1. Well, that jibes with the thinking of the current occupant of the White House, who described the consequences of his vision of the ideal energy policy…..”electricity prices will necessarily skyrocket.” And it certainly aligns with that subgroup of the political left who genuflects at the Georgia Guidestones. Go read about that New Age vision if you want a hint of their ultimate goal. Number 1 on the agenda is to take the world population back to 500,000,000 and let it get no higher. Yes, I definitely want that crew to dictate our energy policy……sure.

    1. While you’re selling a right-tilting tinfoil hat, the extremists on the other side are selling a left-tilting tinfoil hat. The Counterpunch Left regularly accuses Al Gore of murdering hundreds of thousands of people by promoting nuclear energy, while the bellyaching around here is how he personally commanded the death of the Integral Fast Reactor.

      Their anger extends to President Obama, whom they never tire of accusing of being a Paid Shill (TM) for “Big Nuke”. They’re sure he’s simply the straw boss for “Our Corporate Masters”.

      The Guidestones paranoia, though, is still in Alex Jones territory. I’ve read and heard some mighty wacky things from the stalwart Defenders of Liberty, but accusing Barack HUSSATAN Obama of plotting to kill 7 billion people is a new one. I thought he needed the large population so the Soviet Socialist Space Republic of French Atheist Muslim Reptoids from Zeta Reticulii could harvest white babies for their tender meat and the Monoatomic Gold produced in their pineal glands.

      I’m more convinced that the real source of your paranoia is the rational fear that the remaining days of your political tribe’s domination will be few, impotent, and unhappy. Popular sentiment is turning against extremism, radicalism, and the arrogant cynicism that has made millions of sullen grouches believe they are the only ones who can see reality clearly, unlike those hypnotized sheeple they disdain.

      Here’s what *I* fear, d00dz: that sane and sober people will visit our pro-nuclear sites, and after reading some of our deep thoughts on how the Demon-rat Party and the Libtards are plotting genocide using elite squads of Polarity Massage therapists and incense ,

      1. @Dogmug

        Not sure what happened, but your comment stops with an incomplete sentence.

        While I agree that there are extremists who seem to post more than their share of comments, I think that sane and sober people are also quite common on this pro-nuclear site. We are people who prefer prosperity to poverty, empowering people to disempowering them, cheap energy to expensive energy, and clean energy to dirty energy. We like people and believe that they an important part of the reason that environmental protection is worth a lot of effort. The people I know do not want to foul their own nests, but they do want to live well.

        As you may or may not know, I consider myself to be a classic liberal with a lot of libertarian tendencies. I believe that good government is possible and useful but I do not believe that the government has any role in mandating changes in personal behavior or choices. I like public works projects that provide long term value; I am a frequent visitor to national parks and love to cruise on the nearby Blue Ridge Parkway. Most of my family members in my parents generation were union school teachers; my own education (through a master of science degree) has been completely funded by the taxpayers, so I work hard to share the value of that education with others. Our public education system was one of America’s most valuable assets through most of the 20th century. It deserves improvements.

        Though I voted for President Obama twice, I am very disappointed in his drone program, his surge in Afghanistan, his broken promise to close Guantanamo Bay, and, most of all, his actions to discourage the use of nuclear energy (disrupting waste confidence, elevating Jaczko to Chairman of NRC, appointing a second antinuclear activist as Chairman, allowing OMB to kill off the loan guarantee program, allowing slow motion on license applications, etc).

        1. “…but I do not believe that the government has any role in mandating changes in personal behavior or choices.”

          Which is exactly why I vote against Obama twice – trying to force institutions and businesses owned by Catholics to do and finance those things that for reasons of religious conscience we find morally reprehensible. I do not want to be the arbiter of anyone’s personal conduct. Live and let live is my policy. Indeed I have a hard enough time with my own behavior, hence my need for frequent reception of the Sacrament of Confessions and Reconciliation. But don’t force a Catholic or other religious person to pay for someone else’s personal life style choices. Don’t mandate that a Catholic business has to buy insurance for procedures that the Church condemns for reasons of natural law. Don’t mandate that a Catholic bakery must bake cakes for weddings that the Church can’t approve for reasons of natural law. Live and let live, which is the exact opposite of this Administration which is using the power of government to sequester the First Amendment into the closet.

