1. Do you know of some newspapers’ editorial board who are pro nuclear in the US ?”

      Or anywhere for that matter.

    1. @Murray
      This all sounds very similar to the articles that e.g. Der Spiegel published in second half of 2011 regarding black-outs in the coming winter because Germany closed 8 NPP’s after Fukushima. Non would happen.

      And Der Spiegel knew that, while publishing these FUD raising articles!
      They knew that the German responsible grid authority (Bundesnetzagentur) declined the offer of government to keep one NPP stand-by, stating that that was not needed for reliable electricity supply as they had enough spare.
      Such decision will have been noted by all Germans involved / interested in electricity supply issues (such as Der Spiegel staff).
      And they know such government authority would never take any unnecessary risk (why would they, it pays not more. It can only jeopardize their jobs).

      So why would Der Spiegel try to create such FUD (while knowing better)???
      Who (if any) payed for those articles? The major German utilities (who lost profitable business)? If no pay what motives for those lies?

      With this Cap Gemini FUD raising report, I think the same questions should be asked.

      Is it in order to make UK public more willing to accept the new NPP?
      As its electricity gets a guaranteed price twice that of present whole sale prices during 35 years, implying that at least half of the plant’s costs are subsidized during that time (not taking into account liability subsidies).

      Just an aside
      They state that diesel generation is expensive. But that is not the case if that capacity is only needed 1% of the time. Then it becomes a viable solution.

      I do not know much about the UK grid, so I cannot judge that.
      But looking at the German grid and developments there (now ~24% renewable, moving towards 30% in 2020), this Cap Gemini report is crap regarding reliability of supply.

      1. @Bas

        You have once again exposed your ignorance of economics with the following statement:

        They state that diesel generation is expensive. But that is not the case if that capacity is only needed 1% of the time. Then it becomes a viable solution.

        Large, capable diesel generators often cost $1,000 to $2,000 per kilowatt of capacity. Please help me understand how it can possibly be economical to let that kind of capital investment sit idle for 99% of the time?

        1. Rod,
          These have to start generating electricity fast (within few minutes or so), as they just fill the gaps…
          Further preferable no maintenance, remote controlled with fully automated start-up without human action.

          Doubt whether a normal gas plant can do that.
          But may be a gas-turbine?
          Indication of the capital costs of that?

          Have you an indication of the capital costs of a normal gas and/or coal plant?

          1. You should read the article, it answers to that :
            “A gas plant needs to be operating at 57 per cent capacity to be economically viable”
            ” Research outfit IEA, cited by CapGemini, reckons 60 per cent of gas-fired power stations will close by 2016 because they cannot cover their operating costs”

            Actually risk for this winter is quite small. The gas storage is too low to cover for a “once in 50 years” long lasting cold snap, but that’s just not very likely to happen. Also as we saw at start of 2012 when a similar exceptional cold snap happened, it leads to the closure of gas plants, which here are already closed. So as Germany is becoming less and less dependent on gas, relying on coal instead, it reciprocally is not that likely to be heavily impacted by lack of gas supply except under very exceptional circumstances.

            I hate it when a poor analysis leads to unrealistic doom prediction for nuclear, I’m not going to the equivalent about gas. Also I think that the people who do that look stupid later when what they predicted doesn’t happen, and I don’t want to look stupid.

            For example the people who predicted a typhoon would be terrible for the Fukushima plant look very stupid now. The typhoon Wipha was really terrible for Japan, causing up to 17 deaths 🙁 , but anyone serious could have predicted, it did nothing to the plant. It’s unfortunate it took such tragic circumstances to demonstrate it, but I hope some people will realize now the claims of disaster on the nuclear site caused by typhoons were all b*llsh*t.

            1. @jmdesp

              I hate it when a poor analysis leads to unrealistic doom prediction for nuclear, I’m not going to the equivalent about gas. Also I think that the people who do that look stupid later when what they predicted doesn’t happen, and I don’t want to look stupid.

