decades after production there halted.

This is almost certainly the beginning of a nuclear arms race, just as Madokie noted. Your defense of the nuclear industry is based on fantasy and denial of the facts that exist. I therefore suspect your enthusiasm for renewables is nothing more than a reflection of the admonition to nuclear supporters to align themselves with renewable energy in an effort greenwash nuclear and to to promote support for getting more government subsidies for the nuclear industry.

Previously posted:

I'm sure this "message" is a familiar one to DU/EE readers. This comes on the tail end of a rather dismal assessment of public support for nuclear power. It is a given that by "sensible energy policy" the author is referring to one that includes the nuclear power that will produce the waste his company can profit from.

...how do we use the results of public opinion to develop a sensible energy policy

• Leadership and unity of message need to be the top priority.

• Acceptable messages need to cover the diversity of group thinking.

• Developing confidence on having a solution to nuclear waste issues and non-proliferation requires leadership messages and social support more than scientific support.

And what are those "acceptable messages"?

Energy Messages
• Nuclear and renewable energy need to be tied into a combined offering.
• Concerns regarding energy security and energy independence can only
be solved through the combination of energy efficiency, renewable
standards, and nuclear energy.

From presentation:
"Understanding Public Opinion: A Key to the Nuclear Renaissance"
Dr. Raul A. Deju Sept. 2009
Chief Operating Officer
EnergySolutions, Inc.

EnergySolutions is one of the world’s largest processors of low level waste (LLW), and is the largest nuclear waste company in the United States...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EnergySolutions

In fact, if we build nuclear power it *actively* discourages BOTH renewable energy policies and development AND energy efficiency policies and efforts because they undermine of the economics of nuclear power.

It is a real clear economic choice folks - if you advocate for nuclear power you are undercutting the efforts to build our renewables, if you support renewable energy and energy efficiency, you are denying nuclear power the market share they MUST have to be viable.

[joshcryer]

26. "This is almost certainly the beginning of a nuclear arms race"

Argentina has absolutely nothing to gain by spending billions on a nuclear weapons program. Absolutely nothing. God what absurdity.

[txlibdem]

29. Absolutely nothing

They have nothing to gain EXCEPT an end to CIA backed bloody coups, perhaps a softening of IMF manipulation of their social policy, and generally a level of sovereignty and safety that no other country in Central or South America enjoys.

Yeah. Pretty much nothing...

[joshcryer]

37. The sanctions that they would have for ejecting inspectors would be far worse than any "political...

...gain" that they could possibly get by doing so. North Korea's people starved when they withdrew from the NPT. Indeed, withdrawing from the NPT would cause Argentina to undergo the very coups you think they would be safe from by having nuclear power.

This is a joke.

[txlibdem]

32. No, my strawman was just to parry your strawman

The peaceful use of nuclear power will generate safe, reliable supplies of energy that will provide a stable economy in the region, allow new industries to grow, create jobs and benefit all the people, not just the elite who own interests in Coal or Oil resources.

The ridiculous statement that Argentina wants to make bombs, implying that they are an evil rogue state and not an honorable and important member of the economy in South America is yet another strawman. They already have two nuclear reactors that have been there for years and another on the way in 2011, PHWRs as stated by another poster can easily be used to make nuclear bomb material (a claim that I have not verified but have no reason to disbelieve) so this reactivation of their enrichment program is a non-issue if the goal is to step on their necks (figuratively) to keep them from being able to ever build a nuke. That horse left the barn long ago. So your objection to their enrichment is not based on any fact that I can see. Please educate me...

Lastly, your assertion that nuclear power *actively* discourages expansion of renewable energy remains unproven. It is YOUR opinion but I completely disagree. Rather, failing to attack the dominance of Coal in the US grid mix from multiple sides *guarantees* continued dominance by Coal for many decades to come. Barring some amazing breakthrough in storage technology (which utility companies are working on, putting serious money into) it will take at least another decade or two for renewable energy storage to come online in any significant numbers. I agree that renewable energy is properly the main focus, or should be, of any sensible energy policy. But to fail to also move forward with nuclear power plants removes one leg of the stool from our efforts. Nuclear power plants serves as a replacement for base power generation, renewables right now are best suited for smoothing out the peaks. They work synergistically.

