Similar Posts

Recent Comments from our Readers

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

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Subscribe to Comments:

48 Comments

  1. “…….all of which will be needed for coping with the shifting patterns of rainfall and temperature that have been observed in the last few decades. Although the concept of human-caused climate change is contentious……”

    Contentious, yes. But only because the very administration the NEI is appealing to is stacked with those that nurture the contention, ignoring scientific concensus.

    The semantics used in the quoted passage actually condones, through recognition, this incoming administration’s denial of real science. Good luck with that. Offering a non-polluting energy option actually sells a heck of a lot better if you’re selling to an outfit that is willing to admit pollution and climate change is a pressing problem.

    If you really wanna sell NE to this batch of swamp dwellers, you’ll need to appeal to their greed, not to some imagined altruistic concern for our climate and environment that you wanna pretend they share with the majority of the scientific community.

    Convince them they can make some money, and climb on board with their lack of concern for the health of our planet, and you’ve got a successful marketing campaign.

    1. Oh POA still in complete denial with the rest of your liberal friends. Its truly amazing what sore losers you are…I am surprised you didn’t regurgitate something about the Russians in your little rant. So do you just search the internet looking for any news about Trump or his administration just so you can cry about it?

      Pretty sure the best marketing plan for Republicans and Trump is let those like you who didn’t learn from your shellacking in the election to continue your ignorant behavior to ensure Republicans control congress, the White House, and states for years to come.

      Keep the salt flowing!!

      1. “Pretty sure the best marketing plan for Republicans and Trump is let those like you who didn’t learn from your shellacking in the election…”

        3 million americans would seem to amount to enough to make your use of the word “shellacking” as remarkably uninformed, or just outright stupidity. And despite Trump’s lies about the past history of the electoral college results, his unremarkable victory is no. 34 in regards to percentages.

        Already he is throwing his followers under the bus. The same bus he is throwing our values, our environment, and our security under.

        I don’t really bother myself with what blind partisan zealots like yourself think or say. In a couple of years, history will expose your current bluster as ignorant naivete. Unfortunately, the ignorance of a few will supercede the wisdom of the many, at great cost to our nation.

  2. @POA
    Here is what your “scientific concensus [sic – I believe you meant consensus, but consensus is NOT proof – thus the contention]” is going to provide over the next 23 years, i.e., by 2040. Oil and natural gas will continue to provide 55% of the world’s primary energy through 2040. While wind and solar will continue their meteoric rise to 4%… Yes, I know meteors don’t climb.
    http://cdn.exxonmobil.com/~/media/global/files/outlook-for-energy/2017/2017_outlook_for_energy.pdf
    And that 4% increase in Non-CO2 emitting renewables (Burning biomass is not going to reduce CO2 over those 23 years) is going to reduce CO2 by how much?

    While doing the calculations do a back of the envelope calculation of how much needs to be spent on building Wind and Solar facilities to get that number to 50%, 75%, and then 100%. after you calculate those costs, figure out how much that will reduce global warming and how long it will delay their predicted melting of the ice caps and glaciers.
    So again PROOF that the objective is, as Christiana Figueres claims, all about controlling the economy. If it were about CO2 we would be building 5 – 10 NPPs a year in the USA, and we would have started 10 years ago.

    1. If it were about CO2 we would be building 5 – 10 NPPs a year in the USA, and we would have started 10 years ago”

      Too bad that you all have done such a miserable job of marketing that premise. The industry is as much to blame as the NE naysayers are. But the initial comment of mine is not about wind and solar, or a conspiracy by renewable advocates to sell a false premise. I know as well as you do that renewables require NG co-generation. And that when a NPP shuts down, fossil fuels provide up to 75% of the subsequent energy void. So heralding an administration that is stacking the deck with oil men, seems a bit, well, bizarre, coming from a NE advocate.

      But my post is more intended to once again expose the nature of the incoming administration. A nature that has already been exposed as remarkably dishonest, confused, ill informed, under supported by our populace, divisive, and self serving.

