Challenging the nuclear proponents to back up their call for more nuclear power

[kristopher]

At this point if you support nuclear power you must justify its use.

Yes coal is dirty, yes; but across its entire fuel cycle so is nuclear.


1. nuclear power isn't "cheap" - it is expensive;

2. learning and new standardized designs will not solve all past problems - waste, safety and proliferation are part and parcel of the technology;

3. the waste problem is a real problem, and that is true even if we’d follow the lead of many other nations and “recycle” our spent fuel;

4. climate change does not make a renaissance "inevitable" - in fact, detailed analysis shows that nuclear power is at best a third rate solution to climate change;

5. there are other ways to provide electricity for our modern society than with large-scale “baseload” sources of generation as "baseload" is in reality nothing more than an economic construct that developed around centralized generation - a distributed grid approach is technically far superior;

6. there’s every 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.



If you believe the above statements are false then you please support that belief with peer reviewed science. Remember, the comparison is with renewable energy and energy efficiency, not with coal. We are in agreement that we must transition from coal, the question is what is the best route to get us to our objective of a carbon free world economy.

[freshwest]

1. Thanks. Another chance to leave the reactionary system. It won't be without pain.

[kristopher]

2. The pain is going to fall mostly on the owners of existing coal plants and mineral rights

They will be the losers as we move away from both coal and nuclear.

It's interesting that none of the nuclear supporters will engage when the discussion is framed to control for hyperbole and junk science from nuclear bloggers.

[Chris_Texas]

6. No. There is simply no point. And you don't want a discussion anyway.

Those of us here who are pro-nuclear have all had this conversation dozens of time over the last couple weeks, and there really is no point. The anti-nuke "Prove god doesn't exist" defense is unbreachable. And in any case, it's irrelevant. We have nukes now and we are going to have many many MANY more. If this frightens you there are two smart things you can do:

1. You can insist that they be built as best we can.
2. You can fight for old plants be replaced with newer safer ones

[kristopher]

7. Nuclear suppporters are using junk science - this is a challenge to present the real thing

It's a time for real discussion. Claims such as you just made, that such a discussion has taken place "dozens of time over the last couple weeks" are untrue and designed to wriggle out of the challenge.

Put up the peer reviewed evidence to support nuclear power or stop making the claims such lack of evidence shows to be false.

[bananas]

21. Nope - as the CEO of Entergy said, "the numbers just don't work" for new nuclear.

The CEO's of Exelon, Constellation, and other companies have come to the same conclusion.
The choice is renewables or fossil fuels.
If you are pro-nuke, you are pro-coal.

[kristopher]

25. I'd ask nuclear opponents to express their suppport by nothing more than a Kick. Thanks.

I'd like to prevent the discussion being derailed into side discussions.

Thanks.

[spanone]

3. it's eternally toxic. eom.

[LAGC]

4. You just get to building that "distributed grid" you like to keep talking about.

Then we'll talk about abandoning centralized power plants that work with the existing infrastructure, without costly upgrades.

You better hurry though. Climate change is happening right before our eyes. The longer we rely on coal/gas to provide reliable backup power when renewables aren't providing power, the more harm we are causing to the environment.

[kristopher]

5. Peer reviewed evidence please - no specious claims allowed.

The transmission and distribution for grid based on distributed generation is already largely in place. You see, a grid consists of far more than transmission and distribution; for example, it is referred to by grid operators as "the largest machine in the world" because all sources of generation are required to be synchronized in the dominant AC cycle. If you don't understand that machine, you don't understand what is meant by "the grid".

We are already going to be upgrading the grid because deregulation has provided a perverse incentive that makes it stupid for utilities to maintain the transmission and distribution at a level needed for a reliable power supply. We will also be upgrading to gain the advantages of energy efficiency improvements that will dramatically reduce consumption. Related to efficiency improvements are the upgrades that will be coming to enable the transition from internal combustion engines and oil to battery electric drive vehicles. Finally, should we move to nuclear instead, there are upgrades in transmission that would be every bit at extensive and expensive as with renewables.

