Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
kristopher
kristopher's Journal
kristopher's Journal
May 9, 2013
See the full table with the 99 responses at: http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/05/07/1972581/99-one-liners-rebutting-denier-talking-points-with-links-to-the-full-climate-science/
99 One-Liners Rebutting Denier Talking Points — With Links To The Full Climate Science
99 One-Liners Rebutting Denier Talking Points — With Links To The Full Climate Science
By Joe Romm and Climate Guest Blogger on May 7, 2013 at 12:37 pm
Progressives should know the disinformers’ most commonly used arguments — and how to answer them crisply. Those arguments have been repeated so many times by the fossil-fuel-funded disinformation campaign that almost everyone has heard them — and that means you’ll have to deal with them in almost any setting, from a public talk to a dinner party.
You should also know as much of the science behind those rebuttals as possible, and a great place to start is SkepticalScience.com.
BUT most of the time your best response is to give the pithiest response possible, and then refer people to a specific website that has a more detailed scientific explanation with links to the original science. That’s because usually those you are talking to are rarely in a position to adjudicate scientific arguments. Indeed, they would probably tune out. Also, unless you know the science cold, you are as likely as not to make a misstatement.
Physicist John Cook has done us a great service by posting good one-line responses and then updating them as the science evolves and as people offer better ways of phrasing. Below I have reposted the top 99 with links to the science. You can find even more here. Everybody should know the first 20 or so.
For instance, if somebody raises the standard talking point (#1 on the list) that the “climate’s changed before,” you can say, “Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; humans are now the dominant forcing.” ...
By Joe Romm and Climate Guest Blogger on May 7, 2013 at 12:37 pm
Progressives should know the disinformers’ most commonly used arguments — and how to answer them crisply. Those arguments have been repeated so many times by the fossil-fuel-funded disinformation campaign that almost everyone has heard them — and that means you’ll have to deal with them in almost any setting, from a public talk to a dinner party.
You should also know as much of the science behind those rebuttals as possible, and a great place to start is SkepticalScience.com.
BUT most of the time your best response is to give the pithiest response possible, and then refer people to a specific website that has a more detailed scientific explanation with links to the original science. That’s because usually those you are talking to are rarely in a position to adjudicate scientific arguments. Indeed, they would probably tune out. Also, unless you know the science cold, you are as likely as not to make a misstatement.
Physicist John Cook has done us a great service by posting good one-line responses and then updating them as the science evolves and as people offer better ways of phrasing. Below I have reposted the top 99 with links to the science. You can find even more here. Everybody should know the first 20 or so.
For instance, if somebody raises the standard talking point (#1 on the list) that the “climate’s changed before,” you can say, “Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; humans are now the dominant forcing.” ...
See the full table with the 99 responses at: http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/05/07/1972581/99-one-liners-rebutting-denier-talking-points-with-links-to-the-full-climate-science/
May 9, 2013
French nuclear
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/04/06/207833/does-nuclear-power-have-a-negative-learning-curve/
Relevant data
Levitt, A.C., et al., Pricing offshore wind power. Energy Policy (2011), doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2011.07.044
Review of global offshore wind prices
Results of study - applies to area in OP
See also:
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/05/06/1966071/four-must-see-charts-show-why-renewable-energy-is-disruptive-in-a-good-way/
US nuclear
"...Before 2007, price estimates of $4000/kw for new U.S. nukes were common, but by October 2007 Moody’s Investors Service report, “New Nuclear Generation in the United States,” concluded, “Moody’s believes the all-in cost of a nuclear generating facility could come in at between $5,000 – $6,000/kw.” That same month, Florida Power and Light, “a leader in nuclear power generation,” presented its detailed cost estimate for new nukes to the Florida Public Service Commission. It concluded that two units totaling 2,200 megawatts would cost from $5,500 to $8,100 per kilowatt “” $12 billion to $18 billion total! In 2008, Progress Energy informed state regulators that the twin 1,100-megawatt plants it intended to build in Florida would cost $14 billion, which “triples estimates the utility offered little more than a year ago.” That would be more than $6,400 a kilowatt. (And that didn’t even count the 200-mile $3 billion transmission system utility needs, which would bring the price up to a staggering $7,700 a kilowatt)."
French nuclear
"... the negative learning curve continued with Areva’s 2009 bid — $7,375 per kilowatt (your price may vary, upwards, that is). Apparently Areva did learn that it wasn’t charging enough for its reactors, which are now nearly off the chart in Gubler’s analysis (whose left-hand y-axis goes up to $7500/kw in US$2004):
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/04/06/207833/does-nuclear-power-have-a-negative-learning-curve/
May 8, 2013
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/08/opinion/global/Japans-Shift-From-Nuclear-Energy.html?_r=0
When Nature Is Not Enough
When Nature Is Not Enough
By NASSRINE AZIMI
Published: May 7, 2013
ITSUKUSHIMA Shrine on Miyajima Island, built by the warlord Taira no Kiyomori around 1168, stands at the edge of an inlet of the Inland Sea, not far from Hiroshima. Long regarded as one of Japan’s three most beautiful places, it was registered in 1996 by Unesco as a World Heritage Site.