              I also do not want to look stupid or short-sighted. When cold weather happens and gas supply proves to be inadequate to supply both elevated heating demands and peak power demands on a cold, still, cloudy day, I do not want to be accused of buying into marketing pitch just because everyone else has done so.

          2. @Rod : Yes that can happen since this is exactly what happened on 9 February 2012. Germany had to close a gas unit in Karlsruhe, because the private demand of gas for heating was to high to be able to feed it anymore. They had to replace it with an old coal unit in Mannheim.

            But since then, as seen in other news, Germany has opened a lot of new coal capacity. I just checked the German network regulation agency data here :
            And Germany currently has 174GW of capacity, 183GW if you count cold reserve. 65GW of that are solar and wind, but that still leaves a whole lot more than what Germany actually needs in fossil power. As can be seen in the Fraunhofer data, German power demand at max is between 65 and 68GW, it never reaches 70GW, production sometimes goes slightly over 70GW, but that’s including exports for example to France during cold snaps.
            Even though it’s obvious that Germany has too much fossil capacity at the moment, from the completely depressed electricity prices that on average are hardly high enough to make even coal profitable, the bundesnetzagentur page still references 4,5GW of new coal coming on-line in 2013, with only about 500MW retired.

            The German situation is a non-sense that makes it impossible to operate a gas plant economically. But not one that, at the moment, will lead to lack of generation capacity.

          3. Diesel generators are hardly “maintenance free.” We (in the telecom world) have weekly/monthly/annual checks that have to be done, along with EPA and state dept. of enviromental resouces forms to complete (for the fuel storage), and the inevitable investigation when one of the checks doesn’t pass.

            It’s a big deal to maintain them, and takes a lot of my time. Even with all these checks something as simple as a broken coolant temp sensor could render the unit worthless, just when you need it.

          4. @Eric_G
            You operate another environment. Emergency generators that should act may be once in 1-10 year. And then it should be 100% sure they will act.

            Here we talk about generators that start/stop fully automatic several times a month and then run a few hours. And when one fails, another takes over. So you do not need those preventive checks…

            What about the maintenance and management demands of the alternatives, such as Gas-turbines, a ‘normal’ Gas-plant? Can those also be started and stopped automatically?

            But may be you know better methods, except the well-known ones such as hydro (pumped storage), batteries, fly-wheel.

            The capital cost of a normal gas-plant is about the same as that of the diesel generators.

          5. @Bas,

            Any system, no matter the fuel, that has to start and stop experiences increased wear and tear due to cycling fatigue issues. That is one of the many reasons why those of us who have operational experience with actual power plants disagree with wind and solar.

            Power supply systems with intermittent sources that are required to be operational 24/7/365 are forced to increase the cycling of baseload equipment. A forced increase in cycling raises the O&M costs of the entire system. These costs must be paid by someone. That someone will be the individual rate payer through higher power rates – which is now happening in Germany.

            Yet wind and solar suppliers don’t pay right of way fees for those forced cycling events. They don’t pay for the inherent inefficiencies created by forcing their power onto the grid since start up cycles burn fuel inefficiently.

            Instead those wind and solar power suppliers demand right of first access to the T&D systems AND they demand subsidies to pay for their power AND they get people like you to buy into the mindset. Then when their power generators fail they walk away never to be seen again since they already have a return on their initial investment paid by those subsidies. They really don’t care about the power for long term. They just want their payback in less then 5 years.

          6. Bill,
            Any system that has to start and stop experiences increased wear and tear …
            That is true. But, just as the trucker that start/stops his diesel car engine several times a day, that does not imply intensive maintenance is necessary.
            With good design of the systems those extra O&M costs are not much.

            The extra costs rate payers pay in Germany ~5c/kWh (e.g. in NL 22c in Germany 27c), are for the subsidies to early adapters of solar & wind (at that time FiT’s were >27c, now 8-15c).