If you love Coal then you should be AGAINST nuclear power plants. A few posters on DU have made their positions clear. How do the REST OF YOU feel about Coal?

[kristopher]

33. Nuclear is a third rate solution to climate change - it SLOWS the transition.

Thanks for sharing the "link nuclear to renewables" messaging campaign of the nuclear industry.
Let's see how you did:
"Nuclear and renewable energy need to be tied into a combined offering." Check!

"Concerns regarding energy security and energy independence can only be solved through the combination of energy efficiency, renewable standards, and nuclear energy." Check!

You posted the same "we can afford both" nonsense before and you were given the opportunity to see this study then. But you've shown that you are here to support nuclear power no matter what the facts are so you pretend studies that show nuclear slowing the transition away from fossil fuels don't exist; they do.

Your appeals to renewables are just the theme of the day behind a nuclear indsutry campaign trying to get a 10% increase in public support for nuclear power.
Nuclear Industry Approved Messaging in your post was brought to you by ...
See

"Messaging strategy for nuclear power (in their own words)"
• Nuclear and renewable energy need to be tied into a combined offering.
• Concerns regarding energy security and energy independence can only be solved through the combination of energy efficiency, renewable standards, and nuclear energy.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=263064&mesg_id=263064

There is no synergy except in the minds of the nuclear industry propaganda machine and it isn't my "opinion" that nuclear crowds out renewables, it is the solid evidence from real world experience.

Originally posted at http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=printer_friendly&forum=102&topic_id=4579597&mesg_id=4579842

There is no problem that gets unlimited funds - especially a problem on the scale of AGW.

You may not like it but in the real world the cost of building the technologies matters more than almost anything else. If you want to fix the problem come back down to earth and join the real fight in the real world.

Nuclear is a third rate solution both environmentally and economically; and if you want to see the way it directly conflicts with the deployment of renewables read the report from citigroup.

In addition to his outstanding 2009 paper charting the actual costs of nuclear power vs predictions, Cooper did a very informative study that was just released examining the way deploying these technologies conflicts with each other. When you build nuclear, you don't need renewables; when you build renewables, you don't need nuclear.

The press release reads in part

...Cooper's study, which VLS (Vermont Law School - K) is publishing today on the Institute for Engergy and Environment website, is titled "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."

Key study findings include the following:

* Nuclear reactors are not cheaper in France. Both the U.S. and French nuclear industries have experienced severe cost escalation in recent years. Measured in 2008 dollars, U.S. and French overnight costs were similar in the early 1970s, about $1,000 per kilowatt (kW). In the U.S. they escalated to the range of $3,000 to $4,000 per kW by the mid-1980s. The final reactors were generally in the $5,000 to $6,000 range. French costs increased to the range of $2,000-$3,000 in the mid-1980s and $3,000 to $5,000 in the 1990s. The report finds that the claim that standardization, learning, or large increases in the number (and size) of reactors under construction will lower costs is not supported in the data.

* In France and the U.S. building nuclear reactors and central station facilities crowd out energy efficiency and renewable energy. The French track record on energy efficiency and renewables is poor compared to similar European nations. In the U.S., past nuclear construction future nuclear plans appear to crowd out alternatives - a trend that would worsen significantly under large-scale subsidization of nuclear reactors, which mirrors the French model. States in which utilities have not expressed an interest in getting licenses for new nuclear reactors have a better track record on efficiency and renewable and more aggressive plans for future development of efficiency and renewables. With respect to efficiency and renewable energy the "no nuclear plans" U.S. states have (in comparison to U.S. "nuclear states"): had three times as much renewable energy and ten times as much non-hydro renewable energy in their 1990 generation mix; set Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) goals for the next decade that are 50 percent higher; spent three times as much on efficiency in 2006; saved over three times as much energy in the 1992-2006 period; and have much stronger utility efficiency programs in place.