You have made the claim about back-up power before and been provided the publication by the International Electric and Electronic Engineers specifically written to refute that and other false statements.

The challenge requires you to support such specious claims that have previously been rebutted with hard, peer reviewed evidence. Otherwise, the default assumption is that your claim lacks validity.

This is how that is done:
Wind Power Myths Debunked
november/december 2009 IEEE power & energy magazine
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/MPE.2009.934268
1540-7977/09/$26.00©2009 IEEE

By Michael Milligan, Kevin Porter, Edgar DeMeo, Paul Denholm, Hannele Holttinen, Brendan Kirby, Nicholas Miller, Andrew Mills, Mark O’Malley, Matthew Schuerger, and Lennart Soder

http://www.ieee-pes.org/images/pdf/open-access-milligan.pdf

[LAGC]

9. You've posted that wind piece before and its been shown to be weak.

As that paper says MULTIPLE TIMES: "The ability of the system to integrate large penetrations of wind depends heavily on the mix of other generation resources."

Wind can provide maybe 20% of our energy needs, but still needs balancing by other, more reliable sources.

What happens on windless winter nights when solar and wind aren't providing power and everyone has their electric heaters cranked up?

Face it: until energy storage costs come down, we need a reliable backup, and we only have three choices: coal, natural gas, or nuclear. Which one has the lowest carbon footprint?

[kristopher]

10. If it is "weak" post peer reviewed evidence that contradicts it. You cannot.

You cannot because there is none.
Your mischaracterization of the grid is a false, facile product of nuclear bloggers. Please do not post bullshit like that in this thread unless you are prepared to provide supporting documentation from vetted sources.

This is an attempt at a serious legitimate discussion and such posts can only be construed as an attempt to obstruct such discussion, which as you know is a violation of user rules.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

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

[kristopher]

13. I've asked you to SUPPORT your call for more nuclear power.

If you can support your position with vetted evidence, then please do so.

[LAGC]

16. I'm not the one making the call, President Obama is.

Why don't you take it up with him? Face it: more nuclear power plants are in this nation's immediate future, to replace all the old ones that are nearing the end of their life-spans.

Like it or lump it, those be the facts.

[kristopher]

18. Please confine your discussion to the case for nuclear power.

Making a false appeal to authority is not scientific evidence supporting the case for nuclear power.

[LAGC]

24. I've made the case several times, but you don't seem interested in discussing.

Nothing you have posted addresses the problem of energy storage. You keep changing the subject.

Tell me how we can power entire cities in the dead of winter, on nights when the wind isn't blowing.

Solar/wind alone ain't gonna cut it.

As I have stated, for reliable backup power for those down-times, we have three options right now: coal, nuclear, or natural gas. Only one has a low carbon footprint.

[kristopher]

26. Support your claims with peer reviewed sources; otherwise they have no merit.

ETA: The IEEE publication also addresses storage.

[LAGC]

27. You deleted my earlier post, so I'll try to be more polite.

As others have pointed out to you, what you are attempting to do is tantamount to religious people demanding atheists to "prove there is no God." You cannot prove a negative.

The onus is on you to respond to my reasonable concerns. It's just simple logic. If the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing, where is the power?

None of your "peer-reviewed sources" you've posted so far addresses this problem.

[kristopher]

28. Using peer reviewed science to establish what is true isn't religion.

YOU are saying we must have nuclear power.


PROVE IT.

[LAGC]

29. No, I said we have 3 options right now.

Coal, natural gas, or nuclear to provide a reliable backup to power cities on those cold, windless nights where solar/wind alone won't cut it. Of those 3 options, which would you prefer?

Consider this: Renewable energy: No magic bullet

[kristopher]

30. Junk science in newspaper articles.

Please stop bringing ever more junk science to the table.

It is obvious you have no legitimate support for your claims.

[LAGC]

31. Why do you demand "peer reviewed science" when the point is so obvious?

You keep avoiding the question whenever it is posed: how do you power entire cities on those cold, windless nights when solar/wind alone won't cut it?

It's simple logic, you don't need a study to address the obvious. If the wind isn't blowing, and the sun isn't shining... you have a power failure.

