Similar Posts

Recent Comments from our Readers

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

67 Comments

  1. The anti nukes, Miss Dyrl And Mr Nader looked like réal amateurs yesterday.

    Especially miss Dyrl. No depth. Conservation works great in India with Wood And dung burning.

    Anderson Cooper looks like a pro. A pro nuclear.

    1. I thought the Anderson Cooper segment went pretty well, better than most. The point (made by Hansen and Stone) about how nuclear, not renewables, is the threat to the fossil (esp. oil and gas) industry was pure gold. I admire their courage in making the point. Also, how they pointed out that nuclear is faster, not slower, than renewables, as well as not being limited (giving the example of France, and pointing out that there is no simlar renewables achievement).

      One thing that could have been better is not calling out Dyrl’s extremely disingenuous statement that what NRDC really wants is a policy that taxes or limits CO2 (and other pollutants) and then lets the market decide how to respond, with emissions reduction options competing on a fair, objective playing field. The truth is almost the opposite. That is the policy that WE (nuclear advocates) have been calling for, and that “environmental” groups like NRDC have been fighting tooth and nail against. What they’ve really been promoting is huge subsidies and outright mandates for renewables only, and nuclear not even being given a chance to compete.

      California is a perfect poster child for the policies that they really advocate. CA law *forbids* construction of any new nuclear plants and *requires* that large amounts of renewables be built. Is that really their idea of free and fair competition? If she really means what she says, can we count on NRDC’s support for eliminating all state laws forbidding nuclear plant construction? Can we count on their support for eliminating all state or regional Renewable Portfolio Standards (or, at least, including nuclear in those standards)? In other words, ANY policies that actually allow utilities to freely choose between nuclear and renewables as a method of emissions reduction?

      Here’s the real state of the playing field between energy sources. Renewables are given enormous subsidies and (more importantly) outright govt. mandates for their use, regardless of cost or practicality (or even if any new generation capacity is even needed). Fossil fuels are not only allowed to routinely dump massive amounts of pollution into the environment, but they get to do so for free. Meanwhile, there is zero tolerance for any nuclear pollution (even a tiny chance of nuclear pollution) and the industry is required to spend astronomical sums to eliminate even a tiny chance of release. Despite the enormous effort required (of it) to eliminate any pollution or environmental impact, nuclear is then NOT treated like a clean energy source, with respect to govt. policy. No large subsidies, no mandates.

      Renewables get massive subsidies, fossil fuels get to massively pollute the environment for free, and nuclear gets neither (i.e., nothing). Despite this, these people have the gall to suggest that it’s the technologies fault, and label nuclear as economically uncompetitive.

      1. Jim,

        As I pointed out below, her name is Dale Bryk. I made a mistake by referring to her as Dyrl.

        She must be invited to every nuclear debate on the anti side.

        Slam dunk. She has no clue.

        1. Daniel,
          This suggests that you are afraid of a debate between equal informed and verbal persons. Which suggests that reality is not near the nuclear side.

      2. Jim,
        As people risk real harm (not compensated by the NPP), the issue is whether people are prepared to accept that risk for that specific (non-renewable) method of electricity generation.
        Apparently even in some US states people do not want that risk. Possible because they think the advantage compared to renewable is not worth the risk.

        Liabilities: All old unsafe NPP’s get massive liability subsidies.
        While they can deliver an accident that cost citizens & government ~$2trillion (in 12K reactor years, 4 reactors delivered massive amounts of radio-activity to their environment up 1K mile away). They will compensate few % of that damage only.
        Similar regarding the limited waste liability the law grants.
        These imply roughly a subsidy of ~1billion/a per reactor.

        New more safe NPP’s, AP1000, get additional other (investment) subsidies. Which imply they are even more subsidized.

    1. I agree, I doubt he will make a public appearance. FYI I invited he and Rod to our Yucca Symposium.

      If Mr. Lyman wants to document his opinion we invite him and Rod Adams to join our Yucca Educational Symposium SUN-JUN-24th, Reno, Nevada, link to our program:
      http://usnuclearenergy.org/yes/about.html

      It’s one thing to challenge the DOE and NRC but when you start slamming our National Laboratories which are continually screwed by bureaucrats then you’re in my face Mr. Lyman and many other American’s who support our science laboratories in spite of politics!

  2. Rod,

    The discussions were great. I watched evrything. Only one regret: No talk or mention of ethanol.