            … cycling fatigue … why those … who have … experience with … plants disagree with wind and solar…
            Agree that many of those plants are not designed for flexibility; fast and easy adaptation to changing delivery demands. As that is the future. Either those plants will be adapted or replaced (despite recent proposals of the leaders of old major power companies in the EU, who want to recreate the old easy earning market situation).

        2. @Bas,

          As one who also has experience with trucks and truck drivers, I can tell you that repeated starts and stops cause excessive wear and tear of engines. I have heard many a discussion around dining tables about how expensive truck engine repairs can become partly due to cycling issues.

          I am on several technical magazine subscription lists where a constant thread on a yearly basis is the discussion of how to deal with cycle fatigue issues. That is one of the main scopes of design work for mechanical engineers. Rotors cracking, thermal cycling issues affect affecting flow rates, thermal issues affecting ramp-up and ramp-down concerns, and creep concerns are just several of the major operational and design issues of large power generation equipment cycling up and down quickly.

          And so no, the combustion fuel motors or engines that are required to be used to provide power to the grid when wind and solar fail due to natural weather variations are not easily redesigned to accommodate those high cycle fatigue issues while also providing a long term (20-30 year) life span.

          Here is GE’s own maintenance manual for one of their heavy duty gas turbines. Notice the extensive amount of time spent discussing cycling issues. Someone has to pay for those maintenance periods, both the maintenance cost themselves and substitute electricity, required to repair a combustion engine when it is taken off line due to cycling failure. That is the ratepayer since they are the buyer of the product (electricity delivered to their house or business)


          1. I really wonder how the operators of Germany’s hard coal units are able to make this work. The Fraunhofer data shows they are ramping them up and down from max to barely 10% of power sometimes almost every day, see the “Detailed weekly power curves” figures http://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/en/downloads-englisch/pdf-files-englisch/news/electricity-production-from-solar-and-wind-in-germany-in-2013.pdf

            There was a report on Spiegel that they are using new optimized methods to make this work better, including getting down to 10% of power instead of a minimum of 35%. When Frauhofer document reports that in one day, all of the plants as a whole have gone from 17.2 GW to 1.9 GW this is very needed :

          2. @jmdesp,

            Your question is one that I am wondering as well. Yes there are optimization plans and schemes but there are still issues of thermal ramp-up and ramp-down to deal with.

            And at 10% on the low end, they must be having some byproduct build up and caking issues especially in the lignite systems.. Lignite is not easy on systems. I am going back to my classroom training which is a number of years ago but when fossil fuel combustion systems get that low on the power end, there are huge issues of efficiencies and byproduct output to resolve since the flame temps are not reaching peak operating range.

            I have to believe the coal burners in Germany are sacrificing efficiency based on the thermal issues of burning the coal (which means losing Btu’s in the combustion process up the stack). Or they are going to be dealing with unexpected maintenance issues if they keep the flame temp sufficiently high but not the feed rate. Wish there was more data to review but that will come in due time.

          3. I suggest you read the Spiegel article, even if not very technical it refers to some apparently very innovative solutions like using silo to be able to store pulverized coal. I was specifically talking about the hard coal unit, the lignite ones do a lot less load following, they run almost constantly at full power (except maybe the most recent BoA units that were made to follow load, but that’s not very visible on the global figures, and there’s no public production numbers for individual units. Opposite to France where you can have them on EDF’s site, 15 mn by 15 mn)

          4. Bill, Jmdesp
            ..byproduct output to resolve since the flame temps are not reaching peak operating range…
            Those new plants use the ‘circulating fluidized bed’ technology.

            The fuel is pulverized into small (almost dust like) particles. Those “hang” in the airflow that comes from below (hence the name).
            Burning temperatures are kept very low by adding more air/oxygen than needed. That also prevents development of most noxious byproducts (saves filters). And that process also allows for clean burning of many mixtures such as garbage, biomass, lignite..

            The low burning temperatures also allow to make the water pipes around the burner thinner. Together with the small amount of fuel in the burner, that imply much faster output adaptation.