Are you prepared to endure rolling black-outs? I would suggest that the vast majority of energy consumers are not.

[kristopher]

33. You state "solar/wind alone won't cut it". PROVE THAT STATEMENT WITH SCIENCE.

It is simple. There is a huge body of work saying you are wrong. There is nothing saying you are right.

Prove your assertion.

[LAGC]

34. Do you need a "peer reviewed study" that shows that the Sun does indeed set every evening?

Because that's how ridiculous you are being right now. You are simply deflecting from answering my very reasonable points.

If you really want to discuss and debate the logistics of our future energy needs, then let's do so.

Quit beating around the bush.

[Egnever]

8. What about Thorium reactors.

Its already been done and it is orders of magnitude safer than our current reactors. I only became aware of this because of the crisis in Japan but this seeems to be the way to go.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium#Thorium_as_a_nuclear_fuel

Thorium, as well as uranium and plutonium, can be used as fuel in a nuclear reactor. A thorium fuel cycle offers several potential advantages over a uranium fuel cycle including much greater abundance on Earth, superior physical and nuclear properties of the fuel, enhanced proliferation resistance, and reduced nuclear waste production. Nobel laureate Carlo Rubbia at CERN (European Organization for Nuclear Research), has worked on developing the use of thorium as a cheap, clean and safe alternative to uranium in reactors. Rubbia states that a tonne of thorium can produce as much energy as 200 tonnes of uranium, or 3,500,000 tonnes of coal.<14> One of the early pioneers of the technology was U.S. physicist Alvin Weinberg at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee, who helped develop a working nuclear plant using liquid fuel in the 1960s.

In 1997 the U.S. Energy Department underwrote research into thorium fuel, and research was also begun in 1996 by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), to study the use of thorium reactors. Nuclear scientist, Alvin Radkowsky, of Tel Aviv University in Israel, founded a consortium to develop thorium reactors, which included other companies: Raytheon Nuclear Inc., Brookhaven National Laboratory, and the Kurchatov Institute in Moscow.<15> Radkowsky was chief scientist in the U.S. nuclear submarine program directed by Admiral Hyman Rickover and later headed the design team which built the world's first civilian nuclear power plant at Shippingport, Pennsylvania, which was a scaled-up version of the first naval reactor.<15>

Some countries, including India, are now investing in research to build thorium-based nuclear reactors. Anil Kakodkar, chairman of the Indian Atomic Energy Commission, said in 2009 that his country has a "long-term objective goal of becoming energy-independent based on its vast thorium resources."<16><17> In May 2010, researchers from Ben-Gurion University in Israel and Brookhaven National Laboratory in New York, received a Grant to develop a thorium-based, self-sustaining light water reactor<18> that will produce and consume about the same amounts of fuel.<18> In the U.S., NASA scientist and thorium expert Kirk Sorensen calls it the "next giant leap" in energy technology, noting that the "potential energy in thorium is staggering," explaining how just 8 tablespoons of thorium could provide the energy used by an American during his or her lifetime.<19><20>

[kristopher]

11. Pronuclear MIT examined nuclear power technologies and rejected thorium.

See "The Future of Nuclear Power" by MIT, 2003, 2009.

[Egnever]

14. I dont find them rejecting thorium anwhere in that paper.

Admitedly I only searched for the the word Thorium in the PDF and the only mention i found of it was in a graph that actually seems to indicate a thorium once through model as the safest option.

I may be reading it wrong but if you could point out where they say what you claim more specifically i would appreciate it.

[kristopher]

15. They looked at a number of technologies from all aspects.

Read their conclusions and you will see that the once through fuel cycle is what they recommend. That is a rejection of thorium; it didn't even make the short list.

Nuclear propagandists always promise a new technology people are unfamiliar with will solve everything. Such claims do not withstand scrutiny; that is why you will only find them in blogs, and not in the product development cycle of the quasi-governmental companies that are engaged in global competition for the nuclear power market.

[Egnever]

20. Um thorium is a once through fuel cycle

So it would seem to me that they are recomending it. :shrug:

[kristopher]

23. If you actually read the paper you would know that is not true.

The "once-through" fuel cycle has an explicit meaning. Thorium is an extremely complex, multi-stage breeder technology.