    Ethanol the biggest rip off of them all.

    1. @Daniel – may I have your permission to correct your last sentence? I think you meant to write “the biggest rip of of them all”, but it came out “the biggest rip off of the mall.” Same letters, different spacing and different meaning altogether.

      1. I referred to a Miss Dyrl in my earlier posts as an anti nuclear activist.
        She is in fact Dale Bryk – NRDC’s Director, Senior Attorney, Energy & Transportation Program

        Now this is strategy here. If you have an anti and pro nuclear debate, have her on the anti side. Slam dunk. Plus you will have a good time. NRDC, like the NRC and DOE, has no ‘no bozo allowed’ rule.

        She is so incompetent that it is hilarious. Schellenberger, Hansen and Stone just got her to a point were she could no longer counter argument effectively. No depth.

        Yes renewables will solve the emerging nations energy problems. And she is convinced.

  3. Regarding the Price Anderson Act. So far the gambits to counter it were weak by the pro nuclear.

    But Schellenberger did it. He said that the world governments were also applying a similar paradigm to the commercial jetliner industry. Nice, very nice.

    The human mind can counter complex arguments with simple associtations on easy to grasp relative scales.

    That’s the way to counter RFK Jr’s repetitive mentionning of the Anderson act.

  4. Schellenberger made an interesting point at the beginning of the week in his many debates. He said that true greens want to leave a minimal footprint on the environment.

    He missed the ball on 2 fronts. Rod would have picked up on those,

    1) Unfortunately, at no time did any pro nuclear mention the achille’s heal of the renewables: Massive land requirement and poor watts per square mile.

    2) No mention that nuclear industry cleans after itself. How about the only energy that has a poop and scoop approach?

    This is where we did the poorest. But we did great. Nader is an old timer and Schellenberger just was too polite no to knock him out.

    1. Daniel,
      Schellenberg did not miss the ball. Probably he didn’t mention them because he knows that renewable is far better on these 2 fronts!

      Power density:
      You posted earlier that nuclear has a power densitiy of 1KW/m2.

      Offshore wind doesn’t use any land!
      Onshore wind; 8MW wind turbine has a footprint of ~100m2. That delivers a power density of 80KW/m2. Add some for access etc. then still a density of >20KW/m2!
      Note that the land between the turbines stays to be farmland, woods, etc.

      Solar-panels on the roof do not use any land!
      If ~50% of all roofs are covered than more than enough electricity!

      clean afterwards
      Nuclear industry leaves waste that stays dangerous for up to a million years. So it parasites on the thousands of generations after us that are forced to take care.
      Renewable is properly decommissioned in civilized states (if the owner doesn’t, government will do it and send the bill to the owner).

      1. Bas, you are so pathetically desperate to disavow nuclear energy! Fanatic is too PC to describe it.

        You have nothing to back your rants and fears of megadeaths and poisoned masses but the hope that it will happen to prove your point — a pretty sick standpoint I think! I put my stake in dozens of years of rock solid record and reality and tried and true engineering. Who’s proof is more credible and established; An industry with a solid record of less than a dozen deaths worldwide for fifty years or someone blurting that a million people MIGHT die based on totally groundless off-the-the-top-of -your head unverified cherry-picked death-wish speculations that major institutions don’t give time of day to? Sorry guy, I’ll pick reality over fear every time.

        Offshore turbines are known to age and corrode and tear apart far quicker in that hostile environment. You’re STILL tearing up sea bottoms and scaring little fishies to anchor the things and feeder cables to shore and beyond. Let’s not forget boaters and artists and beachcombers losing out on unblighted natural seascapes and shorelines with horizon to horizon whirligigs. Can one spell how fast the glamor will wear off?

        Do you really expect people outside the zealot fringe to sacrifice the beauty of their homes with perishable solar panels in place of aesthetically natural shingles and tiles, just because you don’t like something that makes it so they won’t even have to? Are we going to pave over society with solar glass just to appease your fears? Don’t think so!

        A point mentioned this site before was so what if totally depleted nuclear waste is radioactive for thousands of years. So what! Who’s going to stumble across it two thousand feet down in solid granite or salt? To hear antinuclears, the stuff will be trucked your nearest city dump — which are already far more peril to water tables and sites for disease than nuclear waste has ever been!

