1. “Mothers for Peace” is more like “Mothers for Poverty” in my opinion. They can’t tell the difference between a bomb and a power plant. This is equivalent to not being able to tell the difference between an incendiary bomb and a campfire.

    “They both involve flames! Ban them both!”

    1. Loannes… (Paul)……

      It is actually Israel and the United States, two nuclear powers, that have been the loudest in waging threats. “All options on the table….blahblahblah…”.

      And I’m a little curious. Considering that it is Sunni muslims that comprise the ranks of the so called ISIS, you favor Sunni muslims over Shiite?? Of course,I recall that you once stated that with exception of a very few, all muslims are heathen fanatics. (Golly, a God fearing bigot? Is that even possible?) But its a real shame your political heroes yanked the Sunni’s out of power in Iraq and pulled the door wide open for the Shiite muslims and Iran to fill the power vacuum. Seems Sistani was far smarter than these feckless idiots in Wahington, like Cheney, that were leading GWB around by his leash.

      But who is going to have the guts to replace Iran with troops on the ground fighting ISIS after ignorance like yours leads us to war with billions of Shiite muslims? Israel??? Gee, why would they do that when our Congress is more than willing to sacrifice our sons and daughters at Israel’s behest? You gonna send your kids? Somehow I doubt it.

      Tell me, you gonna allow these Iranians peaceful use of NE before or after you’ve employed “all options” in the wake of derailing this deal that is favored by most of the civilized nations on this planet?

    2. July 5, 1963

      “Dear Mr. Prime Minister:

      “It gives me great personal pleasure to extend congratulations as you assume your responsibilities as Prime Minister of Israel. You have our friendship and best wishes in your new tasks. It is on one of these that I am writing you at this time.

      “You are aware, I am sure, of the exchanges which I had with Prime Minister Ben-Gurion concerning American visits to Israel’s nuclear facility at Dimona. Most recently, the Prime Minister wrote to me on May 27. His words reflected a most intense personal consideration of a problem that I know is not easy for your Government, as it is not for mine. We welcomed the former Prime Minister’s strong reaffirmation that Dimona will be devoted exclusively to peaceful purposes and the reaffirmation also of Israel’s willingness to permit periodic visits to Dimona.

      “I regret having to add to your burdens so soon after your assumption of office, but I feel the crucial importance of this problem necessitates my taking up with you at this early date certain further considerations, arising out of Mr. Ben-Gurion’s May 27 letter, as to the nature and scheduling of such visits.

      “I am sure you will agree that these visits should be as nearly as possible in accord with international standards, thereby resolving all doubts as to the peaceful intent of the Dimona project. As I wrote to Mr. Ben-Gurion, this government’s commitment to and support of Israel could be seriously jeopardized if it should be thought that we were unable to obtain reliable information on a subject as vital to peace as the question of Israel’s effort in the nuclear field.

      “Therefore, I asked our scientists to review the alternative schedules of visits we and you had proposed. If Israel’s purposes are to be clear beyond reasonable doubt, I believe that the schedule which would best serve our common purposes would be a visit early this summer, another visit in June 1964, and thereafter at intervals of six months. I am sure that such a schedule should not cause you any more difficulty than that which Mr. Ben-Gurion proposed in his May 27 letter. It would be essential, and I understand that Mr. Ben-Gurion’s letter was in accord with this, that our scientists have access to all areas of the Dimona site and to any related part of the complex, such as fuel fabrication facilities or plutonium separation plant, and that sufficient time be allotted for a thorough examination.

      “Knowing that you fully appreciate the truly vital significance of this matter to the future well-being of Israel, to the United States, and internationally, I am sure our carefully considered request will have your most sympathetic attention.


      “John F. Kennedy

      1. So….should we have executed Israel’s scientists? As a nuclear power, threatened to put “all options on the table”, to prevent Israel from attaining nuclear weapons capability? Imposed crippling sanctions that directly diminished the quality of life for all Israeli citizens?

        Israel developed its nuclear arsenal by doing EXACTLY what we are ACCUSING Iran of doing. The difference is that Iran WILL allow inspections. And we have the tools in place, thanks to the efforts of a coalition of nations, to rein in any intentions Iran has of acquiring nuclear weapons.