<snip>
...Some of the problems at the plant initially seemed ludicrous. In March a power outage shut off freshwater cooling systems; it later emerged that a rat had munched through some cables. The imagery of the most globally scrutinized, high-stakes containment effort by the nuclear industry, in one of the world’s most technologically advanced nations brought to a standstill by a lone rodent, seemed surreal yet weirdly apt.
Then, in early April, it was reported that tons of radioactive water may have leaked into the soil from massive containment holes, existing tanks being full to capacity. Some 280,000 tons of contaminated water are currently held on site; fuel rod pools must be kept flooded with water, thus adding 400 tons of radioactive water daily to that load, with no real solution in sight.
Tepco is so chastised by previous accusations of secrecy — or so overwhelmed and numbed by bad news — that it does not even try to hide the severity of challenges it is grappling with. Three power failures in the past five weeks have been enough, though, to convince everyone else that the situation is grave; one can only imagine the sentiments of the local residents and plant workers. By Tepco’s own estimates, confirmed by the I.A.E.A., the hoped-for decommissioning of Daiichi remains up to 40 years away — a long time to count on the benignity of nature.
If rats and radioactive leaks were not enough of a reminder of the dangerous state of the nuclear cleanup efforts...
By NASSRINE AZIMI
Published: May 7, 2013
ITSUKUSHIMA Shrine on Miyajima Island, built by the warlord Taira no Kiyomori around 1168, stands at the edge of an inlet of the Inland Sea, not far from Hiroshima. Long regarded as one of Japan’s three most beautiful places, it was registered in 1996 by Unesco as a World Heritage Site.
<snip>
...Some of the problems at the plant initially seemed ludicrous. In March a power outage shut off freshwater cooling systems; it later emerged that a rat had munched through some cables. The imagery of the most globally scrutinized, high-stakes containment effort by the nuclear industry, in one of the world’s most technologically advanced nations brought to a standstill by a lone rodent, seemed surreal yet weirdly apt.
Then, in early April, it was reported that tons of radioactive water may have leaked into the soil from massive containment holes, existing tanks being full to capacity. Some 280,000 tons of contaminated water are currently held on site; fuel rod pools must be kept flooded with water, thus adding 400 tons of radioactive water daily to that load, with no real solution in sight.
Tepco is so chastised by previous accusations of secrecy — or so overwhelmed and numbed by bad news — that it does not even try to hide the severity of challenges it is grappling with. Three power failures in the past five weeks have been enough, though, to convince everyone else that the situation is grave; one can only imagine the sentiments of the local residents and plant workers. By Tepco’s own estimates, confirmed by the I.A.E.A., the hoped-for decommissioning of Daiichi remains up to 40 years away — a long time to count on the benignity of nature.
If rats and radioactive leaks were not enough of a reminder of the dangerous state of the nuclear cleanup efforts...
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/08/opinion/global/Japans-Shift-From-Nuclear-Energy.html?_r=0
May 7, 2013
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-07/first-solar-seeks-5-5-gigawatts-of-sales-to-fill-pipeline.html
First Solar Seeks 5.5 Gigawatts of Sales to Fill Pipeline (business article)
First Solar Seeks 5.5 Gigawatts of Sales to Fill Pipeline
By Christopher Martin & Ehren Goossens - May 7, 2013
First Solar Inc. (FSLR), the largest U.S. solar manufacturer by shipments, said it’s pursuing as much as 5.5 gigawatts of prospective sales, mainly in the Americas, after its pipeline of orders was unchanged in the first quarter.
The company reported $8 billion in expected revenue at the end of the first quarter, unchanged from the end of December, Chief Executive Officer Jim Hughes said during a conference call yesterday.
The company expects results in the second half of the year to be better than in the first half, reversing an earlier forecast, as it acquires new solar farms that will use its panels. Of the 5.5 gigawatts of potential orders, about 700 megawatts comes from mid- to late-stage projects that are nearing construction, Hughes said.
“We are focusing on replenishing our pipeline in 2014 and beyond,” Hughes said.
That includes projects in Chile, Canada and a “steady diet” of stranded solar projects that developers can’t complete in California and elsewhere in the U.S. Southwest, he said. The company forecasts its results using expected revenue from panels it will install at solar farms it’s developing and contracted sales to other developers...
By Christopher Martin & Ehren Goossens - May 7, 2013
First Solar Inc. (FSLR), the largest U.S. solar manufacturer by shipments, said it’s pursuing as much as 5.5 gigawatts of prospective sales, mainly in the Americas, after its pipeline of orders was unchanged in the first quarter.