      The NEI obviously thinks such outreach will curry favor in the swamp. Perhaps even give you a compass and a flotation device. Rod seems to share that naive expectation. I feel for you guys. No one likes to be played for a patsy. We’ll see, won’t we?

  3. @POA

    Oh its a good thing the rest of the country doesnt live in the liberal wasteland known as California then hmm. I mean the “scientific concensus” in California is to shut down Nuclear Power plants and have solar and wind take over…thats who you support like I said ignornat. Without California Trump wins by a million votes. We can only hope that California votes to leave the union when they put it up for a vote in 2017. If you dont already reside in that wasteland I would encourage you to move there because thanks to those like you it will be a long long time before anyone you agree with is in power in the US again. You keep holding onto your “Clinton won the popular vote” if that is what gets you through the day.

    Oh my friend time will tell how much better America is without those like you who have ruined the reputation of decent hard working liberals. Now all liberals are lumped into the same pot as you and your crooked MSM.

    No I didnt say I was leaving…I said I will be here letting you know how pathetic you are when Rod post about Trump and his Admistration and you come in 30 seconds later foaming at the mouth.

    1. Interesting that you would call the 6th largest economy in the world a “wasteland”.

      Also interesting that when I criticize this incoming administration, you imediately attack me and “liberals”, or in this case, California, instead of addressing Trump’s incessant lying, the creds of his cabinet picks, his disdain for science, or his despicable past actions.

      Frankly, even those that agree with you should be embarrased by your sans substance aggressive bluster. On another thread, one of the most prolific megaphones here for the party line accuses me of being in an information tunnel. Yet when those such as you, start screaming partisan inanities from an actual information cave, not a single word from him. You remind me of a truck I saw the orher day. Raised to obscenely unfunctional heights, with tires so large they virtually guarantee a trip to the ditch in the slightest snow patch, with a picture of some silly decal of a caricature peeing on Obama in the back window. And, of course, a Trump bumper sticker. What was the class act driver doing when I was watching this personification of what I am quite sure you are? Honking and flipping off an old woman, too slow to get her pick-up load of alfalfa bales out of his way. I have no doubt you and he would be more than happy to drink a few Buds together, and grab a crotch or two in the process.

      1. You don’t criticize you regurgitate the crooked MSM fake news reports. Listen you lost give it up you look like a complete fool every time Rod types “Trumps” the unstable part of your brain starts going off you open the spread sheet on your desktop from your Fake MSM news reports and copy/paste it here.

        At this point, the FAKE MSM, the washed up celebs (what are they on their 4th desperate pathetic video?) and the other SJW liberals like you it doesn’t matter what Trump says or does you will continue to spout whatever you hear from the Clinton News Network or MSNBC or whatever far left propaganda website you go to.

        As for your cute little idea of who I am…not even close. I have been in the Nuclear Power business for 10 years. Besides the union goons the majority of union members at the plant I work at voted for Trump. Hard working Americans from all backgrounds are sick and tired of people like you running your mouth, spewing the lies you hear on TV or internet. The non-stop crying from those like you WILL continue to push people away from voting the way you do. Like I said the FAKE MSM, the SJW like you, the washed up celebs and those in charge of the Democratic party clearly have not learned what the American people want. This county is no longer being run by wastelands like California and DC. It is going to be a fun EIGHT YEARS watching people like you freak out over every story about Trump. Its like reliving election night all over every day. The FAKE MSM, SJW like you, and celebs are just to ignorant to understand everyone is just laughing at the crying.

        There is a reason we have the Electoral College and it is so We The People are not being tied down and corrupted by one state like California. Now I am sure on your spreadsheet somewhere you have a quote Trump made about the Electoral College, but before you copy/paste that here how about you go do some actual fact checking on Clinton or Obamas views say on Gay marriage or any of their flip/flops just to keep some votes or what Clinton called African Americans. I am pretty sure you will call Trump a liar and use whatever talking point the Clinton News Network gave you to justify Obama and Clinton changing their tone on important issues just to get votes, that’s ok though we all know those like you are just hypocrites who are not capable or able to comprehend how The American People want real change and not the change the Democrats have been shoving down our throats for the last EIGHTS YEARS. Keep that salt flowing!!!

