Open letter to Ralph Nader from Timothy Maloney – Atomic energy is much better than you think

87 Comments

1. ‘ There are short-lived atoms (isotopes), and long-lived isotopes. Broadly, short-lived means half-life less than 150 years, long-lived means HL more than 150 years.’
   I thought the short lived isotopes had half lives more like seconds to a few days – thus harmless within a few months, with medium going up to about thirty years – so down to background in ~ three hundred years.
   Long lived fission product isotopes in the thousands of years might as well be stable.
   Agree that, desirable as a LFTR, or an Adams engine, might be, it’s not a convincing selling point to the likes of Ralph Nader. Hard to think of what would be a CSL in cases like his.

   1. The short-lived stuff is up to about 30 years, not 150; after that there’s a gap to about 100,000 years (ignoring the transuranics).  That’s the only error I caught in the letter.

      I’m still in the market for about 5-10 kg of Sr-90, in a hermetically sealed double-layer stainless jacket with a lead shield between.  Anyone willing to give me some nuclear waste?  I’ll dispose of it for you for FREE!

      1. The NRC forbids the use of radio active material from frivelous usage….

         1. Yet no one would think twice about E-P buying 20 gallons of gasoline, which is demonstrably more dangerous. Who knows what kind of frivolous (or terroristic) intentions he might have with a carload of that explosive and carcinogenic stuff?

            The difference is this: media-amplified radiophobia vs media-supported (and sponsored) hydrocarbon complacency.

         2. Frivolous?  I’d put it to good use.  I’d start by wrapping the capsule in coils of tubing and using it to make steam.  Voila, my DHW, part of my winter heat and maybe even part of my electricity (if I could keep a steam engine running) would be pollution-free.  There wouldn’t be one frivolous thing about it.

      2. Engineer-Poet
         You also accept all liability claims in case of…
         E.g. that somebody steals it and spoils Wallstreet with a fraction, and blackmail that he will do more unless …

         Do you have an insurance that cover that damage?

         1. I’m fed up with answering your stupidity for free.  I will write you a rebuttal for the sum of $50.

            1. “I’m fed up with answering your stupidity for free. I will write you a rebuttal for the sum of $50.”

               My hypothesis is that BAS is a paid troll who is here to distract us and use up our time, so that we post less to more public places where we might convince someone.

               Either that, or he has some serious obsessive/compulsive disorder problems combined with delusional schizophrenia.

2. Well Rod you have the onus to either remind Nader to take the Bernard Cohen’s plutonium challenge or the Rod Adams’ Caesium challenge.

   This guy can’t take caffeine.

3. The press ignored Cohen’s Plutonium challenge.

   Nader took the Easy way out

   That could have been a turning point back then.

   Nader was just smart enough. Cohen could not get TV cocerage. But now with Youtube you can stick it to Nader.

4. That’s a lot of words to waste on a fool like Nader.

   I have a few quibbles with Dr. Maloney’s description of the LFTR.

   Heh … You’re not the only one.

   1. Nader may be a scientific and engineering fool, but he only has to snap his fingers and the media come running, ready to lap up his pronouncements as received wisdom.

      Nuclear never figured out that game, even after decades of being on the losing side. In a Kardashian world, the best PR wins. Being called a fool doesn’t have much sting to those standing in the winner’s circle.

      Not that his side has won yet, but this year alone they have put 5 trophies on their mantle. So let’s save the internecine fission design battles for the day after Nader and his allies have been convincingly run off the field.

      1. Good point. I see no yardage gained by trashing one form of acceptably safe technology (LWRs) in favor of another (LFTR), especially one that has yet to be demonstrated on a commerical scale, not to mention being successfully deployed in the market. We have thousands of reactor-years of operating LWRs and not a single fatality has resulted among the general public. I mean, how safe to you want us to be? Last time I checked, you can’t do better than zero fatalities if morbidity is the safety standard (which it should be). I have nothing against development of LFTR systems, or IFR, for that matter. But to throw all of our chips into that basket is probably not a good bet.

         1. You CAN do better than a bunch of redundant safety systems which become superfluous.

            1. Maybe, but LWR technology has a darned good safety record. I’m not convinced you can do much better than zero fatalities, redundant safety systems or not. I’m just saying we’d be better to focus our energies on debunking our critics, who have little to offer other than FUD, rather than beating each other up and eating our own.

               1. @Wayne SW

                  Timothy Maloney did a good job acknowledging and praising current technology and its safety record. I agree that it is impossible to beat zero deaths in 50 years, but I also believe that we can achieve the same result at an ever improving cost as we work to reduce complexity and recognize the difference between valuable redundancy and the kind of patchwork redundancy that simply adds cost and complexity without any increase in safety.

            2. No where do I decry efforts to research and improve the technology. Everything starts with basic research, laboratory-scale testing, commerical demonstration, and then full-scale commercialization. LFTR and IFR and all the other things are still in development at various stages. My point is that we should not diss a proven, reliable technology in favor of things that are still in development and may or may not make it to the marketplace. There is no reason for us to be at each others’ throats when the barbarians are already breaching the gates (e.g., five reactors biting the dust in one year alone). Let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater. We know how to do LWRs now. We can build them and they can go a long ways towards supplying needed electricity at zero emissions at a very high level of safety and reliability. If we can do them better and with less expense, fine, make those changes. And there is no reason why we can’t push forward on the other things as well. It doesn’t have to be either-or.

      2. Nuclear never figured out that game, …

         And apparently they still haven’t figured it out if people are still wasting their time writing letters to Ralph Nader, as if he were suddenly going to experience some sort of “road to Damascus” moment. Are you kidding me?! They might as well be trying to convince him that he was wrong about the Corvair.

         But even if you are naive enough to try to convince the guy, this is the wrong way to do it. It’s a major Carnegie fail — almost a textbook example of how not to win friends and influence people. To make a convincing argument to someone you disagree with, it’s important to focus on common points of agreement and work outward from there. This letter, however, is simply a laundry list of how and why Nader is wrong, which if he ever reads this, is only going to serve to bolster his resolve to cling to his views. One sickeningly fawning sentence thrown in gratuitously at the end isn’t going to change that.

         What’s worse is that much of the rebuttal of Nader’s essay focuses on the gee-whiz characteristics of a reactor that doesn’t exist! Unless Ralph happens to be a huge sci-fi fan, I fail to see how this is at all helpful. You might as well be arguing the merits of dilithium crystals for powering warp drives.

         So let’s save the internecine fission design battles for the day after Nader and his allies have been convincingly run off the field.

         What battles? In case you didn’t notice, I held my tongue beyond an off-the-cuff comment mentioning that I simply disagree with some of the assertions that have been made. I’m not the one trashing the “previous generations of reactor technology based on solid uranium fuel.”

         I think that you overestimate Nader’s influence today. The guy is such a self-absorbed megalomaniac that he has even managed to alienate many on the far left who otherwise would be his natural allies. In his struggle to stay relevant decades after his one defining moment, he has thrust himself into the political arena a few too many times for his own good, and people remember (bitterly) the presidential election of 2000.