The company reported $8 billion in expected revenue at the end of the first quarter, unchanged from the end of December, Chief Executive Officer Jim Hughes said during a conference call yesterday.
The company expects results in the second half of the year to be better than in the first half, reversing an earlier forecast, as it acquires new solar farms that will use its panels. Of the 5.5 gigawatts of potential orders, about 700 megawatts comes from mid- to late-stage projects that are nearing construction, Hughes said.
“We are focusing on replenishing our pipeline in 2014 and beyond,” Hughes said.
That includes projects in Chile, Canada and a “steady diet” of stranded solar projects that developers can’t complete in California and elsewhere in the U.S. Southwest, he said. The company forecasts its results using expected revenue from panels it will install at solar farms it’s developing and contracted sales to other developers...
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-07/first-solar-seeks-5-5-gigawatts-of-sales-to-fill-pipeline.html
May 7, 2013
Read entire article: http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-2320322/LORD-FOULKES-Why-free-market-nuclear-power.html#ixzz2SctEv5GX
£50bn = $77.6bn
The writer makes the common mistake of confusing the nation's energy use with electricity use. Nuclear provides 19% of their electricity but only 6% of their energy.
Why the free market can't do nuclear power and our industry is slowly declining (UK)
Why the free market can't do nuclear power and our industry is slowly declining
By LORD FOULKES OF CUMNOCK
PUBLISHED: 15:58 EST, 6 May 2013
House of Lords debates don’t often sound unanimous. When it does happen it tends to mean that there is something seriously wrong for the Government.
...
The problem is that the market isn’t interested. As a business venture, nuclear power stations are unique and improbable. Building them takes up to ten years and costs around £7bn.
...
As Viscount Hanworth said: ‘Nuclear power is virtually incompatible with private enterprise.’ Only a state can contemplate an investment that might take two generations to pay dividends.
...
With no competition to drive down prices, EDF has the Government right where it wants them.
Its first step was to get the Coalition to drop its promise that there will not be subsidies for nuclear power. The next step was to begin negotiating these subsidies. By some calculations, these could run to £50bn over the course of the proposed reactor’s lifespan.
By LORD FOULKES OF CUMNOCK
PUBLISHED: 15:58 EST, 6 May 2013
House of Lords debates don’t often sound unanimous. When it does happen it tends to mean that there is something seriously wrong for the Government.
...
The problem is that the market isn’t interested. As a business venture, nuclear power stations are unique and improbable. Building them takes up to ten years and costs around £7bn.
...
As Viscount Hanworth said: ‘Nuclear power is virtually incompatible with private enterprise.’ Only a state can contemplate an investment that might take two generations to pay dividends.
...
With no competition to drive down prices, EDF has the Government right where it wants them.
Its first step was to get the Coalition to drop its promise that there will not be subsidies for nuclear power. The next step was to begin negotiating these subsidies. By some calculations, these could run to £50bn over the course of the proposed reactor’s lifespan.
Read entire article: http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-2320322/LORD-FOULKES-Why-free-market-nuclear-power.html#ixzz2SctEv5GX
£50bn = $77.6bn
The writer makes the common mistake of confusing the nation's energy use with electricity use. Nuclear provides 19% of their electricity but only 6% of their energy.
May 6, 2013
http://www.michiganradio.org/post/palisades-shutdown-comes-after-assumed-unplanned-release-radioactive-water-lake-michigan
Palisades reactor down 9th time since 2011; leaks radioactive water into Lake Michigan.
Nuclear proponents - when nuclear has an unplanned failure, it leaves a huge hole that must be filled immediately. So how much spinning reserve is required to be on standby for the 9 shut downs mentioned in the article and how much fossil fuel have those plants used since 2011?
On the other hand, the variability of renewables is not only predictable, it is of a type that tends to be self leveling, meaning when one spot has a decrease in power related to weather, a nearby spot tends to increase its generation; so the amount of emergency back up required for renewables is actually quite small. The nature of the variability in renewables is actually very similar to the variability we see in customer demand - which makes it a problem that we are well versed in dealing with.
Palisades shutdown comes after assumed ‘unplanned’ release of radioactive water into Lake Michigan
By LINDSEY SMITH
...He confirms the unplanned release of slightly radioactive water into Lake Michigan, but couldn’t say exactly how much.
“It’s really impossible to tell at this juncture what the length of this shutdown will be because we haven’t yet had a chance to identify what the issue is that we’re going to need to fix,” Young said.
This will be the third attempt to fix the leaky tank within the last year and a half....
By LINDSEY SMITH
...He confirms the unplanned release of slightly radioactive water into Lake Michigan, but couldn’t say exactly how much.