[txlibdem]

41. Nor do I find anything but a glossary entry and a passing mention in a chart

That doesn't sound like they actually looked at Thorium Cycle reactors at all. And the 2009 "update" doesn't even contain the word Thorium, nor LFTR, the only solution to proliferation problems with present reactor designs (including the 10 Gen III/III+ that are to be built in the USA within the next 15 years). Nor is the term SMR, which stands for Small to Medium-sized Reactors, found in the report.

It looks like they didn't look too hard for alternative reactor designs, they just stated that to their current knowledge (2003) no new reactor designs exist that solve the problems of proliferation, cost, waste, etc. Surprise! LFTR solves all of that. SMRs do too since they are a sealed vessel with no refueling needed.

No mention of modular, mass produced reactors. No mention of mass production of a pre-approved design that I could find.

But they are from MIT so you can't expect them to actually be able to use the internet, read newspapers, study journals, or read reports from the DOE, NRC, or any of the major builders of nuclear power plants, I guess.

[kristopher]

42. This thread proves my assertion - nuclear hype is not founded on the science.

That study was done with a purpose - to look at how to revive the US nuclear industry with the best choices that were ready. If they aren't putting the pie-in-the-sky technologies that the scientifically illiterate bloggers are promoting, then it isn't an option. Unless you think they are fools....

In which case you'd need to make your case with OTHER peer reviewed data.

I will share with you that there is work that looks at FUTURE technologies, including thorium, but those ARE NOT READY FOR PRIMETIME and cannot be held up as a reason to pursue the nuclear power technologies that ARE the ones under discussion at this time.

The claim by nuclear supporters when they were trying to push current technologies was that we must build them because we can't wait for future technologies - while making the false claim that those future technologies were renewables. In fact, that is now biting them in the rear-end; as today's nuclear technologies are clearly not a viable candidate for inclusion in the mix and we cannot wait 30 years for the not-yet-ready, pie-in-the-sky nuclear techs to complete the design, vetting, planning and permitting process.

[txlibdem]

17. Anyone else ever notice that some people NEVER post OPs that are negative about coal???

Isn't that so confusing, when coal has been proven to release massive amounts of radioactive material uncontrolled into the environment.

If a poster is truly against nuclear radiation one should expect them to equally rail against coal power plants and nuclear power plants. But that isn't the case. It makes one wonder sometimes...


http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/1997/fs163-97/FS-163-97.html - uranium content of coal and coal fly-ash

http://large.stanford.edu/publications/coal/references/hvistendahl/

[kristopher]

19. The OP clearly addresses coal. Please address why nuclear must be the answer.

And do so with peer reviewed support for your position.

[freshwest]

22. Their paychecks.

[txlibdem]

39. The OP is not about coal, is an anti-nuke attack piece, yes, but barely mentions coal

The question was why do certain posters ***--NEVER--*** post an anti-coal attack piece. Never. Not one. In all these years I've never found one.

I posted peer reviewed data. But since it did not agree with your position you claim it doesn't exist? I'm not sure that everyone is working off the same definition of "facts."

Radiation is radiation. Uranium is Uranium. Thorium is Thorium. And I've never heard of a nuclear power plant spewing toxic amounts of lead, mercury and arsenic into the air and ground water as do coal plants.

I'm just trying to get at the real reason for being against nuclear power. Toxic emissions and radiation cannot be the reason.

[kristopher]

43. This is a chance for you to make your case.

If you can't make your case that nuclear is superior to renewables with valid information that addresses that point, then you have no case. You've been bluffing for years, now put up or fold.

It is pretty cut and dried.

[kristopher]

32. Where is the peer reviewed support the claims of nuclear energy proponents?

I state that claims supporting nuclear power or claiming that renewable power is not viable are false based on the total body of work on the subject in the peer reviewed literature.

It is time for nuclear proponents to step up to the plate and support the claims they make with real science instead of the junk science produced by bloggers and nuclear industry PR machines.