          That Obama is anti-nuclear power is merely the tip of a very large iceberg. But I suppose that I am a right wing extremist who believes that with personal liberty comes personal responsibility and accountability, and that license for any kind of behavior does not constitute freedom for all behavior.

          1. @Paul W Primavera

            I hesitate to engage on this issue, but can’t help asking – how do you feel about being forced to pay taxes used to buy weapons to kill people in wars of aggression?

          2. I oppose taxation for wars of foreign aggression, Rod. Thus, I oppose Barack Hussein Obama giving military aid to terrorists in Syria and Egypt. The Bishops of the USCCB (as well as the Vatican, the Russian Orthodox Patriarch and the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople) have repeated spoken against weapons of mass destruction and wars of foreign aggression (as well as Obama aiding and abetting Muslim terrorists in Syria). Recent Popes John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI and Pope Francis I have all spoken in this issue.

            Should we have a strong military able to deter aggression? YES! Should we have a nuclear deterrent? YES! What really, however, is the best solution? Convert all weapons-grade plutonium and uranium into reactor fuel, build more reactors, become energy independent, and let the Muslim extremists drown in their oil. We have no business in the Middle East. By the way, I highly recommend reading Blessed Pope John XXIII’s encyclical, Pacem in Terris, here:


            I find little to disagree with in that encyclical. Pope Francis I is canonizing him and Blessed Pope John Paul II to Sainthood early next year.

        2. Rod
          …prefer prosperity to poverty, empowering people to disempowering them, cheap energy to expensive energy, and clean energy to dirty energy…
          I, and most renewable people share those value’s highly.
          Only the interest regarding cheap energy may differ.

          It is better to lower general taxes and tax energy consumption, (especially dirty energy, such as car fuel), as almost all energy consumption (incl. nuclear) imply heating the earth! Nuclear may not generate CO2 but it adds heat to the earth. A modern of 1GW NPP at least 2 x 24 x 365 GWh per year!
          As nuclear converts energy that was safely stored in the atomic nucleus for billions of years, into heat.

          PV panels do not heat the earth! They transform solar energy into electricity, which is then elsewhere converted to useful heat. In contrast to nuclear, that solar heat is only moved from one place (the PV-panel) to another place.
          Without PV-panel that solar energy would have immediately been converted into heat (and may be wind, that later on is also converted to heat).
          Similar applies for wind turbines.

          So from a climate point of view, solar and wind should be preferred. Hence those may cost a little more than nuclear (however, if all costs are included, the opposite is true).

          We like people and believe that they an important part of the reason that environmental protection is worth a lot of effort. The people I know do not want to foul their own nests, but they do want to live well. ..
          I support that fully!

          ..do not believe that the government has any role in mandating changes in personal behavior or choices…
          Government has a role if behavior or choices affect other people!
          Hence obliged driver license, education, health insurance, etc.

          .. very disappointed in his drone program, his surge in Afghanistan, his broken promise to close Guantanamo Bay…
          Share that. I’m convinced that those harm US and the west (incl. NL, so me).

          … his actions to discourage the use of nuclear energy..
          I am disappointed that he allowed under his Presidency, new NPP’s such as Vogtle. It heats the earth, charges thousands of generations after us with dangerous waste, and adds extra risk to our lives if it turns into disaster such as Fukushima.

          1. PV panels do not heat the earth!

            Although hilariously funny, this is also incredibly stupid, even for Bas.

            Apparently, Bas has never heard of albedo. I can’t say that I’m surprised.

        3. If you voted for Obama twice, you’ve earned the disappointment you received.
          I am impressed that you owned up to it, most Obama voters do not.

          The liberal’s rude reality is the final words in:

          “A chicken in every pot…
          … until there’s naught.”

          If you voted for Obama twice, his appointment of Markey and Reid lapdog Gregory Jazcko to NRC Chairman is just desserts for your misdeed. I hope to never hear more of your criticism of the harshness of the bite of your President’s chosen dog.

          Elections have consequences, glad you got a taste of that.