        Bas, you’re not going to convert the enlightened and educated. You’re spinning your tires here, making a tired self-righteous bore of yourself on your Times Square soapbox. You should move your spiel to more susceptible haunts, like a kindergarten or Jane Fonda film festival.

        1. Mitch,
          Opinions and decisions should be based on a good balance with at least arguments that are correct.
          Hope we all agree about that.
          And those two of Daniel clearly are not.
          I helped him, so he can solidify his pro-nuclear arguments.

          Further:
          Designers will learn to built offshore wind turbines that last a century. Just as the old Dutch wind mills last centuries. It are relative simple pieces of equipment.

          sacrifice the beauty of their homes with perishable solar panels
          In south of Germany many do, as anybody can see who travels there. And renewable energy enthusiasts find them beauties just as wind turbines.
          Many people even consider cars beauties… Taste differ depending on preferences…

          so what if totally depleted nuclear waste … Who’s going to stumble across it two thousand feet down in solid granite or salt?
          Read German experience. They buried part of the stuff two thousand feet (600m) down in stable solid salt. Within 25 years the stable formation became less stable (heat due to radio-activity?), so now it has to be removed before radio-active ground water appears uncontrolled at the surface… All to be paid by the taxpayer (~$100billion).

          Btw
          I like to see Jane Fonda in movies, but as said; preferences differ among people.

          1. I think I could make a more convincing argument that the materials science and engineering dollar is better spent designing safer modern reactors that can sustain neutron bombardment at high-temperature safely for 40+ years than they would be to build a floating wind turbine in a marine environment for a century.

            At least the former has been done before with the PWRs and Magnox. Making ANYTHING float offshore for a long period of time is a significant design challenge and any product of such research will require significant maintenance to keep it from going down like the Andrea Doria.

            I also find it disingenuous that you bring up simple Dutch windmills. These things are going to have more in common with semi-submersible oil drilling rigs than anything and will have significant maintenance and safety issues.

            We would have to continually service 8MW nameplate-only wind generators with speed boats and helicopters in some of the worst climates imaginable or they sink. Is that honestly worth it?!?

            I, for one, would rather burn old tires to keep warm (screw the environment) than have to service one of those things in WMO sea state 5.

          2. @Randy
            With offshore wind turbines I mean those on pylons in shallow water (less than 50 meters deep). Not floating ones.

            Corrosive resistance improves all the time (‘plastic’ boats now..).
            New wind turbines have no gearbox, so less friction and moving parts.
            This ends with turbines that have over-designed bearings, etc. So they need only maintenance one in e.g. 5years…

            Your reactors create very expensive disasters as Fukushima, etc. show. And the tax-payer / citizen has to pay for the damage they create (e.g. all property within a zone of 50km losing all value). Insurance companies explicitly exclude such damage as they estimate the risk being to much. And the law limit nuclear’s liability to a ridiculous low amount.

        2. Bas remains persistently genial (and obtuse), displays impressive bilingual skills, and probably gets paid by the word.

          Please don’t deprive our neighborhood troll of his livelihood.

            1. @Bas

              Stop trying to scare people about negative effects that are so tiny that they cannot be detected by anyone except some very focused researchers looking very hard at an immense amount of complex data and determining that they see some kind of pattern.

              Here is a thought exercise for you – which do you think is worse, a negative influence that increases everyone’s risk of getting a fatal cancer by 1% or a negative influence that increases pregnant women’s chances of a miscarriage by 50% if it is received during the first 6 months of pregnancy.

          1. @Rod,
            negative influence that increases pregnant women’s chances of a miscarriage by 50% if it is received during the first 6 months of pregnancy.

            Miscarriage or abortion due to radiation is not studied by the Bavarian study.
            Do not know of any study that did it, as that harms far less.

    2. Schellenberger really missed the ball by not mentioning the inherent energy inefficiency of the main renewables: wind & solar.

      1) Induced cycling inefficiency in the shadowing fossil fuel power plants

      2) Necessity of long distance power transmission to get rid of surpluses and import shortages due to the vagaries of wind & solar, waste energy in transmission & the energy of construction & maintenance of the transmission lines

      3) Economics of heavily subsidized fluctuating renewables favors low capital cost, low efficiency generation to backup and shadow the Wind & Solar. That is mostly diesel generation, OCGT and archaic low efficiency coal burners. Utilities are now being forced to pay expensive capacity payments to keep these inefficient generators operational.