         Today, he is largely irrelevant, and besides, he’s almost 80. Before being “convincingly run off the field,” he’s far more likely to be convincingly buried under the field and pushing up daises. He’s a dinosaur from another era and doesn’t merit the attention that has been wasted on him.

         I stand by my comment: That’s a lot of words to waste on a fool like Nader.

         1. @Brian Mays

            I chose to publish the letter because it provides valuable information and because it properly puts the optimism about the future technology development in the proper perspective — after recognizing that current technology is pretty darned good.

            You focus too much on your own view of Nader as an individual, neglecting his continuing role as an inspiration for many who still work every day to oppose nuclear energy development. Those “Raiders” and their followers need to be approached in as many different ways as people can think of to try to help them understand that nuclear energy meets virtually all of their professed criteria for a useful power source.

            One letter is not going to be all that important, but it might reach a few people.

            One more thing – I just relearned that Peter Bradford came into prominence through his association with Nader as one of his earliest “Raiders”.

            http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2457&dat=19711102&id=ICs0AAAAIBAJ&sjid=G-EIAAAAIBAJ&pg=2629,572894

            1. Well stated Rod. When debating, publicly, any anti-nuke, it is simply never a question of convincing the person you are debating. That is irrelevant. It’s convincing the people who listen to the debate and follow the person you are discussing with. That is how we built a strong pro-nuclear lobby on the Daily Kos and other traditional anti-nuke spaces.

               On LFTR, it’s true that it is no commercially available. So what? And no one is arguing all the “money” needs to go into LFTR. I’m a big LFTR advocate and will remain so. With the Shanghai Institute of Technology and Flibe Energy doing some of the initial materials research, the R&D is plodding along. It could use an official boost, with, say, on national lab throwing their weight behind it. That is all anyone is really asking for, right? There were no SMRs either 5 years ago. Now there are more than a dozen projects globally (including the Chinese!). LFTR is a worth whole goal to pursue along with IFRs and other Gen IV reactors.

               ALL Gen IV reactors are wholly, real that WHOLLY dependent on the success of the current wave of 60 or so new Gen III (and Gen II+) reactors currently being built. That dependency is called “public confidence” and the ability to get Gen IV reactors deployed is dependent on the public (not only policy makers) buying into the modularity built, cost-tamed, on time new builds of Gen III. I say this a firm supporter of a Gen IV and LFRT future.

               1. @David Walters

                  Agreed. The most reliable sources of funding for future nuclear systems will be from the profits made producing existing systems. If there are no profits, then the future systems will be required to remain dependent on hydrocarbon producer-dominated governments that can remove the funds every time success approaches.

            2. Rod – I guess that I haven’t been clear enough. Please don’t misunderstand me; let me explain. I agree completely with your decision to publish the letter. In fact, I agree with most of what’s in it. The parts where I quibble about facts are probably the same parts that you have reservations about.

               If I have focused too much on Nader as an individual, it is because the letter is addressed to him, and that’s the crux of my gripe.

               If I were to author a similar document, I would do one of two things. Either I would address it instead to a general audience, challenging Nader’s assertions point-for-point as if in a debate, or if I were genuinely interested in trying to convince Nader, I would phrase my arguments in a much more diplomatic way, focusing heavily on where we agree instead of where I think that he is simply wrong. To have even a remote hope that he’ll actually change his mind, you’ve first got to give him an opportunity to save face.

               So my comments were meant more as a critique of the style than anything else. Although I must admit that they were colored with my utter contempt for the man.

5. “..recent studies of residents of the Kerala region of India report no increased cancer incidence in an environment of annual background levels higher than 50 mSv, reported by the National Institute of Health ”

   The first link (Derin, etal in PLOS) to support that statement shows that those Kerala residents have an enhanced background radiation level of average 1.2mSv/a (pag 8).
   Levels between 1.19 mSv/a and 9.33 mSv/a (page 8).
   That imply only very few have levels above 2mSv/a (otherwise the average cannot be so close to the lowest level).
   That 1.2mSv/a implies that the min. high radiation cohort size in order to find any signficiant results is 10million (using LNT; check the PNAS link).
   No study including those numbers. That may be impossible as not enough people are exposed at that levels in Kerala.

   So the authors conclude:
   “Obviously, more research is warranted before making any generalizations on the impact of background radiation on the human system at large.” (page 10)

   The study was funded by the Board of Research in Nuclear Sciences, a body financed by the dept. of Atomic Energy of India. So it is not strange that the authors were determined to find as much background radiation as possible, as shown by the unusual (and less clear) gonodal radiation statements, and their. assumption (not made explicit) that people live on the beach sand.

   The second link (Shetty etal in J Environ Radioact; only abstract) supports this by stating a variation in gamma radiation level of ~400times more/less. The max. to be found 20m from the sea waterlinee. A place virtual no people live.

   So the statement:”…residents of the Kerala region receive more than 50 mSv during every year” is not supported by the referred studies. Other studies showed levels at least 10times less (5mSv/a).

   1. The first link (Derin, etal in PLOS) to support that statement shows that those Kerala residents have an enhanced background radiation level of average 1.2mSv/a (pag 8).

      No, Bas, that’s the effective dose rate. The actual quote in the letter above was, “an environment of annual background levels higher than 50 mSv.”

      The abstract states that the average absorbed dose rates for the environment is 9795 nGy/h. Applying their factor of 0.7 for absorbed dose in air to effective dose, that gives an environmental dose rate of

      9795 nGy/hr × 0.7 Sv/Gy = 60 mSv/year

      which is higher than 50 mSv. I assume that even you can do basic math.

      That 1.2mSv/a implies that the min. high radiation cohort size in order to find any signficiant [sic] results is 10million (using LNT; check the PNAS link). … No study including those numbers. That may be impossible as not enough people are exposed at that levels in Kerala.

      No, you’re way off. If we’re using the LNT, then we can use the US EPA’s cancer risk model, which is based on BEIR VII. It gives a cancer risk increase coefficient of 0.116/Gy. Let’s assume a hypothetical study includes adults who are 30 and over and who have lived in the region for at least 30 years, which means that they have an elevated exposure of at least 36 mSv, based on your number. For gammas, grays and sieverts are roughly equivalent, so that gives a lifetime increase of contracting cancer of 0.42%, which is 1% of the figure given by BEIR VII for the lifetime probability of the average American contracting cancer.

      If we use these numbers, then to conduct a study to discern this slight increase in risk, we would need a study with only about 170,000 people to get a statistical power of β=0.8 (a typical value used for these types of calculations). That’s far less than your ridiculous number of 10 million, and in fact, studies have been done with cohort sizes almost that large, which have found no statistically significant excess relative risk for this high background radiation (HBR) region. For example, see

      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19066487

      which reports a statistically insignificant decrease in relative risk with radiation exposure.