          1. Thank you, Rob Brixey.

            Liberals – even those who are pro-nuclear power (and these are in a vanishing minority) – know little about what a real Conservative Christian believes in. While they acknowledge that truth is knowable and objective with respect to science, they simply can’t acknowledge the same with respect to morality (because to do so would mean having to be responsible), Instead they prefer to vaunt their supposed objectivity with terms such as “personal behavior or choices”, yet insisting that the tax payer fund the sexual consequences of such “personal behavior or choices” (i.e., Sebelius’ Health and Human Services Mandate).

            Liberals (including RINOs) are the reason that nuclear power hasn’t expanded in this country. Liberals (including RINOs) are the reason that more national debt was piled on under the current Regime than from Washington to Bush II combined. Liberals (including RINOs) are the reason Islamic terrorists are being financed in Syria. It ain’t Bush’s fault this time.

            Yeah, I am a white Christian conservative racist. I absolutely love and adore my lady friend who has beautiful light brown skin and is from a Asian island nation. I believe in freedom (NOT license) for everyone, and with that comes personal responsibility – if someone wants to wallow in heat like a baboon, then he should NOT expect the tax payer to pick up the tab. I also oppose wars of foreign aggression, and oppose the death penalty for both unborn babies and convicted murderers. The right to life is indissoluble from conception to natural death. As for homosexual marriage, I don’t agree with it, but it isn’t any of my business what people do behind closed doors; I have enough of my own sins to deal with. I have a lesbian friend whose first words to me were, “I am lesbian and a member of a gay-friendly church.” I don’t care. Not my business. Someone’s sexual preferences do not define who that person is as a person. And since I don’t want to talk about mine, I certainly don’t want to hear about yours. More time in the Confessional with my priest for me! Mea Culpa! Mea Culpa! Mea Maxima Culpa! Domine Iesu, miserere mihi!

            I am pro-nuclear power because I believe that access to low cost, non-polluting energy can raise people’s standard of living and enrich the nation. I believe that doing this can relieve us of wars in the Middle East. I believe we should mind our own business and be personally responsibility and accountable, keeping government small and within the confines of the Constitution which is NOT a living document to be interpreted at whim by a capricious liberal judiciary, but a fixed contract that places boundaries on government power and recognizes the citizen as sovereign. And I am sick and tired of being put into a box by NPR, PBS, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and all the other liberal nit wit news outlets that have this intense pelvic fascination but are incapable of understanding any real science, including that of nuclear power. And again, for the record, I don’t watch Fox or read Drudge either. It’s all trash, but most is liberal.

            White Christian racist. Yup, I am Caucasian. Yup, I am Christian. Yup, I am racist – I love the human race, especially my lady friend.

            BTW, did anybody actually READ Pacem in Terris by Blessed Pope John XXIII above? It might interest (maybe even shock) the liberal to realize that there are more points of view than the liberal one, and that the Constitution guarantees everyone the right to free speech and religion in the public square without fear of harassment or suppression or marginalization from opposing liberal view points.

            1. @Paul Primavera

              I’ve been doing a lot of research about American and UK energy industry history, especially as it relates to our activities in the Middle East since the early 1900s. If I was a native of that area, I would be fighting mad about the way that resources have been appropriated, borders have been drawing and coups have been instigated.

              This is not a religious situation; it is an imperial one.

          2. Well. It is time to bring Winston back from the ashes.

            Churchill always maintained from the earliest days of the actual IRAQ map that it was a cause for disaster.

            He argued that the current territory was a cause for 3 countries. 3 old empires of the past. Wounds.

            Shiites and Sunites living together ? Not in a lifetime he said. Look who is right now.

            He also made a case for KURDISTAN at the north. The Kurds are not going to let go of their oil. Ever.

            Winston. You had courage.

          3. Winston Churchill was a open and proud imperialist (a man of his time really), but I do think the borders in that part of the world were drawn up badly.

            Iraqi Kurdistan should really have been part of Turkey (as most of its trade under the Ottomans went north, not south), but the British Empire wanted to get dibs on its oil.I’d compensate Iraq with a slice of eastern Syria (which is the upper Euphrates valley, and thus naturally part of Mesopotamia) while keeping Hatay with Syria.