      4) The inevitable overbuild that comes with wind & solar generation. Even renewables advocates admit that. In order to supply peak energy, winter in the north, summer in the south you need to greatly overbuild the renewables. That inevitably means throwing energy away in the fall & spring. Compounded by the fact that hydro is max in the spring, when energy demand is minimum. That is the epitome of energy inefficiency.

      5) Need to heat & power wind turbines when they are not generating electricity, especially in the north.

      6) The inherent energy inefficiency of energy storage, very much needed by wind & solar. Typically batteries with about a 70% round trip energy efficiency. Pumped hydro about 80-90%. CAES about 65%. Hydrogen about 40%. Add to that the embodied energy in all that additional infrastructure.

      1. @Fred

        That is a good list. Do you mind if I use your comment as the basis for a front page post? If you could provide a short author blurb, it would help. It seems to me from the content that you are more than just an observer; your list includes items that are mainly understood by professionals working in the field of reliable energy supply.

        1. Sure, go ahead. I’m a tech who has worked in the power generation industry, hydro & diesel. Eugene Preston or Willem Post would be good choices to write on these issues.

          One additional point on electricity transmission. The substations, transformers, switchgear and transmission lines must be sized to carry peak load, while only carrying an avg ~15% of peak for solar & ~30% of peak for wind. The actual transmission conductors are made of aluminum. A high energy input material. Normally the conductor size & number of conductors is determined by economics, the marginal cost of increasing conductor size or number of parallel conductors to reduce line loss should equal the revenue gained by the increase in available power sold.

          With solar & wind you are only transmitting a highly peaked power for an avg of a few hours per day, so it is not economical to reduce line loss to a minimum by adding a lot of aluminum, thus line losses are going to be considerable for long distance transmission. An absurd fantasy to send solar from the SW to match wind from the plains. A ridiculous waste of energy.

      2. Fred,
        Interesting!
        You assume adaptations that facilitate solar+wind. That is a transitional stage only. Try to think about the situation that the solar+wind+decentralization paradigm change will create (solar+wind cheaper than fossil).

        1. Which cycling inefficiency?
        The share of big fossil fuel plants will become near zero. The few left will mainly burn waste & biomass (hence the desperate cry of the incumbent utility CEO’s towards Brussels in October).

        Here de-central gas burning Combined Heat and Power plants (CHP) will stay a long time. E.g. the CHP’s market gardeners use to feed their crops (flowers, tomatoes, etc) in their large green houses with CO2 and light, and heat the greenhouse. In NL those produce now ~20% of all electricity fed into our grid. Many are managed by an utility (remote management center).
        Smaller CHP’s for buildings get a share too.

        The first gas burning CHP (central-heating boiler) for homes is introduced. It contains a Stirling engine that produces 1KW electricity. It does that especially in cold winter evenings (then you need lot of heating), when there is no solar and little wind. Yield 140%, normal high yield central-heating boilers have 50GW power-to-gas/fuel by 2020 (I think it may take 5-10 years longer). Other studies assume small installations at home (e.g. converting the over-capacity of your solar panels into car fuel).

        5. True, especially with coming low temperature super-conducting wired magnets, but a non issue. It is nothing compared to the volumes those wind turbines produce.

        6. Low efficiency of storage is not the issue (storage losses generate little CO2 as the lost electricity is not produced exhausting CO2).
        The important issue is cost-price.

        Not clear how much storage will affect the cost price of electricity. As said, studies show that grid expansion may be cheaper (allowing for less storage). The German signals that existing pumped storage facilities have a hard time, also indicate little cost price rise because of storage.

        1. Please read my post from the last paragraph of point 1 onwards as below:

          The first gas burning CHP (central-heating boiler) for homes is introduced. It contains a Stirling engine that produces 1KW electricity. It does that especially in cold winter evenings (then you need lot of heating), when there is no solar and little wind. Yield 140%, normal high yield central-heating boilers have less than 110%.

          2. Agree, the grid must be restructured, especially long distance high capacity power lines so wind production can be transported to places where wind fails at night (cheaper than enhancing storage, according to German study).

          But especially Solar (& wind) are most produced at/near consumers site, which imply less transmission. NPP production has to be distributed over an wide area. Worse, it also needs long distance high capacity power lines for the case the NPP’s at one or two sites all fail.