[kristopher]

35. Waiting...

[kristopher]

36. Six hours and not one substantive reply.

If their position had merit, it could be supported by vetted analysis.

The support for the positions offered are on the same level as the junk science behind claims such as "tobacco is safe" and "global warming is a hoax".

If there existed peer reviewed support, you can be sure the PR machine of the nuclear industry would be promoting it.

[Paradoxical]

37. Nuclear energy is comparable in cost to other forms of energy production.

And in several ways it is actually cheaper. It will continue to drop in price over time. Coal and other forms of fossil fuel energy production will continue to increase in cost over time.

2. No one is saying that new reactor and storage designs will solve all past problems.

3. As I have already stated, waste production from nuclear power is relatively small and can easily be stored on site in perfect safety. As new technology is realized that can convert spent fuel with greater efficiency, we will have to worry less and less about spent fuel storage.

4. okay

5. It may be technically superior. But is it a viable option at this point in time?

6. The technology already exists. There's nothing we can do to "undevelop" nuclear technology.


Final comment: You haven't provided any peer reviewed studies for your OP. Why should I waste my time when you are too lazy to listen to your own preaching?

[kristopher]

38. This is a request/challenge for nuclear tp support their claims. You cannot do that?

I've made a comprehensive case for renewable energy over and over - all of it founded on peer reviewed science.

This thread is about the claims of the nuclear industry - claims that have not once been supported.

So what evidence do you have for your:

1) "In several ways it is actually cheaper. It will continue to drop in price over time."


2) "No one is saying that new reactor and storage designs will solve all past problems."

Yes, they are. See comment above re throium.

3) "...waste production from nuclear power is relatively small and can easily be stored on site in perfect safety"

Please provide the analysis that supports that since the nation debate shows it is not an accepted position. I have never seen any reputable scientist make the claim you are making. The expansion of nuclear power to meet 1/3 of global electric demand would require an additional Yucca Mountain sized storage every two years.


4) -

5) All national plans made since 2000 as a response to AGW focus on renewable energy. That is sufficient proof that it is considered viable if you take the time to read them. What evidence do you have that the fundamental science behind those plans is false?

6) How does that justify further spreading nuclear technology around the world?

This isn't complicated nor is it a trick. It is simply a request for documentation of the six commonly made (false) assertions used to justify the further deployment of nuclear energy.

Note that MIT refused to delve into the area of what is best even though their mandate was to evaluate the viability of nuclear power - a task not possible without comparison with the alternatives. Do you think they avoided that because they were convinced such a comparison would reflect positively on nuclear, or because they know what every scientist in the field knows - nuclear power cannot be justified except by omitting the most basic criteria from the rationale.

This is the "findings" section of pronuclear MIT's 2003 study "The Future 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.

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.

[truth2power]

64. Nuclear power is subsidized by the taxpayer at every step..

from mining to waste storage.

Also, why is the nuclear industry unwilling to fully indemnify the costs in the event of an accident?

[kristopher]

40. An example of what "peer reviewed" analysis looks like.

Data Trimming, Nuclear Emissions, and Climate Change
Kristin Sharon Shrader-Frechette
Journal of Science and Engineering Ethics (2009) 15:19–23
DOI 10.1007/s11948-008-9097-

Abstract

Ethics requires good science. Many scientists, government leaders, and industry representatives support tripling of global-nuclear-energy capacity on the grounds that nuclear fission is "carbon free" and "releases no greenhouse gases". However, such claims are scientifically questionable (and thus likely to lead to ethically questionable energy choices) for at least 3 reasons. (i) They rely on trimming the data on nuclear greenhouse-gas emissions (GHGE), perhaps in part because flawed Kyoto Protocol conventions require no full nuclear-fuel-cycle assessment of carbon content. (ii) They underestimate nuclear-fuel-cycle releases by erroneously assuming that mostly high-grade uranium ore, with much lower emissions, is used. (iii) They inconsistently compare nuclear-related GHGE only to those from fossil fuels, rather than to those from the best GHG-avoiding energy technologies. Once scientists take account of (i)–(iii), it is possible to show that although the nuclear fuel cycle releases (per kWh) much fewer GHG than coal and oil, nevertheless it releases far more GHG than wind and solar-photovoltaic. Although there may be other, ethical, reasons to support nuclear tripling, reducing or avoiding GHG does not appear to be one of them.