            Btw. I think that the main cause of the SONGS vibration problems were the thinner pipes in the new heat exchanger. Designed thinner in order to allow for faster output adaptation (as wind/solar penetrate California).

            Sorry, if I didn’t always use the right English words. May be ‘burner’ should be ‘reverberating-furnace’.

            Thanks for the interesting links!

      2. The concern was raised by all major European utilities.

        I hope a major cold snap makes those green grids fail. Let’s see then if the green aristocrats will suffer at all.

        1. Daniel
          …concern was raised by all major European utilities…
          Yes. There was a meeting by the new club of their CEO’s called after surrealist Magritte, in an art gallery in Brussels…

          These CEO’s head companies that are loosing market share to renewable while the market volume goes down. So many face losses. Especially in Germany as they over-invested in new PP’s.

          So they create FUD, in order to arrange changes in the EU regulations in such a way that those will subsidize and benefit them, and stop production by households (succeeded in Spain), stop new companies that deliver 100% renewable, etc.
          They try to prevent that the German model spreads out.
          So they try to get rid of Feed-in-Tariff’s, etc.

          Note that in countries such as Germany reliability of electricity delivery is not the responsibility of these utilities at all!
          The government agency (‘Bundesnetzagentur’) regulates all. The grid operators (such as Dutch Tennet) are operational responsible and the utilities (who generate and sell) are just their slaves.

          They do it now because the EU is preparing proposals to change energy market regulations. Those will also enclose proposals that will give Brussels more grip on the energy market.

          I strongly oppose these regulations from Brussels as the end up being rigid, expensive, undemocratic with no added value.

          1. Daniel,
            Until a few years ago there were no regulations from Brussels at all!
            Still booming renewable in most EU countries.

            Then countries obliged themselves in an EU meeting to renewable targets in 2020. Different target per country. For NL 20% in 2020.
            A morale obligation only. When NL found out this summer that reaching that target would require a real renewable policy and cost substantial money, we simply reset the target. So now it is 20% by 2024…

            Now Brussels try to harmonize and regulate the whole electricity market in the EU, which will create a rigid and expensive structure, not in the interest of consumers or starting new utilities (most 100% renewable), but more in the interest of the old major utilities (as experience shows).

            What you see is that these old utilities that once controlled 100% of the German market (semi-monopolies with easy profits) now have ~75% of the German market and have to fight for profits.
            And that their market share may go down towards ~25% in 2050.
            Utilities in other countries fear that same may happen in their country.

            So they try to influence Brussels in order to create rules that prevent that development…
            Hence this FUD regarding provision reliability which isn’t even their responsibility!
            It may be quite effective as history shows that the bureaucrats/commission in Brussels only listen to big lobbies, and citizens play no role for them.

            In Spain, utilities gave many influential (old) politicians extremely well paid jobs and assignments. That paid off well! Spanish government recently made new rules that favor the major utilities greatly and stops rooftop solar (beneficial to pull part of them off the roof and store them for better times).

      3. @Bas – the price that EDF want for the electricity from Hinkley C is a concern. It’s partially driven by the commercial risk of building a plant that could be shut down at a whim by a future government. The government and EDF are still negotiating so the price is not fixed.

        The UK avoided power cuts last winter for domestic customers by making large industrial consumers shut down during cold snaps. This seems a poor way to run an economy to me.

        1. @Murray
          …partially driven by the commercial risk of building a plant that could be shut down at a whim by a future government…

          That risk can, and (rather sure) will be, taken care of by compensation clauses in the contract with government.
          E.g. “If new government regulations or any other action harm the profitability, EDF shall be compensated for all harm as well as all legal costs, etc.. Such harm includes the loss of future profits assuming the plant runs until 2060”. Parties may even agree now compensation amounts, etc.

          …UK avoided power cuts last winter for domestic customers by making large industrial consumers shut down during cold snaps…
          🙂 So the nuclear grid did worse then the German renewable grid (joke).