          Not clear which structure is cheaper in the end. But it is clear that the renewable structure is far less vulnerable for attackers. Also clear that all will benefit greatly from smart grid with smart metering and demand-side management developments (cheaper).

          3. Doubt whether diesel generators, flexible gas turbine generators, etc. get a substantial share. As you state those are not very economic. Nowadays even existing pumped storage finds it difficult to compete. And alternatives are coming up (point 1). With the coming over-capacity of installed wind + solar (5-10 fold), only small gaps are left. Those become even smaller with long distance grid expansion. E.g. when the wind doesn’t blow at the north-Sea, it blows in Spain/Portugal and vice versa.

          4. Big over-capacities allow for electricity-to-fuel/gas conversions, lowering CO2!
          As whole-sale prices often will be below €20/MWh. Some German scenario studies propose to stimulate installation of more than 50GW power-to-gas/fuel by 2020 (I think it may take 5-10 years longer). Other studies assume small installations at home (e.g. converting the over-capacity of your solar panels into car fuel).

          5. True, especially with coming low temperature super-conducting wired magnets, but a non issue. It is nothing compared to the volumes those wind turbines produce.

          6. Low efficiency of storage is not the issue (storage losses generate little CO2 as the lost electricity is not produced exhausting CO2).
          The important issue is cost-price.

          Not clear how much storage will affect the cost price of electricity. As said, studies show that grid expansion may be cheaper (allowing for less storage). The German signals that existing pumped storage facilities have a hard time, also indicate little cost price rise because of storage.

          Apparently the (upload) system got a hick when it encountered a smaller than sign (handled a bigger than sign also not well).

          1. Apparently the (upload) system got a hick when it encountered a smaller than sign (handled a bigger than sign also not well).

            That’s because the comments here support HTML, and “<” is the beginning of an HTML tag. If you really need to use it, type ‘&lt;’, which is the HTML entity for the less than sign.

        2. On your point #1, the inefficiencies will be maximum if solar & wind replace all fossil fuel generation. You may eliminate cycling inefficiencies in shadowing fossil fuel generation but overbuild, long distance transmission and storage inefficiency will be far greater than that.

          Cogeneration is popular in some EU nations, Finland, Denmark, Sweden. Not common in the UK, Norway or Holland. David Mackay, the UK energy expert, argues that large, efficient centralized power generation combined with heat pumps is more efficient and practical than CHP.

          CHP has its own inefficiencies, either excess power generation in cold weather or too little heat. Show us a cost on your Stirling engine CHP generator. I looked into CHP for my home, the latest North American supplier gave me this quote:

          “.. The cost of the ____ system is $35,000 to $45,000 (us dollars) per unit installed. The component and installation costs vary because of the facility size and other variables associated with the existing plumbing and electrical codes. Also, depending on what region of the country one lives in, labor costs will vary. A certified technician is required to install the system..”

          Ridiculous.

          Your point #5, brilliant, add a cryogenic cooling system on top of nacelle heating & blade defrosting. Waste even more energy. It may be only a few% of total output but usually energy efficiency is all about shaving a few% wherever you can.

          On point #6, low efficiency of storage means more very expensive solar & wind generation will be necessary to supply the same demand. The opportunity cost of adding excessive, expensive wind & solar generation, combined with expensive, inefficient storage means much more cost effective methods of CO2 mitigation will be replaced. You can always more effectively spend those wasted$ on vehicle electrification, nuclear generation, biomass -> liquid fuels, rail transport etc.

    1. My non-bated-breath never expected an even ride with CNN casting Pandora’s Promise. They just did that PR move to cluck that “Hey we did something pro-nuke! (for once)” before slamming the door behind the film with that Op-Ed. Just a NYT on the air, that’s all (like Grandpa Munster chiding bad Igor the bat “You’re just a rat with wings!”) The nuclear community and nuke pro orgs have to learn that the only parties that are going to be halfway decent and respectful of its message and tech is itself and start producing its own nuke features or web broadcasting stations to get the word out if it’s not already too late. I hope Rod’s toe-to-toe debate proposal was emailed out to CNN just hear what their excuse not to do it is.

      James Greenidge
      Queens NY

  5. There is increasing interest in Molten Salt Fast Breeders, a concept which my father investigated in the 1950’s. You can breed uranium to produce plutonium, or thorium to produce U-233. Or you can do both at the same time. The reactor can be hotter than an IFR, safer, smaller, probably less expensive, and it can be taught to speak French! (The French are considering the project.)