        “Foaming at the mouth” implies when you and those like you see or hear the word “Trump” you become TRIGGERED and are unable to function until you copy/paste a lie on that article from your spreadsheet. If you are not able to reply on that article you get the play-doh out or run out into the street with your friends and have a screaming session. You definitely can’t go to work or school until you have had the proper healing session because you read or heard the word “Trump”. Now I said it twice in a short time, I am truly worried what that has done to you, I hope you have someone at home who can get your play-doh down for you.

        1. NukGuy79 — Read what Alexander Hamilton wrote about the Electoral College. Then actually think for a bit before snapping off a comment not related to the post at hand.

          As it stands, you appear to be no more competent than The Donald, just longer winded.

          1. Everyone makes mistakes: at the Constitutional Convention in 1787, Alexander Hamilton proposed that America should have an elected King.

  4. “If it were about CO2 we would be building 5 – 10 NPPs a year in the USA, and we would have started 10 years ago.”

    Could building those 5-10 new NPPs be considered part of Trump’s new infrastructure program? I think the billionaires he has working for him would realize the value of a relatively low priced source of energy with a constant cost. If he could muscle the excess regulation aside, the cost may be only somewhat higher than natural gas which I believe will suffer from much volatility in the coming years like other petroleum products.

    A lot of good long term construction jobs could be created with such an investment in our future. Unlike some of his projects, the people would be paid.

    1. Not sure how much Trump will be interested in Nuclear power. His staff seems to be well behind the oil and gas industry, so why would he want to siphon off their profits by supporting nuclear? Don’t get me wrong, I want the nuclear support….I work for one of those startup companies…

    2. “Unlike some of his projects, the people would be paid.”

      Perhaps not. Maybe he’ll just hand the contracts to members of his family, who no doubtbl earned their ethical standards ftom him. Or, who knows perhaps he dpesn’t even need to pass those contracts to family, seeing as how his refusal to release his taxes has us in the dark as tl whag his business holdings actually are. Is there anyone here still smitten enough by his BS enough to actually believe we’ll ever see his tax returns?

  5. Yeah, let’s bash CA…the state that is home to one of the best performing and most desirably located Nuclear Plants in the world (DCPP), ever. Let’s not forget that CA feeds most of the country. While I don’t disagree with some of the comments about things the state has done to effectively run business away (particularly nuclear), we should refrain from some of these generic statements being made which label someone living here or there, a this or that, because it’s not accurate. CA compared to much of the rest of the country….it’s not even close, even with some really strange thinking people running it. If DCPP closes without a license extension, it will be an absolute shame.

    1. TLS….

      But when all you have is bluster and blow, with a head full of Trump, Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh, California becomes a “wasteland”, with rapists pouring over its borders, wind farms wiping out the nation’s population of raptors, and a trannie in every bathroom.

      Never mind the amount of oil that this state provides to the nation. Or, as you point out, the amount of produce shipped worldwide to feed the planet’s population. Or the success we have had at greatly reducing the pollutants in the air we were breathe, since the 60s.

      This mindless blather about California, such as you see above, speaks for itself. A reread or two of his comments fails to find any redeeming substance, or even relevence. To anything. About anything.

    2. Let’s not forget that CA feeds most of the country.

      Let’s not forget that what California feeds the country is far from what most people want.  99% of US artichoke production wouldn’t be missed by 95% of the US population.

      California comes behind Texas, Nebraska and Kansas for beef production, produced a mere 9.4 million bushels of corn in 2015 compared to Iowa at 2.5 billion, and isn’t in the top 10 states for wheat.  It appears that the rest of the USA could easily grow what they want that California stopped providing, but without the rest of the USA California would quickly starve.

      let’s bash CA…the state that is home to one of the best performing and most desirably located Nuclear Plants in the world (DCPP), ever.