        4. Well, THAT is interesting. I was under the impression I’d sent a two-paragraph post. What posted was a first-draft-rant. I tend to write fast and freely for a first draft — and then usually write something different.

          If you want to delete the mess, feel free, but if you want to let it stand, in the interest of transparency, ‘s alright. They’re my actual opinions, even if not my intended posting. In either case, I apologize to you for making a mess in your forum. Granted, the transgression was minor, but I don’t like losing control over things like server and cgi “burps”.

          I also appreciate you taking as much time as you did to write a complete reply. I’m aware of your politics, since you’ve written about them; mine are quite similar, only I am more supportive of the President (though also not uncritically so).

          I stupidly let a couple days go by, so I’ll save my non-rants for later articles. (And I’ll write everything off-line!) As much as I’d love to be combative with the rightists, this isn’t the place for it. And nobody gives a damn about me “expressing my feelings”, nor should they. (Including my misfire of a post.)

          I’m here because I want to see most, if not all, of the world’s energy needs satisfied by nuclear generation. They tell me that if you want to win a war, you look for the guy or guys that the enemy is complaining about the most and shoot at whom they’re shooting. So far, it’s Monbiot, Lynas, NNadir — and you.

          Now, if I can only remember that it’s “lock and load”, not “load and lock” …

          1. Dogmug – Don’t take it personally. Sometimes comments get caught by the “spam” catcher for unknown reasons. As I write this, I have a comment stuck there. It looks like Rod needs to clean out the “spam” bin, which must be a Sisyphean chore.

            1. @Brian

              I suspect that there are other blogs that use the same spam filter tool used here. Both you and Bas regularly submit comments that have none of the characteristics that typically result in spam flagging here, but the end up in the spam box anyway. Both of you tend to be somewhat polarizing and may be submitting comments elsewhere that get tagged as spam.

          2. Both of you tend to be somewhat polarizing and may be submitting comments elsewhere that get tagged as spam.

            Rod – Then I’m baffled. You might be right about Bas, but these days, I really don’t submit comments anywhere else — I barely have enough time to submit comments here. The main exception is ANS Nuclear Cafe, but even there I post comments rather infrequently.

            On the other hand, my comments don’t end up in your spam box very often. I have a hypothesis for the cause, but it would probably be a waste of time and resources to discuss it here.

          3. Rod,

            Do you have suggestions how to prevent that a posts ends in the spam box?
            It would save you valuable time, and Brian and me frustration.

            E.g. I use three dots to indicate that I left part of a citation.
            Does that help to forward a post to towards the spam box.
            (assume my answer to Brian in the Ralph Nader blog ended there a few hours ago)

            Thanks already!

    2. Why do people persist in calling radical environmentalists “left”? Sure they want to do away with capitalism, but they seek to replace it not with socialism but with neo-feudalism.

  2. One of my favorite new catch-phrases is “Reality bats last”. If some countries have repeated power outages from a lack of adequate generation, they might look to nations like France, which gets 75% of its power from nuclear, or Switzerland (35% nuclear, 60% hydro) or Sweden (40% nuclear, 55% hydro). I know France’s new president is trying to cut down on nuclear’s share in his country. Hopefully he won’t be president long enough to do much damage. Regardless, I doubt that the central planners will be able to enact policies that drive costs up and reliability down in every nation in the EU. As for the rest of the world, it will simply stand back and chuckle at the insanity.

    1. Your first biggest pro nuclear rally is going to happen in France. They like their cheese and their wine but make no mistake, the french love to be in opposition and in contrast mode.

      They will fight for their uniqueness.

      The unions are already getting ready for a fight with the forced closure of Fessenheim, its oldest reactor which is in prefect shape.

      And you see the ingenuity in the market these days coming into effect for new financing structures. You know something is happening when money starts to find its ways into nuclear in fashions never seen before.

      Look at Finland. Russia, please take a stake in my utility please and get my reactors going.

      Russia: hey do not worry : We build, finance, operate and own the waste. Nof said

      UK: Well let’s get France and China take the risk. China ? Yes. They have tons US money and they have to let go of this enormous risk. Investing in nuclear is not going to stop.