  6. Thank you for categorically responding to Lyman’s errors.

    I am amazed he really doesn’t even seem to have a working grasp of real pollution issues and basically avoids them at every opportunity. Meanwhile in the background one of the worst if not the worst typhoons ever is devastating the Philippines. The 24th such serious storm from them this year.

  7. If Schellenberg were a classical pianist, we could say he has ‘parlando’. He also showed good technique.

    On crossfire, he started the debate by complimenting Nader, his opponent. Later he showed no mercy for his elderly and rightly so.

    He did well but failed on 2 fronts:

    1) What about the evacuation of New York city if Indian point were to fail?

    He dodged the question. The answer is civil nuclear plant accident take a long long time to develop and reach criticality, if ever. People will have plenty of time to leave in an orderly fashion. If you live next to a gas or coal or hydro plant, it’s already too late.

    2) What about the land (thousands of square miles according to Nader) that needs to be evacuated permanently when a plant goes amoc ?

    I would then have suggested that Ralph makes a virtual visit to Nagasaki and-or Hiroshima while there are still human beings left alive.

    And then, as a bonus, I would have gone for the kill. For the cause. I would have I sware. I would have taken the Plutonium-cafeine challenge right in front of national TV. I would have said to him: You dodge Cohen in the 70’s but you are not dodging me here today. Enough of your fear mongering.

    1. Good points.

      On number one, Schellenberg should have given RN a tutorial on the contents of the recent SOARCA study – no such evacuation will ever be REQUIRED, although once an emergency is declared the local authorities can do what they want. SELF-evacuation, caused by media sensationalism and fear-mongering, is unpredictable and can only be cured by a massive and pervasive education campaign.

      On number two, I would have also rubbed his face in the Chernobyl nature park evidence, as partly shown in the film, and sent people to view the Chernobyl Wolves documentary on YouTube.

      The Plutonium munching challenge would have been dramatic, but in the unlikely event he accepted, where were you going to get it?

      1. @ Atomikrabbit,

        A very famous rabbit, the energizer rabbit, once said ‘don’t bring a solar knife to a nuclear gun fight’.

        So, I would have brought the Plutonium and Caffeine on the spot so as not to leave Nader any choice.

        On the Plutonium procurement cycle.

        I remember a while ago that Rod presented us with a superb mind who had a ton of Uranium held on his behalf by the NRC. He was a persistent artist.

        He also made Plutonium from Americium found in fire alarm detectors. He was a determined human being.

        He intended to make sculturs out of Americium but was prevented from doing so by the NRC. So he made Plutonium instead.

        1. Ah yes, Energizer, on my cousin Bugs’ side.

          Daniel, you are obviously referring to the interesting blog at: https://atomicinsights.com/making-art-with-radioactive-materials-in-memory-of-jame-acord/

          I’m afraid the picogram quantities of caffeine, equivalent to the amount of Pu239 James might have produced by extended neutron exposure of natural U3O8 with a tiny AmBe source, wouldn’t even give Nader a buzz, let alone kill him.

          Not that I would endorse that.

          1. @ Atomikrabbit,

            In the original Plutonium challenge, Cohen is to take the Plutonium and Nader, the caffeine.

            So today, Nader still gets caffeine. Schellenberg gets whatever Plutonium was can fabricate.

            Nader looks like he has been on a ’70s buzz for a long long time.

          2. Thanks for linking to that. Before my time here and had not noticed it. I didnt know he had died.

            BTW : Uranium made delicious rich glazes. As in Fiestaware. We used to fantasize about all the wonderful bright colorants people could use in the past. I didnt know it fired green to black in reduction.

  8. The UCS site is an insult to reason. Particularly this entry:

    Disproving the Skeptics: 10x More Windpower and Solar is No Problem! ( http://feeds.feedburner.com/TheEquationEnergy )

    “That’s the finding of a study previewed today by the grid operator PJM and a consulting team led by General Electric.” yea – I bet.

    Thats proven wrong by the epic disaster Germany has become in emissions reductions. Not to mention the huge infrastructure revamp costs they are enjoying.

    1. John T Tucker
      November 9, 2013 at 2:18 PM
      The UCS site is an insult to reason. Particularly this entry:
      Disproving the Skeptics: 10x More Windpower and Solar is No Problem! (

      At what environmental and aesthetic nature/ architectural sacrifice?