      And is spitefully trying to kill it, as it killed San Onofre.  Without fuel from the rest of the USA, California wouldn’t have electricity either.

      1. @E-P

        You’re a little harsh about California’s agricultural products. Without CA, my diet would change quite a bit. I eat a lot of fruits, nuts and salads. We buy minced garlic by the liter even though we’re only cooking for two.

        1. This whole attack california thing, on this thread, is weird. It really underscores the shallow BS that is the foundation of Trump’s ascendency to the top of the dung heap. Reading Nutguy’s frothing spittle, or EP’s insane mutterings about pedophilia, one can’t help but marvel at the base that Trump has managed to congeal into one big heaping pile of human excrement.

          1. Oh poor poor POA the truth about California being a wasteland has nothing to do with Trump. It was bad long before Trump came to the scene. Hey blaming Bush for 8 years got those like you nowhere and clearly those like you dont have the mental capacity to learn from your mistakes, as your behavior is showing. Now everything you think is wrong will be Trumps fault. You are a classic shallow minded liberal. 8 MORE YEARS of watching people like you is going to be great!!!

          2. @poa

            Most nukes I know carry a long standing grudge against California as the birthplace and nurturer of the antinuclear movement. My own grudge has NOTHING to do with Trump; it predates it by decades. Even when I lived there for 20 months from 1985-1987, I knew that it was a physically beautiful place with some nice people led by a political class I called “fruits and nuts.”

            It is home to the Sierra Club, Paul Ehrlich, Mark Z. Jacobson, John Gofman, Arthur Tamplin, Jerry Brown, Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein, Jane Fonda and Gavin Newsome among many others. Thomas Wellock, who later became the historian for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission published a book in 1998 titled “Critical Masses: Opposition to Nuclear Power in California, 1958-1978”

            CA was the state that first passes a law against the construction of new nuclear plants until after such time as the federal government established a national waste repository and then ensured that its elected officials in Washington did their utmost to make sure that the project was repeatedly delayed and eventually cancelled.

            Yup, there are a few reasons why nukes tend to consider California a wasteland from their professional point of view. We should probably learn not to take such financially driven opposition personally, though.

          3. All good points why you have reason to lack any respect for the californian politicians. But uh, read the blather above, and tell me how closely it resembles your sound reasoning and argument. Liberals this, and liberals that. If these idiots launching such inane verbal assaults lived amongst the oilmen and farmers that are the bulk of my customer base, they would be hard pressed to find a more conservative community. And I get along perfectly well with my clientele, am able to carry on civil discussion with them, and don’t have to wade through ignorant rants about liberals and leftists and when the conversation turns to politics. And they certainly aren’t so blindly ignorant they subscribe to eugenics, or insane fairy tales about pedophilia in non-existant pizza parlor basements. Or launch into chin slobbering tyrades like this idiot nukguy is prone to doing.

            If he’s a shining example of a Trump supporter, this presidency is in deep trouble, because 99.9% of the population is a helluva lot smarter than that, and it won’t take them long to figure out they’ve been comned, big time.

  6. California produces the most food (by value) in the United States followed by Iowa and Nebraska

    http://beef2live.com/story-states-produce-food-value-0-107252

    But, hey, whatever. Pretty bizarre attacking a state, out of partisan malice.

    Excluding federal offshore areas, California ranked third in the nation in crude oil production with over 200 million barrels in 2014. Despite an overall decline in production since the mid-1980s, California has 2.9 billion in proven reserves, behind only Texas and North Dakota. California ranks third in the nation in petroleum refining capacity and accounts for more than one-tenth of the total U.S. capacity.

    http://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/100515/us-states-produce-most-oil.asp

    The garbage on this website, blathered out by the drooling idiot nukguy, or from this bastian of credibility, EP, is truly amazing.