      The second link … The max. to be found 20m from the sea waterlinee [sic]. A place virtual no people live.

      The maximum was a rate that was over 100 mSv per year! The effective dose rate that you waste your time discussing above was calculated using a factor of 0.2 to account for the fraction of time people would spend outside in locations with high external dose. Yes, nobody lives on the beach (well, maybe a few very poor homeless people do), but people do spend time there.

      1. Thanks Brian. Blessed are the mathematicians.

      2. Brian
         “… quote in the letter above was, “an environment of annual background levels higher than 50 mSv….
         Most readers will read the 50mSv as the effective dose rate as intended by the writer. So probably, the letter will not even be read after the “higher than 50mSv” statement as an informed journalist knows the dosages in Kerala are ~5mSv or lower.
         Illustration:
         – Background radiation is measured and indicated with Gy.
         Conversion towards mSv only to calculate the effective dose for humans. So the use of the mSv/a unit suggest humans living there get that dose.
         – the >50mSv is only at specific places where no people live (normally). Mean dose there is 40times less according to the article in the link the writer refers to. The writer maliciously omitted that.
         Btw. Same wrong representation often regarding Ramsar, etc.

         “… study includes adults who are 30 and over and who have lived in the region for at least 30 years, … elevated exposure of at least 36 mSv … lifetime increase of contracting cancer of 0.42%…”
         So you have to do a lifetime study, such as LSS, in order to find out!
         I assume no such study is done at any of the high background radiation area’s (but may be you can find one?).

         Your linked study has only ~40% of the needed cohort size, worse the period is only 10years in stead of a lifetime. With only a 10year period considered, my rough estimation is that the high radiation cohort size needed may be ~1million. Remember that cancer due to low level radiation have a latency period of 20-60years similar as asbestos; so the first 20years hardly anything will show).

         “… insignificant decrease in relative risk with radiation exposure…” \
         They found that after excluding leukemia. If you a few such searches in a random sample you almost always find a subset that direct into the other direction.
         If you do 20 of such searches big chance you find one to be significant.

         Thank for your substantive response!
         ________
         Btw.
         You used “… statistical power of β=0.8 …”. I am used to p<0.05 etc.
         Can you explain a little about the relation?

         I got my cohort size numbers from the PNAS: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC283495/#!po=9.37500
         Found numbers below table 1 and in fig. 2. Regarding cohort size I use quadratic interpolation. I know there are more accurate tables, but could not find them easy and the differences here between needed and delivered are huge so no need for more accuracy.

         1. Background radiation is measured and indicated with Gy.

            Bas – Protective Action Guides (PAGs) are expressed in mSv/year (or rem/year). The dose from groundshine is the exposure received from standing on top of the radioactive material. If an equivalent amount of radioactive material had come from a nuclear accident, the entire region would be evacuated under current US EPA guidelines.

            So you have to do a lifetime study, such as LSS, … With only a 10year period considered, my rough estimation is that the high radiation cohort size needed may be ~1million. Remember that cancer due to low level radiation have a latency period of 20-60years similar as asbestos; so the first 20years hardly anything will show).

            You’re comparing apples and oranges.

            The LSS considered a population that was exposed to a one-time acute dose. The cohort in India was exposed to a chronic dose, and almost all of them had been exposed their entire life (at least 30 years and as long as 80 years in some cases). There’s no need to wait for all of them to die to find out whether their risk of getting cancer is higher than an unexposed group.

            If you do 20 of such searches big chance you find one to be significant.

            I never said that the result was significant.

            You used “… statistical power of β=0.8 …”. I am used to p<0.05 etc. Can you explain a little about the relation?

            It should have read “1-β=0.8,” since the power is 1-β. Statistical power is a tool used by researchers for designing studies. It gives a rough estimate of the probability that the study will find something, if there is something to find. Thus, it can be used to determine the size of the sample that would need to be studied to give a reasonable probability of finding something.

            You are used to p<α, where α is the significance level of the test, which should be selected prior to performing the study (typically 0.05, 0.01, or 0.001 are used). When designing a study, the researcher uses α, but must also specify the desired power, 1-β, (like α=0.05, 1-β=0.8 is commonly used) and a guess of the expected results (effect size) to get an estimate of the size of the sample required for the study.

            The figures in the PNAS appear to be examples for illustrative purposes only. The right way to determine sample size is to do a power calculation.

6. Please fix the link to the safety comparisons at http://www.idrc…...

   1. Here’s the link

      http://www.idrc.info/userfiles/image/presentations2008/Burgherr_Peter_Comparative_Risk_Assessment_of_Severe_Accidents_in_the_Energy_Sector.pdf

7. If only that Maloney article were carried on even a tenth of the newspapers and TV/radio outlets in the country I would say fairness accomplished! Atomikrabbit has it right on:

   Nader may be a scientific and engineering fool, but he only has to snap his fingers and the media come running, ready to lap up his pronouncements as received wisdom. Nuclear never figured out that game, even after decades of being on the losing side. In a Kardashian world, the best PR wins. Being called a fool doesn’t have much sting to those standing in the winner’s circle.

   So if I seem like I’m excessively ragging on nuclear professional organizations and atomic workers unions and their sheer mum-ness in the mass media at not defending and correcting malicious tainted FUD intent on burying nuclear energy forever for green Pied Pipers hawking pies in the skies, I have to say to myself: Hey, why else are these people there warming chairs for besides handing out awards at lush conventions when they have the resources and manpower that mere individuals and Tupperware parties can’t muster to promptly and loudly challenge and bust media FUD and general nuclear illiteracy that’s out to waste them wholesale?? Hey, NEI and ANS! Hire me at half-salary for a month and I’ll show your PR crews how FUD smackdown’s done! Ring me at jamesgreenidge@yahoo.com!

   James Greenidge
   Queens NY

   1. @James
      “…If only that Maloney article were carried on even a tenth of the newspapers …”
      Estimate that most papers will soon detect the factual mistakes (I showed one above). That implies no publishing, and more suspicion regarding a next pro-nuclear article offered.

      1. You’re really kooky, Bas. Newspapers deal with nothing but non-factual information when it comes to nuclear power. That’s why the vast majority of the stories they publish are negative. They listen to the lies and non-factual information pushed by the anti-nuke kooks. They won’t publish a factual article based on the letter by Timothy Maloney because, first, it doesn’t fit their accepted meme (i.e., nukes are bad), and, second, it is truthful.

         1. Wayne,
            The letter starts with discrediting regular info from the National Academy of Sciences by stating an example.

            Even if that example would be correct, a responsible journalist will ask himself whether that is an anomaly or regular.
            So he may ask a response to the National Academy.

            But it never came so far as the journalist easily finds out that the 50mSv/a is only at some places where almost nobody lives in Kerala.
            And that studies involve levels at least 10 times lower.

            So he will stop reading, and throw the letter in the waste basket.
            Because he doesn’t want to be accused of publishing (or supporting) lies that can easily be demonstrated.