      Fair fight? The renewables never had a chance.

      1. This just out. EDF is having en extension for Belgium reactors.

        Garanteed floor price with profit sharing with the state.

        That’s right.

        1. I guess you’re talking about the Tihange 1 deal. It’s not a great deal for GDF and EDF (which each own 50% of it).
          They don’t get a guaranteed floor price, the referenced floor price is the price above which they start to have to share profits with the state. As they own this reactor, in a free market, they ought be able to keep all the profit as long as they fulfill the security requirements, pay the legal taxes and required insurance.

          But the positive part of this is that the incentive for the state is now aligned with the incentive for the operator, to keep those reactors running, at a profit. Anyone who is fighting against that is now fighting against the Belgium government.

          1. A signed deal us a good deal. All and I mean all of those profit sharing deals with a state puts the utility beyond any reprisals from les ronds de cuir in Brussels.

    2. @Pete51
      If some countries have repeated power outages from a lack of adequate generation, they might look to nations like France, which gets 75% of its power from nuclear, or Switzerland (35% nuclear, 60% hydro) or Sweden (40% nuclear, 55% hydro)

      Electricity supply to customers in ‘renewable country’ Germany is far more reliable (~15minutes outage / year) than that in ‘nuclear countries’ such as France and UK (both >1hr/year), Switzerland, Sweden!
      ‘Nuclear’ US is far behind with ~4hrs/year…

  3. And the smart grid … The core of their argumentation. All you need to do is build it and they will come.

    Anyone who has done architecture in any domain knows that you must minimize the points of failure. But not the green aristocrats.

    The solar is backed by duck tape and batteries. Wind is backed by gas or diesel. Then the smart grid. When there is not enough energy being generated, the smart grid will kick you out of the market with instant cost knowledge that will tell you that for now, you just are not worthy.

    For now, you will have to arbitrage between having food, medication, transportation or electricity. You are not worthy if you can’t afford slick electricity.

    But If the grid fails, the Lovins of the world will always have a gas or diesel or coal (grin) generator hidden because they can afford the additional points of failure.

  4. Thats very depressing Joris. That people could get so far away from the foundations of their own field and become basically advocates of the opposite of what they are thought to be.

  5. Joris quoted:
    “What we are going to do is bring about the new energy paradigm (based on unreliable and expensive grid electricity) slowly, so the people have time to adjust, because people are flexible and creative and will find ways to deal with it in time, and because they will forget that there was a time when energy was cheap and available 24/7! In 30 years time, no-one will remember the energy system of past and everybody will organize their lives around the availability of energy, shifting their energy dependent activities to coincide with sunny and/or windy periods.”

    No, people will remember. Unless somehow their lives are greatly improved in some other way, they will not only remember, but not adjust, and not accept the change. This is the stuff of major social upheaval. One only needs look at the social and political turmoil of the 20th century (especially the first half) to so how this can happen. Ultimately, people were forced to organize their lives around two major world wars.
    I hope the French “stick to their guns” with regards to nuclear energy so that their neighbors watch a prosperous society in action, while their own society is busy trying to forget prosperity and is working mightily to return to the dark ages of energy availability.

  6. In truth, people will never allow that “future” to happen. The more plausible future is that we continue to burn fossil fuels (for the time being), as people will not accept expensive, unreliable energy. Full Stop.

    If people decide we absolutely must stop burning fossil fuels at the quantities we are, and get a taste of “expensive and unreliable” as we start to go down the road to environmental energy sources, that will create the ideal market environment for nuclear power, and I suspect investors and utilities would flock EN MASSE to nuclear, and the changeover would take care of itself.

    The real key is just that, the more likely path is we keep burning fossil fuels unless something absolutely forces people not to. Or, unless nuclear energy really can get very cheap, to compete with “cheap natural gas”, or, natural gas prices spike up and stay up at a level where nuclear can compete.

    Reality has a funny way of asserting itself, by which I mean, people can proclaim that “wind and sun are all we need” – either that is the reality, and it will work, or it is NOT the reality, and won’t work, and people WILL eventually realize that as that reality asserts itself.