* The U.S. would have even more to lose in terms of renewables than France if it followed France's model of more nuclear power. According to the new report, the U.S. has a much greater opportunity to develop alternatives not only because the cost disadvantage of nuclear in the U.S. is greater, but also because the portfolio of alternative resources is much greater in the U.S. The U.S. consumes about 50 percent more electricity per dollar of gross domestic product per capita than France, which has the highest electricity consumption among comparable Western European nations. The U.S. has renewable opportunities that are four times as great as Europe...

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

MARK COOPER SEPTEMBER 2010

You can download the full study at VLS's website: http://www.vermontlaw.edu/Academics/Environmental_Law_Center/Institutes_and_Initiatives/Institute_for_Energy_and_the_Environment/News_and_Publications.htm

[kristopher]

35. And then there is this in response to your claim that nuclear is preferred

Nuclear power is literally a third rate solution to climate change and energy security issues.

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.

[joshcryer]

38. Ranks with Coal-CCS by that report, if more realistic lifetimes are considered...

...beats hydro.

[txlibdem]

40. The words "shown" and "proven" have pretty clear meanings

Yet you say that it has been "shown" that (fill in the anti-nuke talking points) but then you just spout opinion.

Then you say that it has been "proven" but you and your links show no study, or data to back up the claim.

Let me repeat my earlier post:

Children, let's all get along. Can we. Please.

Who is the real enemy? Oil and Coal, that's who our common enemy is (and always has been). The well-meaning but deluded tools of the Coal industry who succeeded in killing off the nuclear power industry here in the USA should be slapping themselves right in the face about now. For every nuclear power plant they killed off the utilities had to build two or three Coal powered plants. Slap yourself -- NOW! You claim you were trying to stop the threat of radiation by stopping nuclear but every coal plant spews 5.2 TONS of uranium and about 11 Tons of Thorium each and every year they are in operation. How STUPID do you anti-nuke folks feel? You ought to feel like the biggest idiots the Earth has ever produced.

And don't get me started on oil, where the drilling pipes get coated with caked on radioactive material and then they just stack them on the ground and leave them to rust and leach their radioactive (and other toxic) contaminants into the ground water. Plus, nobody has forgotten the Gulf disaster, which was right after a refinery explosion and just before a pipeline explosion. Death and pollution. Those are the only two permanent fixtures of the oil industry.

So while you childish little brats are whining about how much you hate nuclear power you are guaranteeing the very radiation that you CLAIM to be against.

Grow a pair, learn the facts, and (most importantly) work together to get our nation off of these deadly poisons Coal and Oil! Quit bickering and GET ALONG.

And then, there is the classic:

That's just as laughable as some idiot saying that a solar power plant means "DEATH LASERS" are coming to kill you!!! OMG!!!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

You anti-nuke zealots make me laugh. Oh no's! They're putting up another HURRICANE GENERATOR on top of that hill! Run for yer lives!!!

PS, (shhh!) I'll take my check from the Coal Industry now please... (shhhhh!)
:rofl: :rofl:

[Systematic Chaos]

48. Someone please tell me how many times this site crashes...

...upon performing a search for all instances of "Mark Z. Jacobson" on the DU.

:)

[Dead_Parrot]

49. Number of the day: "about 2900"

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=1276&bih=725&q=%22Mark+Z.+Jacobson%22+site%3Ademocraticunderground.com&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

Rinse


Repeat

[Systematic Chaos]

50. omfg

:wow:

:rofl:

[hunter]

51. It's up to 3010 now.

:woohoo:

[NNadir]

52. And of course, the best part is that we find this out by Googling. n/t

[joshcryer]

27. North Korea is the one, and only, state to make a bomb after having signed the NPT.

I do not think that North Korea is in any way representative of the other 189 signatories.