            And, worse for you, he will look towards next letters with more suspicion. May even conclude that those nuclear folks cannot be trusted. So what with such a potential dangerous tool, as an NPP, in their hands?
            Hence that letter may even be a contribution to turn that journalist into anti-nuclear!

            Btw.
            I shouldn’t write this as I do not support nuclear. But I want debate with correct facts and correct means, to find out the best.

            1. @Bas

               Perhaps your dislike of the letter comes from the fact that it contains references to studies that directly contradict your continued disproven assertions.

               For example from “Radionuclides and Radiation Indices of High Background Radiation Area in Chavara-Neendakara Placer Deposits (Kerala, India)” http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3503973/

               “Nair et al. (2009) [37], for instance, in their attempt to evaluate the health effects of high background radiation (HBR) on human population, had made an extensive study involving approx 4,00,000 individuals living in 12 Panchayats of Karunagapalli Taluk, including Chavara and Neendakara. Their studies have categorically proved that there exists no correlation between human exposure to high-level natural radiation and cancer risk. Other abnormalities such as abortion, Down’s syndrome, congenital malformation and/or chromosomal aberrations were also found to have no correlation with exposure to HBR [18], [33], [34], [38]”

            2. And I’m telling you, printing slanted articles, misstatements, non-factual information, and outright lies are what newspapers do now when it comes to anything related to nuclear energy. They don’t print factual information because it refutes their accepted meme and lies, which are that anything with “nuclear” attached to it is bad and dangerous. That is the real reason they’d throw away any letter that even modestly supports anything nuclear, not because it isn’t true, but because it disputes their worldview.

               Now, as to why they do it, the reason is very simple. It sells newspapers. Writers write bad things about nuclear because their articles get published and they get paid. You surely aren’t under the silly illusion that newspapers exists to print truthful articles, are you? Sometimes they do, but only if it sells. Truth that doesn’t sell gets round-filed.

               1. @Wayne SW

                  Close, but think hard about the following statement:

                  It sells newspapers.

                  What newspaper makes their money from selling papers? Subscriptions barely pay the cost of newsprint and delivery.

                  The real customers for newspapers are the advertisers, not the readers. Publications that please the ad buyers make money; those that try to serve readers don’t make any money.

                  Nuclear is an easy target because there are few, if any nuclear ads, but there sure are a lot of ads from companies associated with the enormous industry of finding, extracting, transporting, refining, and financing hydrocarbons – not to mention the companies associated with protecting our access to those fuel sources that compete with nuclear energy for market share. Throw in the ads from companies that depend on the rest of us to subsidize their wind and solar collection systems and you start to see why nuclear bashing is so common in the ad-supported media.

            3. I understand the revenue stream for the news media. But the ads will never be seen unless you first sell the paper. Headline-grabbing FUD about nuclear sells the paper. The ads then get read. It is an unholy alliance between hawking goods and printing falsehoods to generate the overall revenue stream. I know very few people who purchase newspapers for the ads. It’s like saying you buy Playboy for the articles. We all know what sells Playboy. Likewise, sensationalized FUD, especially about all things nuclear, is the hook the newsmedia uses to sell the ad space.

               1. @Wayne SW

                  Likewise, sensationalized FUD, especially about all things nuclear, is the hook the newsmedia uses to sell the ad space.

                  If what you say about sensationalism being the hook to attract readers and viewers, why would the media selectively highly nuclear issues when they are so few and far between compared to issues associated with fossil fuels. They do not even provide good graphical images – how many times have you seen the grainy photo of the brief hydrogen explosion at Fukushima compared to the far more dramatic photos of events like San Bruno explosion, the Richmond refinery accident, or the 10 day long inferno at the Cosmo oil refinery at Chiba?

            4. Rod Adams
               October 21, 2013 at 4:34 PM
               They do not even provide good graphical images – how many times have you seen the grainy photo of the brief hydrogen explosion at Fukushima compared to the far more dramatic photos of events like San Bruno explosion, the Richmond refinery accident, or the 10 day long inferno at the Cosmo oil refinery at Chiba?

               And much too often they match nuclear events with “wrong” pictures like of the burning Tokyo oil refinery “accidentally” mixed with Fukushima during and after the quake. Classic!

            5. Your questions answered your question. Because nuclear events are relatively rare, when they do occur, the media plays them up big time. You might hear about an auto accident killing a family of four or five on the local news, and if you added up the fatalities across the state it might be a few hundred, but let an airliner crash with a few hundred deaths and the national media will headline it for a day or so. Nuclear they’ll push for weeks because they know fear sells. They play on the irrational fear that the general public has for nuclear and that is a hook enough to sell papers for weeks, especially if the “disaster” (it really isn’t) is ongoing for a few weeks or months.

               The public doesn’t care about the oil refinery fire or the San Bruno inferno because things like oil and gas are old hat to the average sheeple. But the same sheeple can’t grasp the concepts of things like dose and half-life and specific activity, all they know is what the purveyors of FUD have told them, radiation is scary, nuclear is bad, “there is no safe level of exposure”, that kind of thing. Fear driven by ignorance is a powerful comination, and the FUDies know how to fan the flames of irradiational fear.

               Advertising revenue is a direct function of readership. Without readers, all the ad space available in the world will likely attract few advertisers. Same with radio and TV. Ads during the Super Bowl command a high price because of viewership. Ads on popular radio programs go for big bucks because the sponsors know more people will hear their message. If the papers publish popular FUD, things they think the public wants to hear about, then they can go to potential advertisers with a strong case for purchasing space.

               Nuclear is an easy target because the public already has a built-in fear of it as a result of the images presented over the years, things like nuclear war, mushroom clouds, mutations, etc. None of that has anything to do with nuclear energy, but the “nuclear” association is enough to stoke the fears. That and they know the industry will do little or nothing to counteract that FUD. A few brave souls on the internet here and there are really all we have.

               1. @Wayne SW

                  Nuclear is an easy target because the public already has a built-in fear of it as a result of the images presented over the years, things like nuclear war, mushroom clouds, mutations, etc. None of that has anything to do with nuclear energy, but the “nuclear” association is enough to stoke the fears.

                  I will not pursue this line of discussion any longer, but please think of the implications of your statement. WHO taught the public to be afraid of nuclear energy? If it was fear of the bomb, why was their so much optimism for nuclear energy in the 1950s and 1960s when there were a lot more people alive with direct experience of the use of nuclear weapons in war and the testing of nuclear weapons in the open atmosphere? Why did strong opposition to nuclear energy development start about the time that nuclear plants began operating and actually taking market share from coal, oil and natural gas?

            6. Rod
               “Nair et al. (2009) [37], for instance, in their attempt to evaluate the health effects of high background radiation (HBR) on human population, had made an extensive study involving approx 4,00,000 individuals ”
               You cite this correct from the study of Derin etal.

