20 Comments

  1. I had never heard of the Korber Foundation. From it’s entry in Wikipedia, it sounds like a German version of the Bilderberg Group.

  2. Very sad to see South Korea give up on its successful nuclear energy program, which has also resulted in the export of the AP1400 to the UAE.

    The potential for renewables in South Korea is not great, because, measured by landmass, it is a small country. Moreover, South Korea also has a lot of energy-intensive and power-hungry heavy industry, which is not a great match with renewable/intermittent energy sources.

    You would almost expect ulterior motives on the part of Moon Jae-in for killing nuclear energy and promoting natural gas in South Korea. And what about South Korea’s commitments to the Paris Climate Accord ? More natural gas and less nuclear power will result in higher CO2 emissions.

    1. As Rod’s article shows, Moon is essentially quoted as acknowledging that Korea has little renewables potential. The renewables talk is just a distraction, to curry favor with the (stupid) public. It is completely clear that this is all about increasing the use of imported gas. God, money talks….

  3. Still struggling mightily to understand how increasing dependence on foreign gas could ever, on balance, be a geopolitical benefit, despite the factors Rod mentions.

    Then there’s the question as to why they are making room for gas by cutting both coal and nuclear roughly in half, as opposed to leaving nuclear alone and eliminating coal entirely. What are the reasons you “can’t” do that? Look at Ontario, or France. That decision (to keep coal around) completely belies any notion that concerns about the environment and public health are behind any of these decisions.

    The very notion of getting rid of nuclear to “protect public health and safety” is insulting. Scientifically illiterate. Orwellian. Actually, as Rod suggests, propaganda is what it is. The public is so easily manipulated. Why can’t we (manipulate them). Oh yeah, that requires money, and no moneyed interests give a damn about nuclear. Why do I (or we) even try?

    1. That decision (to keep coal around) completely belies any notion that concerns about the environment and public health are behind any of these decisions.

      Over at The Energy Collective, some of us have a bit of a hobby of hammering on Helmut Frik for taking exactly this position.  We call him Helmut Coal.

      The very notion of getting rid of nuclear to “protect public health and safety” is insulting. Scientifically illiterate. Orwellian.

      But the public doesn’t know that.  The public has been taught for decades that any dose of radiation is dangerous and cumulative.  The knowledge that this is false is confined to an elite, of which we are a part.

      Actually, as Rod suggests, propaganda is what it is. The public is so easily manipulated.

      Has been since the front-page story in the NYT.

      Why can’t we (manipulate them). Oh yeah, that requires money, and no moneyed interests give a damn about nuclear.

      Not quite.  If you’re clever enough with memes, you can get people to spread your ideas for free.  Get catchy enough and they can “go viral”.

      (continued)

      1. EP,

        I’d love to join in discussions at the Energy Collective, but for some reason I don’t understand, they haven’t been publishing my posts. It happened not once, but several times. None get posted. So, I eventually gave up. No reason going to the trouble if I know my post will not get published. I have no idea why this is happening. Is there a length requirement they’re not telling me about? Does someone at EC feel the need to silence me?

        It has been my hope for some time that some of my memes would catch on an influence/frame the debate. I like to think that I’ve had a least a few original ideas, ones that I’d hoped would gain some traction. But there is little evidence of that, as far as I can tell. If they’re having any influence, it’s too subtle to detect. I’d be happy if I were making at least some difference, even if I never got any credit for it. What’s hard to take is not lack of credit, but lack of knowing if you’re making any difference at all (and a growing sense that you are not).

        1. If you can do visual memes, the places to spread them are Gab, Facebook, Twitter and 4chan/8chan.

        2. For what it’s worth, I’m always happy to read one of your comments when I happen across them and I find them clear, well written, and I imagine that they are persuasive to the people who have room for convincing. However, I am already “converted”. You always have a very reasonable tone in your comments. I’m prone to vitriol….

          Please do not get discouraged. It is a discouraging situation, but I think that we should keep trying. We can only do so much.

      2. “Get catchy enough and they can “go viral”.”

        Penn and Teller made the video game, ‘Desert Bus’ to satirize what it would be like to play a video game that simulated real life. The game was intentional created to be so boring that no one would play, yet the game has a large following. Engineers should create the game ‘Next Gen Nuke’ to satirize the ‘dangers’ of operating a passively cooled reactor. Create a small buzz and have PewDiePie review the game, making jokes about it for his 55 million youtube subscribers.

        1. I think one problem in the popular culture is all the folks who grew up playing the original Sim City or Civilization. In both of which, if you power your city (ies) with a nuclear reactor, it eventually explodes polluting the surrounding area. In Sim City, this is invariable. In Civilization, it “only” happens if the host city is in civil disorder. But it creates the unexamined idea that nukes eventually come to a disastrous end.

    2. If I was good with images, I’d do something like a side-by-side of the Porter Ranch gas leak and a spent pool.  Left side, supra:  91,000 tons of toxic climate-changing gas spewed in just weeks, dozens sickened.  Right side, supra:  75,000 tons nationwide, never hurt anything or anyone.  Caption below:  So which is the dangerous one again?

    3. @JamesEHopf

      Actually, as Rod suggests, propaganda is what it is. The public is so easily manipulated. Why can’t we (manipulate them). Oh yeah, that requires money, and no moneyed interests give a damn about nuclear. Why do I (or we) even try?

      It’s not just a lack of money that inhibits us from successfully manipulating the public. Good engineers and technologists are also fundamentally honest people that try not to overstate what we know and try to use facts to convince our audiences.

      Ben Heard just published a sad, but useful “know your enemy” piece at Bright New World that identifies some of the devious, manipulative and successful tactics used by some of our not terribly well funded adversaries. I’ll add it to my “recommended reading list” if I ever get around to producing such a list.

      https://www.brightnewworld.org/media/2017/7/25/likeaharpfromhell

  4. Well, if you plan relies on a pipeline of Russian gas through North Korea for success you may just be bat sh$t crazy.
    I’m guessing the reason to shut down nukes is safety?
    Well once gain if your plan involves a partnership with Russia/North Korea you are not safe.
    Hard to believe this guy got elected.

  5. You lost me with a pipeline through North Korea supplying Russian as gas as your safe reliable source of energy.
    I mean what could go wrong?

    1. Are you aware of the Gazprom project, known as Nord Stream 2? Seems to me the distance from China to S Korea is shorter than the Nord Stream 2 project, and probably a prefered route for China.

  6. Let me summarize what I hear: South Korea’s leaders want to needle part of the sphere of influence of Russia and leave the US behind. Also, they have never heard of Ukraine. For a preview of countries dependent on Russian gas, look at Ukraine.

    Also, it’s totally cool to give a country (NK) that has historically been constantly threatening you and making unprovoked military attacks against your ships and kidnapping people from under your nose, the ability to price gouge you or turn off a large portion of your energy supply at any time it wants.

    That sounds reasonable.

  7. It sounds like Moon Jae-in is basically Rick Perry with a Korean visage. He doesn’t care what happens to his country as long as he can sell it off to interests in other countries. It would be interesting to monitor his personal finances over the next several years, especially the year or two after he leaves office.

Comments are closed.

Recent Comments from our Readers

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

Similar Posts