          This is an issue of adequate grid management and optimization.
          May be that consumer shut down is more optimal than installing extra capacity.
          Otherwise they should go to the German authority: http://www.bundesnetzagentur.de/

      4. Bas, do you accept that the German power grid has experienced an order-of-magnitude more interventions, due to the energy policy? Do you except that factory companies are suffering more interruptions of supply, and in some cases are installing their own backup generators, because they don’t want to keep going through the administrative hassle of getting the utilities to pay them for the costs of lost energy service?

        You pretend to know all about the German energy situation, but clearly, you don’t know the first thing about it!

        I suppose you also deny that the last remaining aluminium smelter in The Netherlands is now on a government lifeline, to avoid bankrupcy, citing high energy costs? I suppose, when this factory eventually dies (which it must, because energy policy will not change as long as the anti-nukes are calling the shots), and you meet the workers who lost their jobs on the street, you would not see them? They would be invisible to you, right?

        1. Joris,
          Please refer to the last part of my response to Murray (above).

          …aluminum smelter in NL … now on a government lifeline, to avoid bankrupcy, citing high energy costs? … energy policy will not change …

          So you missed their reproach that this is because German electricity rates are significantly lower for similar companies in Germany!
          I do not belief that anti-nukes run our (commercial) utilities and their pricing strategies.

          And the time that a new NPP could deliver at a lower rate is long gone, since unsafe NPP’s such as Borssele are no longer acceptable. Those sponge on citizens and governments taking all the risks.
          Check the expected electricity cost prices of the new NPP at Hinckley point C.

        2. Joris,
          I forgot to remind you that we have an utility in NL that delivers only nuclear generated electricity, guaranteed 100% nuclear! So the alu smelter could buy there…

          Just more precisely:
          The aluminum smelter stated that their competition in Germany had much lower electricity rates (and alu smelters are huge consumers), and that that killed them.

          I doubt whether that is the only reason for their near bankrupt.

          1. Wholesale energy prices in Germany are low for industrial consumers that are exempted from paying the energy taxes. The German households pay these costs. The EU is already investigating Germany because of illegal state aid.

            Energy costs in the Netherlands are high because we have an almost 100% pure fossil fuel energy policy. This is because anti-nukes control our energy policy. Now, the Greens are fighting to increase energy taxes on Dutch Industry.

            These are the simple reasons why our domestic industrial sector is dying. I know all about this because I have contacts with the industrial lobby groups in the Netherlands. Those people are very scared by the irrational, ideology driven, unpredictable energy policy in the Netherlands, and specifically the extreme anti-industry sentiment promoted by the Greens. Many already are making plans for moving there operations out of the country as soon as possible! I’m sure you are glad about this.

          2. Joris,
            Don’t you remember that Angela made a remark implying that Brussels should stay away from the German electricity market…
            And she controls much of Brussels as recent history shows.

            …Many already are making plans for moving there operations out of the country …
            So the concerned aluminum smelter threatened to move to renewable country Germany…

            Why didn’t they buy from our nuclear utility: http://www.atoomstroom.nl/ ??
            That should be capable to deliver quite cheap as they can arrange delivery by two German NPP’s that are quite nearby and there is good interconnection.
            May be those NPP’s are not so cheap after all?

          3. @Bas : The market price depends on the cost for the marginal producer, not on the cost of other producers. Why would the nuclear plant in NL sell for cheaper than the competition, gas ? The two German NPP are already selling a lot of electricity in Nederland, as can be seen by the fact it’s the country where Germany exports the most power. The only solution would be for the NL industry to buy the nuclear plant in order to get it’s electricity at production price.
            Some years ago, the most power consuming industrials in France were seriously considering that option (confronted with an Europe decided liberalization that would strongly rise their costs, they suggested they would like to be able to own shares in plants in order to own the corresponding power by just having then yearly to pay the corresponding share in maintenance costs).
            Nowadays the uncertainties are so high, including what the demand will be given the economical state of Europe, that they’ve shelved the idea.