               But if you go to the study summary of Nair et al. (2009) [37], you read the study did analyze cancer incidence in a cohort of 70,000 people: “… Cancer incidence in this subcohort aged 30-84 y (N = 69,958) was analyzed…”.
               Not enough to find something if LNT applies. Even not if you assume the lower number that Brian estimated here (Brian’s number is also to little to show anything with the method that Nair etal used).
               The 4mln nowhere to find in the summary.

               In my post above (Oct.20, 8:52 AM) I referred to the unhealthy impression I got from the Derin etal publication:”…authors were determined to find as much background radiation as possible…” and the possible link with the interest of their sponsors.

               —-
               The wrong statement that kills the letter at any viable editorial staff, concerns the background level stated:
               “But more recent studies of residents of the Kerala region of India report no increased cancer incidence in an environment of annual background levels higher than 50 mSv”

               Those studies cannot and did not do that, as the background levels are ~10 times lower, which is very easy to check…

            7. But if you go to the study summary of Nair et al. … you read the study did analyze cancer incidence in a cohort of 70,000 people.

               Bas – No, that group was just the high-radiation subcohort in the selected age range. Their health outcomes had to be compared to something didn’t they?

               Not enough to find something if LNT applies. Even not if you assume the lower number that Brian estimated here (Brian’s number is also to [sic] little to show anything with the method that Nair etal used).

               And your proof is what?

               You still don’t understand how statistical inference works, do you? Statistical power applies to one study and one study alone. Multiple studies by multiple researchers provide more convincing evidence, even if each study doesn’t have the power alone to be likely to find something.

               It’s like shooting at a target. I might be a bad shot, with not much chance of hitting the target, but if I shoot at it enough times, I’ll eventually hit it. With this in mind, the authors conclude, “Although the statistical power of the study might not be adequate due to the low dose, our cancer incidence study, together with previously reported cancer mortality studies in the HBR area of Yangjiang, China, suggests it is unlikely that estimates of risk at low doses are substantially greater than currently believed.”

               The true irony is that if one of these studies had actually found some minor increase in adverse health effects, you’d be spamming it all over the internet, declaring it to be “rock solid” like your stupid Chernobyl studies conducted by a tiny cabal of (biased) German researchers.

               “But more recent studies of residents of the Kerala region of India report no increased cancer incidence in an environment of annual background levels higher than 50 mSv”

               Those studies cannot and did not do that, as the background levels are ~10 times lower, which is very easy to check …

               And yet when other studies (those you cite) have background levels that are ~100 times lower, you think that there is “rock solid” evidence of stillbirths, Down’s syndrome, congenital malformation, yadda yadda yadda.

               Bas – Do you ever try to take a step back and realize just how stupid you sound?

            8. @Brian
               “…Not enough to find something if LNT applies … And your proof is what?..”
               You stated 170K necessary to find the 0.42% extra cancers in their lifetime. However the study covered only 10 years. Assume people live 30years after their dose of 36mSv. That delivers ~0.14% extra cancers in the study period. You need a study group of >1.5 million to get a significant result.
               Check PNAS regarding cohort sizes.

               “… Multiple studies by multiple researchers provide more convincing evidence, even if each study doesn’t have the power alone …”
               Even if there are 50 of these studies, no study will find anything. Simply because the design is such that they cannot find anything (unless coincidence).
               Compare it with shooting. If your rifle has a reach of 1 mile, then even 50 rifles won’t hit a target at 2 mile.
               But combining the gunpowder, steel, etc. of the 50 rifles in a canon does deliver a hit.

               And that has been done in a study that combined all subjects / cohorts in all similar high level background radiation studies. That study delivered significant increased risks (cancer, etc) for people living in high background radiation areas! As expected according to LNT, and the higher rates of DNA anomalies in people living in those areas!

               “… if one of these studies had actually found some minor increase in adverse health effects, you’d be spamming it … like your stupid Chernobyl studies …
               when other studies have background levels that are ~100 times lower… ”
               That Chernobyl study, is ‘rock-solid’ through its unique design thanks to unique lucky circumstances (selective fall-out and accurate population administration during a long period before and after). Did not see that elsewhere.

               Furthermore it concerns heredity effects, showing that stillbirth, Down, spina bifida, etc. rise substantially even at extra radiation levels of less than 1mSv.
               That is a different subject, as this study concerns the extra risks that adults >29year, experience in high level background areas. Note that such adults are XX times less vulnerable to radiation as they have a far lower rate of cell division. That rate goes down during live: unborn > babies > children > teenagers > adults > elderly.

            9. You stated 170K necessary to find the 0.42% extra cancers in their lifetime.

               Bas – Yes. That was just a rough estimate to demonstrate that the sample size is two orders of magnitude less than your claim of 10 million.

               However the study covered only 10 years.

               Why do you keep bringing up the Nair et al. study? That has nothing to do with my estimate, which was for illustrative purposes only. You clearly don’t know what you’re talking about, and again, you’re comparing apples and oranges.

               Nair et al. was not looking at the lifetime risk of getting cancer. They did a Poisson regression analysis. Poisson regression is used when the researcher is looking for a rate of developing cancer or some other disease, and in this case we have a steady-state situation, in which the cohort is continually exposed to radiation levels that don’t change with time, so a rate is a good thing to look at. Of course, the rate of developing cancer is different for different people, so the researchers stratified the data by five factors (including Bidi smoking) that could affect the results.

               It’s difficult to estimate the statistical power of an analysis such as this, but 736,586 person-years of observation is an awful lot of observation. Your insistence that there is insufficient power to ever find anything is nothing but hogwash and it only serves to reveal your deep ignorance of how these studies are done.

               And that has been done in a study that combined all subjects / cohorts in all similar high level background radiation studies.

               It was a “study” of dubious quality, published by a pair of researchers with a strong, consistent anti-nuclear bias (one of whom was found guilty of scientific fraud in his native Denmark for faking his data), who cherry-picked a handful of studies that appeared to support their predetermined conclusions. In other words, it’s junk science. And speaking of pseudo-science …

               Furthermore it concerns heredity effects, showing that stillbirth, Down, spina bifida, etc. rise substantially even at extra radiation levels of less than 1mSv. That is a different subject, …

               No, Bas, I was referring to the part of the article that reads, “Other abnormalities such as abortion, Down’s syndrome, congenital malformation and/or chromosomal aberrations were also found to have no correlation with exposure to HBR [18], [33], [34], [38].” The authors cite four references on studies that have failed to find any of this stuff that you claim to “rise substantially” for even small amounts of “extra radiation.”

               I guess the authors of these references didn’t use a “unique design” for their statistical voodoo, or perhaps they just didn’t employ enough wishful thinking.

            10. Brian,
                Just a response to 3 of your remarks (long enough):
                “…“… Down’s syndrome, congenital malformation and/or chromosomal aberrations were also found to have no correlation with exposure to HBR [18], [33], [34], [38]…”…” (HBR=High Background Radiation)

                Your citation from the Derin etal study is correct. Only Derin etal try to please their sponsor;’… Center for Atomic Research’.
                I showed indication and lie (the non-existent 4mln) in my post to Rod (Oct. 21, 8:01 PM; above) and my earlier post (Oct.20, 8:52 AM). Below I show you another.