        The majority of the arab/muslim nations are willing to sign on to a nuclear free zone in the middle east. Israel refuses. Ironic, is it not? One wonders, had we of reined in the Israeli nuclear program, when they were lying to us, stealing our technology, and developing the bomb in undeground bunkers sans international oversight, if we would now have a truly nuclear free zone in the middle east.

      2. If we’re going to dig into history, then I should point out that US concerns over Iran’s nuclear program are nothing new. Even when Iran was our ally, under the Shah, the US was worried about a weapons program. Carter was worried too. Note that this was before Iran started calling the US “The Great Satan.”

        National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 268

        Edited by William Burr

        Washington, D.C., January 13, 2009 – During the 1970s the Shah of Iran argued, like current Iranian leaders today, for a nuclear energy capability on the basis of national “rights,” while the Ford and Carter administrations worried about nuclear weapons possibilities, according to newly declassified documents published today by the National Security Archive for the first time. Uranium enrichment capability is now the major point of controversy between Tehran and the world community, while during the 1970s Washington’s greatest concern was that Iran sought a capability to produce plutonium, but in both instances the implication was that a nuclear weapons option might not be far away. …

        1. “but in both instances the implication was that a nuclear weapons option might not be far away. …”

          Yeah, golly, over 45 years ago. And gee, where’s their bomb?

        2. And gee, where’s their bomb?

          Ah … so you agree that a firm policy of deterrence — what used to be the status quo in dealing with Iran — works. Glad to see you’re finally coming around.

  2. Let’s run some numbers:

    Diablo Canyon: 2.24 GW nameplate, 1.94 GW avg at lifetime 86.4% Cf, 19.6 TWh/y max, 17 TWh/y average.

    Glen Canyon Dam: 1.3 GW nameplate, 25% Cf, (peaking), 3.46 TWh/y average, 18 construction deaths.
    Hoover Dam: 1.6 GW current (2.0 original), 24% Cf, peaking, 4.2 TWh/y average but can do more then 3.7 TWh/y due to drought. 112 construction deaths (not counting carbon monoxide poisoning).

    As of 2014 California had 6,020 MW installed wind capacity, or 1,800 MW average at 30% Cf. On an average year Diablo Canyon puts out more usable electricity than all of California’s wind farms, installed over 33 years, combined.

    Droughts happen, capacity matters, and while the DC reactors see some years at near 100% capacity (not refueling), they can also be off for planned refueling (not an issue) or unscheduled maintenance (rare, but it can happen).

    The combined yearly generation of the two large Colorado River dams, 7.2 TWh, is less than half Diablo Canyon’s 17 TWh average generation. Considering the environmental cost of those major river dams, and utter lack of remaining sites for their like, I’d hope opponents of Diablo Canyon would careful think through their position. The 17 TWh/y base load gas needed to replace Diablo Canyon will emit at least 6.2 million tons CO2 each year, and could alternatively replace nearly all of California’s remaining 3 GW base load coal, which emits at least 15.1 million tons CO2 to generate 17 TWh in a year.

    Current emissions from 34 TWh/y: 15.1 Mt CO2 from coal + 0 from Diablo Canyon = 15.1 Mt/y
    Without Diablo Canyon: 15.1 Mt CO2 from coal + 6.2 Mt from gas = 21.3 Mt/y
    Use the gas to replace coal: 0 from coal + 0 from DC + 6.2 Mt from gas = 6.2 Mt/y

    So, we can either reduce the associated emissions by 15/6 = 2.5 fold, or increase them by 40%. Choose wisely. But do keep in mind that possible 2.5-fold reduction won’t be enough: we’ll need essentially zero emissions from the electric sector if we’re going to meet climate requirements.

    Wikipedia: Hoover Dam.
    Wikipedia: Glen Canyon Dam.
    American Wind Energy Association: California Wind Energy.
    High Country News: Glen Canyon Dam’s Evaporating Hydropower.
    World Nuclear Association: California’s Electricity.
    California Council on Science and Technology: California’s Energy Future – Powering California with Nuclear Energy, Burton Richter, Robert Budnitz, Jane Long, Per Peterson, and Jan Schori, July 2011.

    1. Mr. Leaver:

      Excellent summary.