[NNadir]

31. Can you possibly ever be more provincial?!?

Generally I find anti-nukes to completely illiterate intellectual weaklings, but even when I think I've appreciated the depths, I am still shocked to learn that I really have no idea exactly how pathetic this group is.

You can't tell the difference between Argentina and Venezuela? Why am I not surprised?

[madokie]

41. Oh I know the difference between the two you can bet your ass on that

not sure you do with this reply you just gave me though

[OnlinePoker]

47. You can't tell the difference between Argentina and Venezuela

Argentina makes better wine.

[jpak]

20. They just want to build bombs - heavy water reactors use natural unenriched uranium

and it is much easier to extract plutonium from their spent fuel than PWRs that use enriched uranum.

The enichment plants can make bomb-grade uranium - just like the US did during WW2.

A 2-track pathway to make bombs.

yup

:nuke:

[joshcryer]

28. The NPT will make that extremely difficult.

They would first have to kick out all the inspectors, and then they'd have to endure decades of sanctions, and then maybe they'd make a bomb.

Like North Korea.

A joke, jpak. A joke.

I can't believe what qualifies for logical thought on this subforum.

[txlibdem]

30. And since they already have two nuclear reactors online and another to start up in 2011...

You pretty much called that statement out as a strawman.

[kristopher]

34. The premise of controlling nuclear proliferation in the face of spreading commercial nuclear power

...is that enrichment and reprocessing of fuel is NOT part of the package. The "peaceful use of nuclear power" envisions a world where the fuel remains in the hands of the countries already possessing nuclear weapons, and that the client states must buy their fuel from that existing network.

The weakness of the strategy is obvious and on display first in Iran, and now in Argentina. The right to energy security is paramount and any country, once it has a civilian reactor program can do just as Argentina is now doing - they can build the enrichment facilities needed to make nuclear weapons. Between the commercial reactor program and the enrichment facilities they get 99% of the way to nuclear weapons while remaining within the bounds of international law. They are then positioned to make the final step at their leisure with little fear that there is anything anyone can do to stop them.

That scenario is playing out in Iran right now; and the groundwork is being laid throughout the Middle East and South America for it to spread - witness the OP.

[joshcryer]

36. Iran is not Argentina. Argentina has nothing to gain and will not eject inspectors.

Iran is not Argentina as Argentina is a signatory to the NPT.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_parties_to_the_Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty

How hard is this to grasp? NPT works. Inspections work.

[txlibdem]

39. Now, now, now. Let's not bring facts and logic into this.

You know the anti-nuke zealots (aka Coal Industry supporters?) cannot process it and will simply ignore or misinterpret. That is, if the don't out and out falsify in their response.

[joshcryer]

42. Every UN sanction against Iran has been over NPT.

You don't sign NPT and not expect to be sanctioned to fuck and back if you ignore it. Sanctions are not a joke, they make life very difficult for developing countries. The very idea that Argentina would be considering this is mind boggling to say the least.

[txlibdem]

43. Right

Which shows the anti-nuke BS that has been tossed around this thread to be just that: BS.

[joshcryer]

44. I wish the South / Central American supporters would jump on this.

We have a lot of very loud individuals here who defend South / Central America voraciously, and there are people in this thread who are being very insulting to South / Central America over utter absurdities. I just thought these people were against nuclear and had fairly good reasons for it, but it is clear that their agenda is clouding their judgment and their reasons are nonsensical at best.

Argentina wants a nuclear arms race. :rofl:

[txlibdem]

45. So what you're saying is:

It's pretty darn weird when the prominent voice in support of Central and South America is some white guy from Texas...

[joshcryer]

46. Haha, that's fucked up, and true. So sad.

Not that there's anything wrong with being a white Texan male. ;D