                Their last one ‘no chromosomal aberrations’ in your citation is strange, as many others did find those in HBR areas. E.g. the study that El posted here. It found enhanced rates with p<0.0005 (so coincidence can be excluded): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21894441.

                It is even more peculiar that Derin etal write at page 8 (before Table 4) in their article:“National Research Council report on Health Effects of Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation reveals the occurrence of an increased frequency of chromosome aberration in areas of high natural background radiation [32].”!

                So I am rather certain that the referred studies missed the statistical power to show anything. Just as the Nair etal study regarding raised cancer incidence.

                Yet Derin etal write wrongly:”Their studies have categorically proved that there exists no correlation between human exposure to high-level natural radiation and cancer risk. “.
                While those studies could not find something as they missed the sensitivity to find the (LNT+ latency) predicted raised cancer levels!
                A correct statement would have been: “Their studies could not find any correlation while they could find correlation if the raised incidence was (e.g.) >5%”.

                “… authors of these references didn’t use a “unique design” for their statistical voodoo ..”
                Of course not, as the circumstances for the Bavarian study are unique.
                But there is more.

                That Bavarian study involved the whole population, many millions followed during 10years! And you can calculate that those millions are needed to show significant enhanced stillbirth levels. A million people normally generate only ~50 stillbirth/a.

                So many studies are simply not sensitive enough to find anything regarding stillbirth. In addition; in most countries population administrations fail to administer these and/or are not trustworthy (e.g. Ukraine/Belarus).

            11. Brian
                Even in Kerala alone, this report:
                http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v262/n5563/abs/262060a0.html
                summarizes signficant radiation damage.

                I cite:
                “we noticed an apparently high prevalence of Down’s syndrome and other forms of severe mental retardation”

                “radiation-induced genetic anomalies occur with above average frequency in the population living in the area with high background radiation “

            12. Wow, Bas! You really do comb the bushes in search of arcane material to support your BS. Whoever is paying you to shovel this nonsense is really getting their money’s worth on time spent digging through old archives.

                In this case, you’ve managed to dig up “evidence” that is even older than I am. Perhaps you think that science has not progressed any in the last 45 years?

                It’s hilarious that your moldy evidence of the “prevalence of Down’s syndrome” comes from a WHO report. Isn’t this the point when you’re supposed to explain to everyone that the WHO is prohibited from studying the health effects of radiation by a 1950’s agreement with the IAEA, or some other stupid conspiracy along those lines?

                Your quoting is highly suspect as well. Why didn’t you provide the full quote: “the view that radiation-induced genetic anomalies occur with above average frequency …” In other words they were just mentioning an opinion that was not yet established as true and, in fact, has turned out not to be supported by the vast majority of credible scientific evidence that has been gathered in the 37 years since.

                Thanks, Bas. I’m sorry that you have become so desperate, but I haven’t laughed this hard in quite a while. You are quite good at being a fool.

8. Coal and Gas are Far More Harmful than Nuclear Power ( By Pushker Kharecha and James Hansen — April 2013 )

   Using historical electricity production data and mortality and emission factors from the peer-reviewed scientific literature, we found that despite the three major nuclear accidents the world has experienced, nuclear power prevented an average of over 1.8 million net deaths worldwide between 1971-2009 (see Fig. 1). This amounts to at least hundreds and more likely thousands of times more deaths than it caused. An average of 76,000 deaths per year were avoided annually between 2000-2009 (see Fig. 2), with a range of 19,000-300,000 per year.

   Likewise, we calculated that nuclear power prevented an average of 64 gigatonnes of CO2-equivalent (GtCO2-eq) net GHG emissions globally between 1971-2009 (see Fig. 3). This is about 15 times more emissions than it caused. It is equivalent to the past 35 years of CO2 emissions from coal burning in the U.S. or 17 years in China (ref. 3) — i.e., historical nuclear energy production has prevented the building of hundreds of large coal-fired power plants.

   We assume that the projected nuclear energy is canceled and replaced entirely by energy from either coal or natural gas. We calculate that this nuclear phaseout scenario leads to an average of 420,000-7 million deaths and 80-240 GtCO2-eq emissions globally (the high-end values reflect the all coal case; see Figs. 1 and 3). This emissions range corresponds to 16-48% of the “allowable” cumulative CO2 emissions between 2012-2050 if the world chooses to aim for a target atmospheric CO2 concentration of 350 ppm by around the end of this century (ref. 5). In other words, projected nuclear power could reduce the CO2 mitigation burden for meeting this target by as much as 16-48%.

   ( http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/kharecha_02/ )

   Nader may not listen but everyone else should.

   1. This isn’t some rosy pro nuclear standpoint by any means either. This is the result of a analysis based in current science by the nations top atmospheric scientists. Just to midcentury.

      Prevented Mortality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Historical
      and Projected Nuclear Power

      On the basis of global projection data that take into account the effects of the Fukushima accident, we find that nuclear power could additionally prevent an average of
      420 000 − 7.04 million deaths and 80 − 240 GtCO2 -eq emissions due to fossil
      fuels by midcentury, depending on which fuel it replaces. By contrast, we
      assess that large-scale expansion of unconstrained natural gas use would not mitigate the climate problem and would cause far more deaths than expansion of nuclear power ( http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/es3051197 )

      1. Hit it on the head. Only like James Greenridge said, the one big real problem here is getting facts like that out of cyberspace.

         1. Its proven doable Mitch.

            It worked before, It works now, it will work in the future.

            No ” well we need a smart, super grid and storage technology that doesn’t exist, and the elements to cooperate, international energy trade, lots of land and rights of way, more infrastructure and a hydrogen economy, and then after all that it might replace half the Natural Gas”, It works now and totality replaces natural gas and coal.

   2. John T Tucker,
      Your problem is that the James Hansen study is so visible biased that everybody put that aside as non-info.

      Using similar bias, people can easily argue that nuclear added some million deaths more…

      Also that nuclear caused already many trillions of extra damage to be paid for by citizens (& tax-payers), due to the accidents and the waste (as laws grant NPP’s extremely low liability).

      Furthermore that your comparison is from a decade ago.
      Now solar+wind have the future. So you should compare with that.

      1. Using solar and wind as primary energy sources would be a massive regression in civilization as we know it. Those are ancient, ancient sources of energy. Windpower was developed back in the pre-Christian era (e.g., Phoenician sailing ships) and solar energy goes back to the Stone Age. Using those old, ancient energy sources doesn’t represent the future, it represents the far, far distant past.