    1. @poa

      You’ve correctly highlighted the fact that California is an important oil and gas state. It is the home to Chevron, one of the largest multinational petroleum companies in the world.

      As illustrated long ago in Upton Sinclair’s “Oil”, the industry has long been politically important. As also illustrated in that novel, with a strong basis in reality, oil men were key funders for the movie and entertainment industry that developed in southern California.

      You didn’t mention California’s natural gas production or the fact that a significant portion of the support for its strong antinuclear movements comes from people interested in extracting, processing and delivering fuel to power plants instead of having them produced massive quantities of electricity without burning any petroleum except when shutdown for occasional refueling.

      1. “You didn’t mention California’s natural gas production or the fact that a significant portion of the support for its strong antinuclear movements comes from people interested in extracting, processing and delivering fuel to power plants instead of having them produced massive quantities of electricity without burning any petroleum except when shutdown for occasional refueling.”

        See Rod, this is why I find your pandering and optimism towards the Trump camp so inexplicable. You are talkin’ the who’s who of fracking proponents when you are talking Trump’s cabinet picks in regards to energy and the environment. His cabinet is comprised of the very people your paragraph is focused towards. I don’t get, man. You are doing intellectual gymnastics that are going to require a very embarrassing dismount.

        1. In fact, Rod, rather than look back, and find out the actual TRUTH behind Trump’s cabinet choices, should we be lending credibility to mindless unfounded optmism, or the ignorant bluster, such as we see above, that ignores substantive evidence?

          Trump is stacking the deck with liars, science deniers, lobbyists, and financial elitists, whose pasts provide us all we need to know about how they will behave while wielding the power of government their governmental positions.

          “What Rex Tillerson’s Exxon Mobil track record tells us”

          http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-wasserman-rex-tillerson-exxonmobil-20170103-story.html

          1. @poa

            Here is another perspective on Rex Tillerson. http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/commentary/2016/12/23/learned-exxon-ceo-rex-tillerson-spending-week-jury-duty

            I found it fascinating to compare the view of someone who met the man and worked together on a common task with the portrayals found in op-eds like the one to which you linked. Which one is right?

            It’s interesting for me to note that the author of the LA Times piece, is the director of the Rockefeller Family Fund. I see no acknowledgement that his foundation owes its existence to oil and gas wealth or that it might have an interest in misleading the public about its energy choices.

          2. Rod, we aren’t talking about opinions of Tillerson. We are talking about the actual conduct of Exxon, under Tillerson’s watch. Yes, I linked to an opinion piece. I should have known better. Would you rather I link to an actual AG investigation of Exxon’s conduct? How do you excuse denying climate change as a matter of open company policy, while avoiding the scrutiny of the public eye as your company makes infrastructural and logistical plans to mitigate the effects of global warming, that your own company scientists have warned you about?

            1. @poa

              Trump did not nominate Exxon. He nominated Rex Tillerson.

              You should know that Exxon is a highly respected company among technical and scientific professionals. It’s actually somewhat amusing to see the politically motivated pillorying by AGs. When compared to the deception of “Beyond Petroleum’s” campaigns, Exxon’s efforts to fund climate scientists that question the common assertions is pretty mild. IMHO, one of the reasons that Exxon is a target is that it did not engage in much green payola and never tried to pretend that it was turning into a “renewable” energy company. (Though recent ads about algae fuels are getting close to that stance.)

              I’ve often wondered when Greenpeace, UCS, Sierra and their comrades will be the target of similar investigations? After all, they KNOW and LOUDLY proclaim that CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels are putting the livability of the planet at risk. At the same time, they are investing heavily in efforts to discourage the use of one of the best available tools for reducing CO2 emissions and fossil fuel consumption.

          3. Interesting that the anecdotal piece you offered had to do with bringing a sexual predator to justice, eh? I wonder how Tillerson will react if Trump ends up in court over the accusations that he raped a 13 year old? Or, are you also of the mind that the 12 women that came forward are all simply democrat operatives, lying about Trump doing what he bragged about doing?