          4. @Joris & jmdesp

            Few years ago our Dutch state monopoly grid operator ‘Tennet’ bought major part of the German grid for ~€1billion. Arguing that that would bring our wholesale prices more near to the 10% lower German wholesale prices.

            But the opposite happened. Now Dutch wholesale prices are ~35% higher than those of the Germans; German prices went down and our prices went up…
            This difference is before any tax!
            The slightly lower German taxes (as usual, also on wages, etc), enhance that difference a little more…
            This adds to our higher labor costs for low classified work.
            These 3 factors together strangle the aluminum smelter.

            Buying part of the German grid by Tennet turned out to be a waste of money, and will cost Dutch tax-payers several billions (which is a lot for a country with 16million inhabitants).

            Dutch Tennet showed to be not capable to operate in the accurate German culture. It missed necessary investments in the ‘due diligence’ study, missed deadlines (= pay compensations), etc.

            One of the visible misses is the sea cable to the new big North Sea wind park. That should have been ready this summer (the wind turbines were ready) but will be ready early next year. So Tennet will have to pay the German wind turbine operator major compensations (=bringing our money to the Germans. 🙁 )!

  1. I hope they are not censoring Matt Wald. He may not be completely pro-nuclear, but I have usually found his reporting to be fair. I cannot say the same for most other main-stream media reporters on the subject of nuclear power.

  2. I hope they are not censoring Matt Wald. He may not be completely pro-nuclear, but I have usually found his reporting to be fair.


    Matt Wald has been clearly anti nuclear since the Fukushima accident and was surprised when Rod praised him.. I think the reason has been the enormous pressure the NY Times has placed on being anti nuclear to attract readers.

  3. Talk about fair and balanced and accurate media! Finally the tiger shows its strips for all to see!

    I think this is a high perfect time for the likes of NEI and ANS to throw their weight behind their names and pronto send the NYT a nice public open letter to straighten them out. Shouldn’t cost more than a few months of their coffee budget. Really, this is a very dark development for the NYT to come out of the closet so because every media outlet near a nuke plant just acquired an “respectable” renown open ally to boost their slant and FUDcasts. We can no longer trust the tone and truths of ANY nuclear article the NYT finds fit to print — but the majority of readers and public are just not that discriminating. This is a tacit throw down of the media gauntlet against nukes and the nuclear community damn sure better take a cue and start taking off the mute gloves and get dangerous on FUD and public nuclear education before NYT cheerfully hosts an Obit Party for U.S. nuclear at the least.

    James Greenidge
    Queens NY
    cc: NEI and ANS please?

  4. At least the NYT is telling the truth they don’t like nuclear power. That’s better than not saying anything or saying they are for it and saying bad things.

    Actually, I though they did a pretty good job explaining the Fukushima disaster (or what should I call it?) and even had visual aids to show the Mark 1 containment building.

  5. The NY Times repeatedly made errors (some in the beginning were understandable) and greatly exaggerated the health risks of the accident. They also repeatedly got quotes from Robert Alvarez and a Japanese anti-nuclear engineer at Kyoto University. About eight times each in 2011/2012. That is what you might expect from some high school newspapers, not the “paper of record”.

    When the WHO report on Fukushima was released, which concluded there would be extremely low health risks, despite using LNT, the NY Times didn’t cover it for a week or two and then buried the good news in a blurb in a blog.

  6. I wonder if it would be worth researching the editorial board (of the 1820s) thought of the steam engine?

    Maybe they’re just keeping up a long tradition of questioning technology…

  7. Suspected for many years? Please.

    This “admission” is like the Vatican admitting that their boss is Catholic.

  8. The NY Times is liberal, progressive, Democrat. So is most of what passes for news media in this country. Almost always they have been opposed to nuclear energy. They deliberately ignore the facts and promote hysteria and fear-mongering. If they lie about as innocuous a subject as energy supply, then why does anyone else here at this forum believe anything else they write or say?