Lets draw out the points made:
(i) They rely on trimming the data on nuclear greenhouse-gas emissions (GHGE), perhaps in part because flawed Kyoto Protocol conventions require no full nuclear-fuel-cycle assessment of carbon content.

(ii) They underestimate nuclear-fuel-cycle releases by erroneously assuming that mostly high-grade uranium ore, with much lower emissions, is used.

(iii) They inconsistently compare nuclear-related GHGE only to those from fossil fuels, rather than to those from the best GHG-avoiding energy technologies.

[kristopher]

44. Still waiting...

[kristopher]

45. Still waiting...

[LAGC]

46. How's that echo chamber working out for you?

The onus is still on you, kristopher, to prove how our energy-hungry society can function without coal/nuclear/natural gas to provide a reliable base-load when solar/wind isn't providing, not on us to prove the negative.

As this nation's energy needs grow, we are smartly proceeding with building more nuclear plants whether you like it or not.

Not only Obama, but almost all the prospective 2012 Republican presidential candidates who have announced so far support more nuclear power development.

So its incumbent on YOU to make the case why we shouldn't build more, not on us to buck bi-partisan conventional wisdom on the subject.

[kristopher]

47. You are the one claiming nuclear power is needed. Prove it.

What you are proving with your game is that you cannot support your claims that nuclear must be part of the mix.
I have supported my claims for 3 years now, and in that entire time there has NEVER ONCE been a shred of proof provided that nuclear must be part of the mix. For example I've shown IEEE, NREL, DOE and FERC documents that show your claims about "baseload" are false.

Not once, ever, have you shown anything to prove otherwise, yet here you are still squirming.

It is time for your cheerleading squad to to more than play games - it is time to put up the proof.

It isn't hard unless you have none.

Your modus operandi is to avoid your clear ethical obligation to support your position with valid information by playing the same game you just attempted. You demand support yet when that support is provided, you ignore it or find some silly excuse to dismiss it, most often by playing the victim of "anti-nuclear ideology" or some other similar tripe.

That isn't going to work this time. This question is going to be front and center in the discussion from this point forward.

You can count on it.

NREL agrees a distributed grid will work.
DOE agrees a distributed grid will work.
FERC agrees a distributed grid will work.
EVERY academic and engineer specializing in grid technology agrees it will work.

You are making a counter-factual statement that you MUST PROVE with vetted documentation.

[LAGC]

48. kristopher, I'm not arguing that a distributed grid won't work.

All I'm saying is that its going to take some time (decades) to transition to that kind of renewables-only setup.

If I thought solar/wind/tidal could solve all our problems today, of course I'd be all for it. I mean who wants to deal with the negative by-products of coal, nuclear, and natural gas if we don't have to?

But nothing you have posted so far in any of your multiple threads has convinced me we are ready to abandon them yet.

When people point out the flaws in your arguments, you simply refuse to respond. If you were to actually address our concerns (and not just throw the onus back on us, like we somehow have to justify our skepticism) maybe you'd get more people to agree to your point-of-view.

[kristopher]

51. When "today" is a weasel word...

"Today" is a weasel word when used to make a statement that is false sound true. The issue has NOTHING to do with today and everything to do with how we go into the future.

You claim nuclear is needed. It isn't. When challenged to prove that it is your BEST argument seems to be that renewables can't "solve all our problems today".

Well neither can nuclear. But the quickest, least expensive, safest, most sustainable, cleanest path forward is renewable energy.

I used to say that nuclear is a third rate solution to our energy problems, but post Fukushima, it isn't even that. Nuclear fission is not a solution to our energy needs - period.

If you want it, you are going to have to prove that wrong, I promise you. The nuclear industry's house of cards is built on a foundation of lies and deceit that cannot withstand the scrutiny that is headed its way.

[LAGC]

53. I guess we'll just have to see, won't we?

Once this Fukushima situation blows over in a few weeks, I think its going to make nuclear's case stronger, not weaker.