      Environmentalists don’t much like dams either. So even if there were sites available, there would be little chance of another dam built. (I like dams.) If you could get the permits for a new dam, you would also need to get approval for the transmission lines.

      There are a lot of smart people living in California. Look at the great stuff that is designed by the Silicon Valley crowd. Would it be possible to somehow get the facts about nuclear power to them? If their voices were in favor of nuclear energy, it would certainly help counter those of a shrill opposition. They must have a strong lobby group. A mere nudge from that lobby would be a big help to sustaining the clean energy from Diablo Canyon.

    2. Not an issue? Where do they find backup power for a GigaWatt of nuclear plant for 2 months?

      They get it from dams on the Columbia.  Spring is a low-load period, and also when the spring melt yields the highest river flows.  Water cannot be dumped down spillways without super-charging it with nitrogen and killing fish, so it needs to be run through turbines.  Grand Coulee’s nameplate capacity is 6.8 GW, enough to step in for several PWRs during the spring.

      If they weren’t so concerned about CO2, how long would it take to install another couple GW of solar, wind, and high efficiency CCGT?

      You’re implying that generation that only works during the day, or only when the wind blows (strongly enough), or relies on fossil fuel with a volatile price and uncertain delivery, is in any way a replacement for nuclear base load.  You’re wrong.

      1. I used to be a project manager in geothermal at EPRI (the Electric Power Research Institute). I visited the Geysers many times, and other geothermal resource areas also, such as Imperial Valley California, Dixie Valley Nevada, Beaver Valley Utah, and the geopressured areas of the Gulf. The Geysers is amazing: the largest geothermal field in commercial power production in the world. The other fields are nothing like The Geysers, and never can be like The Geysers. I was proud to be part of helping the Geysers grow.


        That said, geothermal fields of The Geysers magnitude (or even sufficient magnitude to provide power economically) are rare. California is blessed by The Geysers, but other states cannot duplicate this resource. Well, Yellowstone would almost certainly be as good, but it is a national park and I think it should remain unexploited.

        The Geysers exists. But this does not mean that geothermal can add significant power over the entire grid. If Mr. Galt thinks that we can shut down nuclear and replace most of it with geothermal, he’s wrong. Geothermal is a good resource in a very few places. It is far from being a “rock in the shoe” of nuclear energy.

  3. For far too long the nuclear industry has remained on the defensive. It must go on the offensive. Every letter to the editor should have an avalanche of responses refuting their non-sense. Every time a false statement is made, it should be refuted with facts in a dispassionate manner and brought up again and again. Every falsehood on their web sites or the pamphlets they hand out should be refuted. Statements at public meetings should always be directed at the false statements the anti-nukes make. Their credibility must be challenged and refuted. If we can instill in the public’s mind that these people are dishonest (and the leaders are), that their information cannot be trusted, that they are novices without a clue, the public WILL begin to turn on them and be more open to nuclear power.

    Pandora’s Promise is a powerful tool and I continue to ask anti-nukes if they have seen it (only once has anyone answered this question). I ask why did FORMER anti-nukes leave the solar fantasy for nuclear reality and produce a pro-nuclear documentary. When done in a public forum, their silence speaks volumes.

    The anti-nukes, by and large, have stopped posting in my local newspapers because they know I will respond, that I will bring up the lies and false statements they have made (I call them out by name), and share information that demonstrates the policies they wish San Onofre to follow are unworkable. I hammer on these same themes continuously.

    One ray of sunshine for Diablo is that PG&E doesn’t appear to be the limp dishrag SCE is. With a strong response in favor of Diablo Canyon, we can drown out the caterwauling of the anti-nuke, propaganda machine.

    No apologies for my soap-box presentation…I loath dishonesty and the anti-nukes personify this character flaw.

  4. I regret I don’t have the lottery funds to ship that whole marvelous Duke TIP crew to that NRC meeting for some much needed youth-related logic, reason and factual air support and to give them a trial-by-fire baptism at confronting and FUD-fighting anti-nuke dragons and to learn that the media philosophically isn’t nuclear-fair much less on their side. We badly need some grass-roots nuclear advocates like last year! May the next nuclear Carl Sagan rise from that group!

    James Greenidge
    Queens NY

Comments are closed.

Recent Comments from our Readers

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

Similar Posts