         1. Wayne
            I think sound policy makers just do the math…
            At least I hope they will.

      2. What a minute, who is everybody? Can you post ONE legitimate scientist that did? Lets see the argument.

         1. John T
            I wrote:”Now solar+wind have the future.“.

            That future has already turned into full reality at smaller scale such as islands and rural areas. Examples are El Hierro (Wind, Solar, pumped storage), Eigg (Scotland), etc. Further developments going on: http://www.hr.undp.org/content/croatia/en/home/presscenter/articles/2013/10/17/energy-independent-islands-with-zero-carbon-emission/

            Bigger is on the road to follow. E.g.
            – Scotland’s target is to have 100% renewable electricity by 2020 already.

            – Denmark is going well while on the road to 100% renewable in 2050 regarding all energy! So since this year a license to build a house is only granted if you can show that the house is energy neutral!
            At the moment ~50% of their electricity is renewable.

            This article explains a little about the changing landscape regarding electricity generation: http://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/another-myth-busted-on-the-road-to-100-renewable-electricity-52178

            Main reasons;
            – Decreasing prices for renewable. For solar even price falls (-75% last few years).
            – Rising prices for alternatives such as nuclear, etc.
            – Computer simulations that now can show what is necessary in order to go along the 100% renewable road with guaranteed 100% electricity availability. Hence ‘renewable’ German electricity supply is more reliable than that of any ‘nuclear’ country.

            1. @Bas

               You wrote:

               Hence ‘renewable’ German electricity supply is more reliable than that of any ‘nuclear’ country.

               You must stop lying if you want to continue to post here. The German electricity supply to the customer may be more reliable — now — than the electricity supply in France or the US, but that situation is in spite of the contributions from unreliables, not because of it. The portion of unreliables in the grid that Germany participates in is still acceptably small, but it’s getting closer and closer to the point at which real problems begin to develop with both over and under supply. That is why several of Germany’s neighbors are installing the capability to open circuit breakers to protect their own power grids from disruptions in the German sections of the grid.

               http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2013/01/23/germanys-green-energy-destabilizing-electric-grids/

            2. Meanwhile, and I think I provided you with that kind of information *already*, ENTSO-E data shows in August last years Denmark imports of electricity were 132% of it’s production. In numbers, this means it was able to produce 1391 MWh of electricity, but simultaneously ended up letting 1849 MWh of power get inside the country through the electric lines.

               Having huge exports at some period in years, and then huge imports at other period is not energy independency (the important word here is huge. Having a diverse generation mix between countries, resulting in some period where you import a bit of electricity and some other where your export is reasonnable, the problem in Denmark is the scale of it).

               I am very afraid they are starting to do for houses exactly the same as for the country, that is falsely consider that consuming 30 MWh of fossil power in winter is exactly compensated by exporting 30 MWh of solar power in summer.

               In 2012, fossil fuel was still only 56.6% of their electricity production, and they don’t have enough biomass resource to develop it to any scale. They are massively importing wood pellets from the US :
               http://www.bioenergytrade.org/downloads/t40-global-wood-pellet-market-study_final.pdf
               “production of wood pellets reached 137,000 tons in 2010, and there has been a decreasing domestic production since 2005 where it was close to 200,000 tons. This is mainly due to lack of raw materials”
               “consumption has increased […] reaching 1,719,000 tons in 2010”

               Very likely the example of El Hierro and Eigg are really interesting. But what is feasible at a small scale becomes much harder at a larger scale, when population density becomes higher than what can be be extracted from renewable resources, and also when the country can not run at a huge deficit like many small island do, so when the value of what it produces locally must pay for all what it imports. Making a living out of tourism means the value of the goods some other countries produces are so much more than the one of what it imports that they can afford giving you some of the difference. It’s by relocating the constraint on them that you escape the unsolvable problem of producing enough only using renewables.

            3. Bas
               October 21, 2013 at 4:55 AM
               This article explains a little about the changing landscape regarding electricity generation

               Yea, landscape is right — and throw in seascapes as well. Just how much are they willing to alter and ruin forever just to have blind fear senselessly and illogically banish the cleanest safest and reliable power source found by man? Crazy!

            4. Sure, there are places in the world that get by with unreliable energy sources, things like biomass, solar, wind, etc. And these places are countries like Haiti, Laos, Madagascar, the Dominican Republic, Burkina Faso, Mozambique, and a host of other third-world countries. Somehow I doubt if the population of countries like the US, Canada, France, Mexico, and almost any other developed nation would like to live a lifestyle like those places have. And that’s what you’d get if you depend in any significant way on unreliable energy sources.

            5. Yea jmdesp the wood pellet thing is a brewing over the top environmental nightmare that no one even really discusses.

            6. Rod
               “..that situation is in spite of the contributions from unreliables, not because of it…”
               I think that grid management realizes that much electricity is generated by unreliable, so they take their job far more serious. Keeping more spare, etc.
               Hence the better end result for the customer.

               E.g. when Germany closed 8 NPP’s in 2011, grid management rejected a cold stand-by of an NPP, but arranged 3 faster starting power plants as stand-by and furthermore had an offer from Austria to deliver anything to keep the German grid going… Only 1 of the stand-by plants needed shortly, no help from Austria needed.

9. Between winning the election for GWB and attacking nuclear power, I’m getting the impression Mr. Nader works for the oil cartels.

   1. @John Englert

      That would not be a surprising employer for an Arab-American whose first successful campaign as an activist was fighting a small, 4 6 cylinder popular car that achieved good fuel economy in a muscle car era.

      1. The Corvair was powered by a flat 6, not a flat 4.

         1. Was always leaking oil, but was a joy to drive.

      2. I would be loathe to criticize Nader based on his family’s ethnicity – although his parents spoke Arabic, they were Christian (Greek Orthodox) emigrants from Lebanon who ran a bakery. Not a very solid connection to Middle East, or any other kind of, oil.

         There is plenty to criticize just on his anti-nuclear predjudice. I think in general his belief system is congruent with the standard litany of 1960s Northeastern elite liberalism which shaped him. He took it a little farther, and was a more eloquent spokesperson and saavy self-promoter, than his many fellow travelers of that stripe.

         1. @Atomikrabbit

            What does religion have to do with my comment? In Nader’s youth, Lebanon had an oil dependent economy – it may have been considered to be a banking center, but most of the deposits were generated by selling oil.

            His parents ran a restaurant that was a popular gathering place for people from one of the most oil dependent regions in the world. They were quite successful.

            1. Really, you see an ethnic component to his anti-nuclearism?

               I think it’s far more easily explained by the forces I cited, RFK Jr being a current incarnation of that culture.

               1. I see a geographic, family and community preference for oil. As you pointed out, RFKJR has a similar attitude and preference. He is from an Establishment family that collected funds from many political contributors with strategic interests in the petroleum-based economy.

            2. What do you think of those who support giant solar power schemes in MENA (like Desertec), on the grounds that “it least it’ll mean they’ll still have an income even after the oil runs out”?

            3. I think those who insist that we should support ethnically and religiously hostile people for its own sake should be treated as traitors.

            4. Wouldn’t they hate us even more though if they were starving?

               And what do you mean by “ethnically and religiously hostile” — are you a Robert Spencer fan by any chance?