          4. BTW, Rod, did you bother to research who the writer of your cute little anecdotal bit of sacharin butt kissing is?

            Hmmm, I hope not. Because, if you did, you left out a few pertinent facts about who she is married to, and why there was a petition to recall him from his position of power.

            Fracking. Ring a bell? Ever heard the term?

            I will post the link separately, so, at least…maaaybeeee…this post will appear.

  7. Please, in the future, accurately classify wind turbines and solar panels as intermittent generators. So-called renewables also include the dispatchable generator types such as hydropower and, gasp, nuclear power plants.

    1. David, one of the great ironies I find here on this website is if someone, such as myself, expresses optimism about the future of wind and solar, a whole snarling herd of commenters here automatically assume that I am anti NE. Really, I’m more on your side of the fence than you seem to realize. Not because of the abrasive braying of jackas*ses such as Nukguy, but because of the reasoned commentary of our host, who generally presents a concise and convincing case. I’m a bit perplexed by his cooing over Trump’s unfortunate slither into power, but generally I tend to trust what he has to say about NE.
      and energy issues. Fortunately, I am not thin skinned, or I woulda left here long ago, and failed to find reason to jump off the fence on NE’s side of the perimeter. Why some idiots here wanna put barb wire on top of the fence is beyond me. I don’t recommend this site to friends, for reasons that should be obvious to anyone reading this string of comments. Doubtful too, that you will find any latinos or blacks posting here either. I wonder, do people like nukguy or EP think they are doing Rod a service?

      1. POA, when you first joined us here, some did take the trouble to slowly and clearly explain why wind and solar energy collection is fundamentally unsound as sources for a reliable electricity grid, and further, how claiming that they are a solution to CO2 emissions is either lying, or uneducated blather.

        I think a large part of the animosity you face is the sour taste you’ve left by (not recently as far as I can tell) continuing to advance the inaccurate idea that wind and solar provide any meaningful value on the electrical grid, while failing to address the explanations that were given to you on the topic. The reality is that by their intermittent nature, wind and solar are just expensive ways to burn more natural gas. There are a few geographical outliers, but they don’t disprove the general truth.

        Now, this animosity has grown into a whole thing, far beyond those beginnings but you’ve done your part to egg it along, much like a youngster testing limits and boundaries. So, while I regret that some members react strongly to you, I also think you’re being disingenuous to claim that the fault lies entirely with those who lack patience for you.

        1. I happen to disagree with you about wind and solar. Strongly.

          And for you to advance the opinion that my disagreement warrants animosity, that I have to agree with you or face abrasive engagement, is more than a bit ridiculous.

          But thanks for your opinion. I’ll file it away with EP’s and Nukguy’s oft expressed, and always abrasive, opinions.

          1. If you have grounds for disagreeing with us on wind and solar, SHOW US one example where they’ve done what you claim they can do without massive hydro or fossil backup.

            Just one example of an industrial society running on wind and solar and able to make more of them will do.

          2. “…where they’ve done what you claim they can do.”

            I don’t claim anything about wind and solar, except that the technology is bound to evolve. In fact, show me where I claim anything else. You are abrasive and obnoxious enough, already without attributing statements to me that a I haven’t made. So quote me, or shut up.

            1. @poa

              Allow me to answer is the spirit of someone who really likes to teach.

              First off, there are legitimate reasons why engineers and scientists tend toward abrasive communication techniques and come off as arrogant at first (and often second, third, fourth, etc).

              The personality traits that attract people to not only study engineering, but to adopt it as their profession and even calling generally aren’t warm and cuddly. Please don’t misunderstand, some of the most loving and caring people I know and have known have been devoted engineers who took their responsibilities extremely seriously. They just have a more difficult time than some in relating to others who are wired differently.