      1. Not to mention actual functionality! But you are not allowed to bring up real costs when discussing renew ah-new-ah-new-ables. It makes the magic stop working.

        Big Rock Candy Mountain ( http://youtu.be/tYGCpGzFWh0 )

        Add – “In the big rock candy mountains wind and solar works fine.”

        Really I suppose it is no problem at all if you supplement it with fossil fuels and/or pay people not to turn it on, or even dont hook it up at all. Then even a 100x more is wonderful.

        1. Having enough energy to responsibly liberally waste makes life worth living. Ballparks (especially for lighted night games) and bowling alleys and Broadway theaters and live concerts and NASCAR are energy gulping activities not critical for life, as any Sing Sing inmate can tell you, but such are critical for a life worth having. There was a commercial long ago that featured a frumpy looking “Russian” model in a dumpy dress waddling up a showroom runway, on her one trip she’d be twirling a beach ball and the emcee shouted “Swimwear!” then on her next trip she’d be unchanged except twirling an umbrella and the emcee shouts “Rainwear!”… etc. I always think of that commercial whenever I hear people talking about “conservation.”

          James Greenidge
          Queens NY

          1. LOL I think I remember that!

            The immense universe is exploding with energy. It seems piddly to cower in fear and embrace low energy / low technology and unnecessary puritanical conservation. To me it does.

          2. Think how many lovely and classic homes and buildings aren’t exactly energy sippers. But I’d rather live in an aesthetically pleasing and creative home than be eco-PC living and working in an over-sized thermos bottle.

          3. “Energy – use as much as you need! I planted beaucoup there 10 billion years ago in the nuclei of heavy atoms, awaiting your arrival. You are welcome! (you can make mistakes, just try not to do anything too stupid)” – signed, The Universe

  9. Now you making up arguments since nukes are dying? Its like fantasy football for you sad sacks. Nice honor code once again.

    1. 435 reactors operating in 31 countries plus Taiwan. Over 60 power reactors are currently being constructed. 160 reactors are planned and over 320 more are proposed. – WNA

      Obvioulsy the lack of complete, coherent sentences is not the only major issue with your post.

    2. howaboutit
      November 9, 2013 at 8:39 PM
      Now you making up arguments since nukes are dying? Its like fantasy football for you sad sacks. Nice honor code once again.

      “Nukes are dying”. I guess stark blind fear would be happy wishing that. Fear wins, civilization loses. Amazing how your side cheers for massive job loss, ravaging of environment and pristine landscapes, and global warming.

    1. Several times now. Bas has opened my eyes however. I did not really understand how anyone could still embrace the German model.

    2. @Sean
      I thought it to be a nonsense question.
      And when I have to react to all those, I have a full time job doing it.

      But to state it clear: Of course I’m not paid at all.

      I like the truth and dislike the big risk our old vulnerable NPP in Borssele brings.
      Now trying to find an optimal path for the electricity/energy issues in this world.

      1. @Bas – two questions:

        “I like the truth and dislike the big risk our old vulnerable NPP in Borssele brings.”
        How would you feel about replacing it with a couple of next-generation plants with inherent (i.e. passive) safety features, especially if they were capable of consuming their own waste?

        “But to state it clear: Of course I’m not paid at all.”
        Would you mind sharing with us what you do for a living, and what your technical background is?

        1. @Atomikrabbit
          1. That would be great!
          Alas those do not exist. But sincerely hope fusion development may deliver that.

          Regarding fission little chance.
          Even improved safety models (EPR, etc) do not satisfy generation 4 safety standards and do not consume their own waste, while ~2x more expensive than renewable. Even LFTR will not consume all its long-lasting radio-active waste.

          2. (International) project & bid management and consultancy in the ICT.
          Technical university Delft (Electro-technology, Information theory) + University Utrecht (clinical psychology).
          _______
          @John T Tucker
          Why do you reject the environmental arguments then?
          I do not quite understand your question.
          I prefer renewable developments such as in Germany. I admire them for making an implementation plan covering half a century and sticking to it! Never seen such planning covering such a long period.
          Especially since that plan will bring a far safer and cheaper solution than nuclear can.

  10. Rod, I might able able to get you a 2 on 2 debate on nationally broadcast radio for several hours. you game?

Comments are closed.