    Also, I am no fan of Fox News (Yuck!) or the Drudge Report (more Yuck!) either, and I give kudos to Rod Adams for trying to persuade his liberal colleagues to embrace nuclear energy. But most of the rest of the liberals are not that way and never will be. Furthermore, as to news, I get mine from Zenit, EWTN, and the National Catholic Register. I simply ignore the rest as trash not worthy of the page their words fit on. That the majority of Americans give them heed only shows we are receiving the government – and the coming energy and economic collapse – that we so richly deserve. 16 trillion dollars in debt, most due to this anti-nuclear Administration in charge right now, and no way to pay it off and no new energy infrastructure.

    PS, I don’t want that to happen and I pray that doesn’t, but look: San Onofre 2 and 3, Keewanee, Crystal River and now VY all shutdown or to be shutdown. And who is in charge? And who are his lap dogs? I pointed this out in 2008 and was derided as a nay-sayer and a racist (never mind that my lady friend whom I absolutely love and adore with all my heart and soul happens to be by happy accident of birth a beautiful non-Caucasian). I don’t get it. Pay attention to the facts. Only the facts matter. This isn’t about politics. Damn the hypocritical Republicans too. It’s about saving the country.

    1. Yesterday a gas tank exploded in Mexico killing around six and shutting a major highway. The second large loss of life gas event in Mexico this year I can think of. (there are probably more). Its Barely touched in the American press. I noticed it on the BBC.

      The press drops these fossil fuel accidents pretty fast.

      Five people were never even found in the Canadian oil train derailment a few months ago. The US press quickly lost interest.

  9. So where is all this going? Loosely connected things I am thinking about:

    NYT is slanted towards politically “Green” positions in its editorials facilitated by obsolete energy and environmental misconceptions and a lingering Fukushima fixation. In that it seems to reflect US media trends in general.

    The US populist left, like its European counterparts has invested heavy political and economic capital in the renewable movement, which is categorically failing to provide cheap, reliable, clean energy.

    Energy wasn’t really a topic but I would note also that in the French by-election, what the American press describes as the “far-right” National Front won a surprising victory. (they are actually in the process of re-branding themselves as a more moderate independent nationalist [populist!!?] option).

    Marine Le Pen seems to be, like many US “independents” fixated on or at least distracted by conspiracy theories. A fear of nuclear power being one of them. She has a energy policy that is centered on a “hydrogen economy” type thing.

    In short, in light of the failures of renewables and recent political movements I am worried the nationalist right and populist left might find common ground in a renewable “hydrogen economy” fixation.

    Germany seems to already be picking up the hydrogen torch. This also buys time and saves face in light of their energy disaster.

    Gas greens are already employing and selling steam reforming.

    I think a few people saw this “hydrogen economy” coming in the early and mid 2000s then it kinda dropped off the radar, Things in reality take time, and we are basically very impatient.

    Not sure if its really all bad or what. It just seems like a common denominator in much of this. If not another elephant in the living room kinda thing. Ok, done rambling.

    1. They don’t think about just where’s all that clean green juice that produces that hydrogen is coming from in the first place.

      1. Or the infrastructure/resource/pollution/carbon costs I think. More stalling. Mind you some aspects of hydrogen production from nuclear power might be a good idea on down the road. We would need NO fossil energy ever again. All doable with current tech. Just not all that efficient yet.

  10. The NYT, just like so many anti-nuke liberals, listen to the Pied Piper. Their short sighted bleeding hearts are leading them off the cliff and it’s hurting not just them. Sorry for my literary comparisons but I couldn’t resist. I keep seeing the fossil fuel companies as the pied piper or the fabled tailor in the Emperors Clothes. But the “liberal” Lemmings works better in this case. However the Emperor’s Clothes is not bad in the case of Fukushima. The citizens will not admit the Emperor is naked for fear of being exiled or shunned.

Comments are closed.

Recent Comments from our Readers

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

Similar Posts