Similar Posts

Recent Comments from our Readers

  1. Avatar
  2. Avatar
  3. Avatar
  4. Avatar
  5. Avatar

13 Comments

  1. Regarding Bryk’s comments about market forces, Schellenberger’s answer should have been that the market is flawed when looking at basic facts like energy density.

    Here are some recent facts from Tokyo:

    Paul Scalise of Tokyo University says that a square metre (10.8 square feet) of land devoted to wind power generates just two watts of power. For solar power, the equivalent area generates 20W. Nuclear power generates about 1,000W a square metre.

    But at the end, I could not help but laugh at Dale Bryk. Seinfield used to love the Drake. I love the Bryk.

    She has to be a pro nuclear having infiltrated the antis. We are going to win. Put her on stage on any nuclear debate.

    1. Watch Her. Maybe it’s my imagination, but I think I’m detecting a bit of doubt from her as she expresses the NRDC line. Individuals, can switch their position, organizations like the NRDC or Sierra Club can not.

      Schellenberger said in this Video that large environmental organizations have budgets of about 100 Million Dollars. Of course with great revenues and expenditures comes great overhead.

      There is a great deal of pressure on such organizations that the ratio of revenue to overhead be extremely high. Such pressure commits such large organizations to their revenue sources, forcing a great deal of rigidity in the organizations positions. Individuals without such overhead, can change their positions.

      There is a great deal of temptation to ridicule the NRDC as a spawn of the Wealthy NY Legal Industry, an industry fat and happy with the existing energy state of affairs. Truth can’t court such an organization, but it can court its individuals.

      No organization will change from it’s founding directives, but an individual can change her perspective not being financially “locked in” as is the NRDC.

  2. Ms. Byrk repeatedly says that nuclear power should compete on a level playing field with renewables. This is most certainly not what she wants. Renewables receive far more subsidies, tax breaks, high priced power purchase agreements, and other sweet deals than does nuclear. If nuclear was allowed to compete fairly, the state legislatures wouldn’t have imposed all of these Renewable Portfolio Standards forcing utilities to buy only certain types of renewable power. In California, even large hydropower is specifically excluded from the state’s RPS, and of course nuclear would never be considered by the ideologically driven legislators.

    One example of how renewables have an unfair advantage:
    http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/11/11/business/energy-environment/Stacking-Clean-Energy-Subsidies.html?ref=energy-environment

    Cape Wind will receive 18.7 cents/kwh, but wholesale electricity in New England is only worth around 6 cents/kwh. Vermont Yankee will shut down next year.
    http://www.platts.com/latest-news/electric-power/charlottesville-virginia/massachusetts-regulators-approve-cape-wind-ppa-6617414

    1. If nuclear got the production mandates, subsidies, grants, tax breaks, regulatory waivers and accelerated depreciation that renewables get, there would be about 400 GW of new nuclear announced tomorrow.

      It’s pretty hilarious to see the wind industry on one hand talk about how competitive and cheap wind power is and on the other talk about how devastated the industry will be if the PTC is not extended.

    2. So this NRG – California Valley Solar Ranch gets 15 to 18 cents/kwh from California (leaked as the information is kept secret from taxpayer scrutiny). Cost $1.6B for 250MW output. That’s $6.40/watt. What happened to this $2/watt and less greenies always declare for current solar? With 550GWh/yr that’s a CF of 25%, since tracking panels were used.
      Capital cost of $25.6k per avg kw output. A good deal more than new nuclear.

      1. The $2/watt is for rooftop solar is a red herring since it usually doesn’t cover the entire system cost. Additionally, the enviros keep switching between grid scale solar and rooftop solar whenever it suits their debate. They use rooftop solar when discussing cost but then use grid scale solar when talking ability to power the grid.

        Just like those that always trumpet hydro as a “renewable” source. They don’t want large scale hydro to be included in the state’s RPS but they include the large scale facilities when trying to prove “renewables” are equivalent to nuclear.

        In other words, lying with statistics.

  3. Oh my Dawkins…

    A greenie calling for a level playing field between renewables and nuclear.

    Bring it on. Michael will be holding her to that statement for the rest of her professional life.

    You could tell at the end she was dying to say “That’s not because of ideaolgy or because (we’re just plain anti-nuclear. Hang on, that’s true… better not say that”.

    This is getting hilarious. We are starting to win.

  4. At one point in the crossfire interview with Nader, Schellenberger was setup by the interviewer with a comment that he was the only environmentalist he knew that was pro nuclear.

    Schellenberger should have asked if he knew Greenpeace and if so if he was aware of the faith of Moore and Tisdale, 2 prominent figures of the Greenpeace movement who saw the light.

  5. What is really “funny” in this whole debate is that it is “controversial” when:

    You have a power source that’s killed less than sixty people in over fifty years of operation worldwide — and that mostly all in one wonky incident not involving generating any power.

    A power source that emits no pollution or soils the environment.

    Whose actual “waste” never enters our air and water and food supply, and incidental products by accident have effects too low to be critical.

    An energy source historically proven reliable and clean locally and globally with minimal community disruption or noise or eyesore.

    An energy source whose recorded worst accident — caused by the severest of natural causes — literally harmed no one.

    If you didn’t mention “nuclear” and wrote this on a chalkboard before an audience they’d be jumping up ands down crying “Wow, that’s what I want!” before you mentioned the cursed “N” word.

    Now chalk up the merits and sins of the fossil fuel industry.

    Literally no contest! I just don’t get how nuclear can EVER lose an argument! By leaving the public open to totally unchallenged and uncorrected FUD-misters, that’s how! It only makes the Green and media hypocrisy demonizing nuclear power in the face of historically proven pernicious health and environmental fossil fuel effects totally breathtaking!

    James Greenidge
    Queens NY

  6. “…purely for economic reasons.” Seriously?! Crystal River, executive incompetence destroyed the containment vessel. VT Yankee, myopic politicians trying to milk the milk cow and the utility saying F*** you. SONGS, SCE shutting the plants down for political purposes. Kewaunee was because policy makers in the Midwest picked winners (wind and gas) and losers (everybody else)and enacted policy the destabilized the electricity market.

    She is making sound bites up. And these people keep on echoing them hoping no one is paying attention.

  7. It’s interesting to see this debate. I’ve also seen the ‘crossfire’ debate. But I wonder if there is any in depth debate on TV about the issues, or is it just this system of a few minutes of soundbites and then switch to advertising?

  8. Mr. Schellenberger is clearly a pro. He was like Peyton Manning taking apart opposing defenses the way he delivered quick precision counter-strikes to Nader’s tired old arguments. Only wish Schellenberger could have asked Nader how he could trust Wall Street’s assessment of nuclear power after the economic collapse of 2008.

Comments are closed.