            5. If they were starving, they wouldn’t have energy to spare to think about us.

            6. Their co-religionists in the West could still take vengeance on their behalf though.

            7. It only takes an airplane ride to make that someone else’s problem.

               We really shouldn’t have religious enemies in this country, period.  Our citizenship laws used to allow revoking citizenship of hostiles, which made it possible to just deport them.  It would take a Constitutional amendment, but this could and should be done again.

10. Reality bats last. Here’s to you BAS:

    http://uk.news.yahoo.com/britain-approves-first-nuclear-plant-125023785.html#utC5hI

    1. Congratulations!

11. German electricity check in.

    You know bas brings up an important point. Some did seem to think Germany would have electric supply problems if they shut off nuclear power. I did. Of course no one could imagine that the Germans, seemingly concerned albeit misguided on the environment and health would be so incredibly incompetent as to fall back on Natural gas much less Coal and more horrifically Lignite as a energy source.

    Then of course they never “shut off” nuclear power and always had a large amount of idling capacity.

    Bas seems to think that is something to be proud of.

    Anyway I like to check in on that energy train wreck now and then (July 2013) :

    As renewable installations wain Germany still gets significantly more energy from nuclear power than non hydro “renewables”:
    

    Source Year-to-Date – Jan-Jul 2013 % change

    + Combustible Fuels 229 156 +2.0%
    + Nuclear 51 924 -0.1%
    + Hydro 15 916 -4.5%
    + Geoth./Wind/Solar/Other 43 587 -7.3%
    = Indigenous Production 340 586 +0.1%
    + Imports 25 076 -11.9%
    – Exports 40 213 +7.8%

    = Electricity Supplied 325 449 -1.8%

    – Electricity production was 45 036 GWh in July 2013.
    – This was higher by 907 GWh, or 2.1%, compared to July 2012.
    – This was an increase of 1 763 GWh, or 4.1%, compared to the previous month.
    – Combustible Fuels production grew by 12.8% compared to the previous month with an increase of 3 398 GWh.

    – Total production for the year-to-date was 340 586 GWh. Comparing this to the same period last year shows that:
    – Total production was higher by 308 GWh, or 0.1%.
    – Combustible Fuels production grew by 2% compared to the same period last year with an increase of 4 512 GWh.
    – Geoth./Wind/Solar/Other production showed a decrease of 7.3% or 3 422 GWh.
    – Trade volume decreased by 486 GWh, or 0.7%.
    ( http://www.iea.org/stats/surveys/mes.pdf )

    Look at the combustibles fuels and export lines. Note the increases when “renewables” fell? The have some of the highest electricity rates and subsidies in Europe too. That makes no sense.

    They are using combustible fuels to stabilize their production but also as more environmental variability occurs (including hydro in this case) they need to use more.

    Remember this is the generic renewable “success” story. There is yet to be a comprehensive carbon infrastructure and environmental coast analysis too. People just ignore that its even a issue here.

    1. @John Tucker

       Of course no one could imagine that the Germans, seemingly concerned albeit misguided on the environment and health would be so incredibly incompetent as to fall back on Natural gas much less Coal and more horrifically Lignite as a energy source.

       I would never call the Germans incompetent, but I have been pointing out for several years that their Greens are actually hydrocarbon promoters.

       https://atomicinsights.com/smoking-gun-german-president-of-environmental-protection-agency-touts-natural-gas-instead-of-nuclear/

       Thus it is no surprise at all that their decision to shut down nuclear plants has resulted in burning more lignite and coal. The only real surprise is that they have burned so much more of those fuels that their natural gas consumption has not increased very much, but I think that is temporary until they successfully get the rest of the nuclear plants turned off.

       It is also important to note that the Germans are not stupid enough to actually decommission their nuclear plants. There are people smart enough to recognize that they might be useful in the future — after their fossil fuel companies have made as much money as possible.

       1. Then I should change it to “corruption and ignorance” ? hehehe just kidding. I see you posted a new and more in depth discussion of this topic so I will undoubtedly comment on it there as I believe this is the disaster test case of how wrong the renewables craze can go when improperly deployed and for bad reasons.

    2. @John Tucker
       Thanks for this interesting info.

       What I do not understand:
       Compared to July 2012 there was at least 10% more wind+solar capacity.
       Still production by wind+solar decreased with ~7%.

       So is this an anomaly?
       Or are wind farms now halted substantial part of the time by grid management?
       nb:
       Grid management made arrangements with big wind farms to stop production if the stability of the grid requires that, whereby the wind farm gets compensation.

       1. Uncooperative weather I think. It is odd, isn’t it.

       2. For any regional collection of wind tubines, year-to-year variations in total output can vary by as much as 40% depending on the siting.

          Pro-wind advocates maintain that we can solve this inter-annual variation by using ‘demand response’, which is a concept whereby businesses and consumers ‘align their energy usage patterns with the availability of natural energy’, which is another way to say: “to be cold, damp and dark during windless winter nights.”

12. Nuclear energy’s new German motto in less than a year :

    Nuclear : Slam Dunke.

13. In a quick read of all the previous comments I didn’t notice any reference to climate change (but maybe I read too quickly). So some of what follows may be a repeat…

    Although governments worldwide have ‘bought into’ no more than a 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 F) temperature rise as being okay, research has indicated that 2 C is a prescription for disaster (Hansen and Sato, 2007). And very recent research shows that summer temperatures in Arctic Canada has already exceeded the peak warmth of the current interglacial, suggesting that we’re going to match or even exceed temperatures in the last Eemian of 125,000 years ago, when sea levels were between 4 and 9 meters (13 and 30 feet) higher than now.

    So what does this have to do with nuclear? Currently CO2 is at about 400 ppm and we have to get back down to 350 ppm to be safe. Only 30% of CO2 emissions are from electricity production To replace all fossil fuel based electricity generation we would need to install an estimated 4 million MW capacity by 2025. We won’t get that from wind!! The London Array, the largest offshore wind farm in the world, occupies 100 sq km, and has a capacity of ‘merely’ 650 MW. We’d need to build 615 such wind farms EACH YEAR for 10 years just to replace fossil fuel electricity generation.

    And if that wasn’t bad enough, we would still have to sequester massive amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere as well. Sequestering CO2 takes a lot of power – estimated at 2000 kWh/gigatonne of CO2. To stay below 450 ppm CO2 we’d have to sequester 3 gigatonnes of CO2 year for the foreseeable future. That will require an ADDITIONAL 0.7 million MW of electrical generating capacity each year from 2025 to 2100, by which time we may get close to 350 ppm. Using wind only, we’d have to build 1000 London arrays EACH year starting in 2025.

    So we face a choice – either go with nuclear, and do so at levels previously never previously envisaged – or risk having catastrophic climate change wreak havoc with food production, cause the collapse of the marine food chin because of ocean acidification, and destroy all major coastal cities causing general worldwide economic collapse.

    There really is no choice.

Comments are closed.