    1. @Jeff S
      …If people decide we absolutely must stop burning fossil fuels at the quantities we are, and get a taste of “expensive and unreliable” as we start to go down the road to environmental energy sources..

      The Germans made that decision in year 2000, when they accepted the Energiewende scenario!
      A.o. they decided then at least 80% of all electricity should be renewable by 2050, and all NPP phased out by 2023.

      – they have phased out ~50% of their nuclear capacity. Rest to follow in the 2014-2022 period.
      – the renewable share of electricity generation did grow to ~25%.

      – public support for the Energiewende now is more then ever in the past; and
      – the only slightly opposing party is removed from parliament by the voters;
      it seem likely they will reach their goals!

      1. Bas: Just give it a bit more time. People are often so impatient about letting reality assert itself. I think in a few more years, if/when reality starts diverging dramatically from the projected timelines (e.g. in 2000 or whatever, when the plans were drawn up, they probably said by 2020, there’d be X increase in environmental energy, and Y decrease in fossil fuel use, and a Z decrease in GHG emissions). When those deadlines come and go, and time keeps passing, and they don’t get the results they were promised, people will start to change their minds.

        1. Jeff S
          if/when reality starts diverging dramatically from the projected timelines … they probably said by 2020, there’d be X increase in environmental energy…
          Reality is going faster than projected…
          Intermediate goals were met!
          And mainly due to the continuing falling prices of PV-panels*), there is no outlook that the costs are running out of control.

          *) Same Chinese PV-panels installed on the roof cost in Germany only 50% compared to those in USA. Mainly because German installation companies work more efficient, licensing much easier (often no license needed), economies-of-scale.

  7. Bas –

    The notion that the costs that increased increments of renewable energy impose on the system are falling, and that renewable energy is exceeding expect ions, is not supported. Stringing together multiple anecdotes (think, e.g., Amory Lovins), is no substitute for more focused and systematic analysis.


    I suggest that returning to massive burning of forests for energy is a bad idea when we can get massive amounts of energy from the careful arrangement of materials refined from rocks.

    1. Trees are far too valuable as construction materials (furniture, floors, decks, boats, houses, etc) to be burned en masse for energy.

      Also, I was a child in the 80’s, a teen in the 90’s, and so on. My whole life, I’ve heard people exhorting us to “save the trees” by recycling paper, doing more stuff electronically and not putting it on paper, etc. Was that a bunch of bullshit? Because, I mean, if trees are too scarce and valuable to turn into paper, they must *surely* be too scarce and valuable to burn in a furnace. Right? Right?

  8. There has to be more than a grain (probably a bushel) of truth in this post. I live near three different very large server farms providing you with your beloved internet and search engines. There is also an internet payment center and several electronic trading headquarters. Each have doubled the number of diesel driven emergency generators and two (maybe all three) of the server farms has switched to solid state memory instead of hard drives, doubling their capacity and halving their power and HVAS requirements. This in an area where electricity is sold to them for about $0.03 to 0.04 per kWh! (now, industrial rate). I have heard the dispatchers exclaiming that the buy/sell price hit $2000 per MWh numerous times in the cafeteria – and this was before we had the unreliable wind turbines. Now they frequently quote numbers like $8000 and $12000! (numbers rounded down, but still in the ballpark.) They tell me that so far the buys and sells are sort of averaging out and it is not affecting our bill – YET. However, the company is pushing dispatcher controlled air conditioners like gangbusters, even give you $20 to sign up and guaranty only four days a year of curtailment of your air conditioner. What happens when several more NPPs shut down? What happens when they shut down the old coal burner (that is burning the cleanest coal mined in the USA)? And NO a solar panel wont help you, as the blackouts will come when there have been a few days of no sun and will be a few more. Suggest you get a few of those cellphone chargers that work with penlight batteries and a good supply of batteries, and pick up all of the “quaint” kerosene lamps, you see in the yard sales. Don’t forget a kerosene stove and heater too!

    Look at California! They already have a PUC approved rate for homes of over $1.00 per kWh! That means you could see bills as large as $500 – $1000 per month, with no AC in some hot summer months.

Comments are closed.

Recent Comments from our Readers

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

Similar Posts