              Sometimes, the seeming arrogance comes from their ability to learn at an amazing rate and to fail to understand that others don’t pick up information with comprehension on the first exposure. Most of us cannot recall almost everything we ever knew. Most good engineers have those abilities or at least partly have them in topics that are their focus areas. What comes off as arrogance is really more like disbelief – “What, you don’t remember that thing I told you 247 days ago?”

              What some of us have been trying to share with you with regard to wind and solar is that they have severe limitations on how far they can “evolve.” Sure, there are a lot of good people involved in pushing the technology as far as possible by designing and building the best darned machines and collectors they can, but ultimately they cannot overcome certain fixed limits like the insolation energy available at night, in early morning, under clouds, and during the winter. They can’t make the wind blow, or even predict with much accuracy how fast it will be blowing 5 minutes from now.

              I know you’re a sailor, so I suspect you understand the variability of wind as well as anyone. I love the wind and think it’s a great fuel source for long distance travel if I have no schedule to keep. It also helps to have an auxiliary power source for the comforts of home.

              Most engineers have no real issue with using the wind and sun when they’re available, but some of us are becoming deeply disturbed by those who proclaim that the wind and the sun are all we need.

              Not only are they NOT all that we need, but they begin hitting limits when they are a small fraction of what we NEED and an even smaller fraction of what we WANT.

          3. I don’t claim anything about wind and solar, except that the technology is bound to evolve.

            “Evolve”, how?  Can they “evolve” to the point of being able to put watts on the grid when it’s dark and calm… at a price that can keep running all the stuff that cannot shut down, like aluminum smelters, continuous-casting glass plants, and many other industrial processes?

            You show all the signs of cognitive dissonance.  These questions aren’t just significant, they are crucial to the issue… and every time someone brings them up you dodge, as if you canNOT take them on straight.  It’s like you’ve internalized that “renewables are what good people support” so anything that aims you at questioning that claim has to be shut down (in Orwellian terms, “crimestop”).

            That feeling you have, that your brain is going to break?  That’s almost literally true, and I’m deliberately trying to do it.  But it’s like a mis-healed bone that can’t be straightened without re-fracturing and splinting it the way it’s supposed to be.

          4. “Most engineers have no real issue with using the wind and sun when they’re available, but some of us are becoming deeply disturbed by those who proclaim that the wind and the sun are all we need”

            An assertion I have NEVER made. If you read the venom flowing out of Nukguy’s drooling maw, it has very little resemblence to your justifications and rationalizations for the abrasive crap that some dispense here. Some of your choir is singing way off key here, Rod. And your contention that it doesn’t damage your opera is naive at best. Arrogance is one thing, but damaging and self defeating egoism is quite another.

            1. @poa

              You probably get some of the disagreeable responses because you are reasonably consistent in questioning everything about nuclear and resisting criticism of wind and solar by expressing your belief that they will continue getting better.

              Perhaps you have not specifically made any statements that put you into the “100% renewables” club, but your defenses sometimes sound like theirs. Many of us do not keep close track of exactly what other people write, especially if they write as many words as you do.

              You’ve submitted more than 1500 comments that I’ve approved, and probably something close to just as many that I have rejected. You’ve expressed some grudging movement, but I can understand why there are some people here that have gotten downright impatient with what they probably view as stubborn insistence on prior held belief.

  8. Duh, why should Trump fight an uphill PR battle against the widespread fear of nuclear power — whose own community rarely defends or hawks itself either– when he can hang his hat and bets on the far less dangerously perceived vision of clean coal technology? Trump loves a fighter to survive. Nuclear ain’t one. NEI and ANS are thirty years tardy coming to bat.

    James Greenidge
    Queens NY

  9. Rod, it is quite telling that you remove posts of mine that are far less insulting and abrasive than those of nukguy. Also, I see that Trump has added a couple of BLATANT LIES to the long list you are willing to ignore. When do you suppose you’ll apply your self proffessed sense of ethics and values to your commentary about this incoming administration? Just curious.