I mean, if even an old GM Mark I reactor design can survive a 9.0 quake and tsunami without any serious wide-spread radiation leakage, surely much newer and safer designs in non-seismic-active regiions can withstand whatever nature throws its way.

Need I remind you that new nuclear reactors are being built here in America right now, with $54 billion allocated by Obama for more on the way?

They aren't going to be scrapped just because of one freak incident.

[kristopher]

55. IOW you have no actual basis for defending the technology itself.

You've made that clear. Thanks.

[catenary]

56. I doubt it was your intent, but you've convinced me that nuclear is the best interim route to

meeting global energy needs for at least several decades. I was fairly ambivalent but now I've become strongly pro-nuclear.

[kristopher]

58. I don't believe you.

I've seen far too many such claims - they fit the model of a false claim made to sway others without that pesky need to provide real evidence. It is a "jump on the bandwagon" approach to suasion; and not a very good one at that.

If you want to defend nuclear do it with facts and vetted sources for those facts.

[catenary]

60. My only claim is that I now support it...I do not have to produce any "proof" of my opinion.

One thing I -have- noticed is that proponents of solar photovoltaics (to focus on one aspect) fail to realize it is not possible to extract more energy from sunlight than is actually insolated. It's very much like the seemingly ageless perpetual motion scams that still sucker in investors.

[kristopher]

61. Yes you do.

Thread OP:
Challenging the nuclear proponents to back up their call for more nuclear power Updated at 7:07 AM

At this point if you support nuclear power you must justify its use.

Yes coal is dirty, yes; but across its entire fuel cycle so is nuclear.


1. nuclear power isn't "cheap" - it is expensive;

2. learning and new standardized designs will not solve all past problems - waste, safety and proliferation are part and parcel of the technology;

3. the waste problem is a real problem, and that is true even if we’d follow the lead of many other nations and “recycle” our spent fuel;

4. climate change does not make a renaissance "inevitable" - in fact, detailed analysis shows that nuclear power is at best a third rate solution to climate change;

5. there are other ways to provide electricity for our modern society than with large-scale “baseload” sources of generation as "baseload" is in reality nothing more than an economic construct that developed around centralized generation - a distributed grid approach is technically far superior;

6. there’s every 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.



If you believe the above statements are false then you please support that belief with peer reviewed science. Remember, the comparison is with renewable energy and energy efficiency, not with coal. We are in agreement that we must transition from coal, the question is what is the best route to get us to our objective of a carbon free world economy.

[catenary]

62. I have learned that arguing with creationists is usually unproductive...

I intend to apply that experience here. You needn't bother to reply.

[kristopher]

63. I couldn't agree more, that's why I started a thread where you are restricted to science.

I'm tired of dealing with nuclear power supporters making bullshit claims that have no basis in known reality.

It's time for you to put up the goods or to get out of the way.

[RegieRocker]

49. No. It was a challenge to you and all you can do is spin.

[LAGC]

50. LOL, what am I spinning?

I have no stake in nuclear power.

I just want my lights to turn on when I flick the switch. I want my home to be warm in the winter and cool in the summer. I want to be able to take hot showers. Just like most other people. And I don't want to pay much more on my power bill if I don't have to.

We are an energy-hungry society, and the people are demanding more and more steady, reliable energy. Even at night when the sun doesn't shine, and even on non-windy days.

I just want the cleanest, cheapest source of power that can meet all of our growing energy needs that doesn't significantly contribute to climate change.

Is it that too much to ask?

[kristopher]

52. I don't know, why don't we see how your solution is working out in Japan.

[LAGC]

54. It's working just fine.

They've got a handle on the situation, the radiation leak is minimal beyond a very short distance from the facility.

This whole "crisis" will be so non-news-worthy in a few weeks. Mark my words.

[catenary]

57. Well, the hysterical anti-nukers will milk it as long as possible...

they can't even let go of TMI which has yet to be proven fatal to a single human...

[kristopher]

59. As I said...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=747424&mesg_id=762576

[bananas]

65. kick - kristopher won. nt