“It’s really impossible to tell at this juncture what the length of this shutdown will be because we haven’t yet had a chance to identify what the issue is that we’re going to need to fix,” Young said.
This will be the third attempt to fix the leaky tank within the last year and a half....
http://www.michiganradio.org/post/palisades-shutdown-comes-after-assumed-unplanned-release-radioactive-water-lake-michigan
May 2, 2013
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/may/01/gm-obama-congress-climate-
When the new system creates more winners than the fading system, real change becomes possible.
Is change on the horizon? General Motors urges Obama and Congress to unite on climate change
General Motors urges Obama and Congress to unite on climate change
Auto giant adds signature to Climate Declaration, which calls on government to pass climate laws that would help economy
Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 1 May 2013 15.14 EDT
General Motors called on Barack Obama and Congress to work together on climate change on Wednesday, saying the effort would be good for business.
GM, which makes the plug-in Chevy Volt, was the first of the big three car makers to sign on to a new push from the business world for greater action on global warming from Washington, the Climate Declaration.
"We want to be a change agent in the auto industry," Mike Robinson, GM vice-president of sustainability and global regulatory affairs, said in a statement.
The declaration, now endorsed by 40 companies, was launched in Washington last month with the aim of capitalising on public concern about climate change after Hurricane Sandy and Obama's re-election in the hope of pushing a climate law through Congress.
More than half of Americans now blame climate change for the extreme weather...
Auto giant adds signature to Climate Declaration, which calls on government to pass climate laws that would help economy
Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 1 May 2013 15.14 EDT
General Motors called on Barack Obama and Congress to work together on climate change on Wednesday, saying the effort would be good for business.
GM, which makes the plug-in Chevy Volt, was the first of the big three car makers to sign on to a new push from the business world for greater action on global warming from Washington, the Climate Declaration.
"We want to be a change agent in the auto industry," Mike Robinson, GM vice-president of sustainability and global regulatory affairs, said in a statement.
The declaration, now endorsed by 40 companies, was launched in Washington last month with the aim of capitalising on public concern about climate change after Hurricane Sandy and Obama's re-election in the hope of pushing a climate law through Congress.
More than half of Americans now blame climate change for the extreme weather...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/may/01/gm-obama-congress-climate-
When the new system creates more winners than the fading system, real change becomes possible.
May 2, 2013
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/may/01/nuclear-power-soviet-eu-energy-commissioner
UK nuclear power plans are 'Soviet', says EU energy commissioner
UK nuclear power plans are 'Soviet', says EU energy commissioner
Günther Oettinger says government's plans to strike 40-year contracts for new nuclear plants with EDF are 'Soviet'
Arthur Neslen for EurActiv, part of the Guardian Environment Network
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 1 May 2013
A prominent clean energy campaigner has been banned from the European Energy Forum after tweeting remarks made by the EU's energy commissioner describing the UK's plan to hand out long-term contracts to nuclear companies as "Soviet".
Energy Commissioner Günther Oettinger's putdown of the €16.5-billion British plan will likely be met with furrowed brows in London, where the 35-40-year contracts have proved controversial to some because of their length, nature and the scale of the subsidy involved.
Oettinger's remark was made on 19 February at a meeting of the European Energy Forum, which brings together MEPs and leaders of industry. 'Chatham House rules' are assumed at such meetings, although they are neither advertised nor announced.
The Chatham House rule, which is often used in press briefings, protects the anonymity of speakers, while allowing the information they impart to be reported.
But Mark Johnston, a well-known environmental expert...
Günther Oettinger says government's plans to strike 40-year contracts for new nuclear plants with EDF are 'Soviet'
Arthur Neslen for EurActiv, part of the Guardian Environment Network
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 1 May 2013
A prominent clean energy campaigner has been banned from the European Energy Forum after tweeting remarks made by the EU's energy commissioner describing the UK's plan to hand out long-term contracts to nuclear companies as "Soviet".
Energy Commissioner Günther Oettinger's putdown of the €16.5-billion British plan will likely be met with furrowed brows in London, where the 35-40-year contracts have proved controversial to some because of their length, nature and the scale of the subsidy involved.
Oettinger's remark was made on 19 February at a meeting of the European Energy Forum, which brings together MEPs and leaders of industry. 'Chatham House rules' are assumed at such meetings, although they are neither advertised nor announced.
The Chatham House rule, which is often used in press briefings, protects the anonymity of speakers, while allowing the information they impart to be reported.
But Mark Johnston, a well-known environmental expert...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/may/01/nuclear-power-soviet-eu-energy-commissioner
May 2, 2013
Poor Nnads....
Nuclear is dying on the vine. Renewables are ascendent and they are doing something that nuclear never has - they are making coal a losing economic proposition.
Answer a question: as long as there was talk of a nuclear revival the southern utilities involved in planning for nuclear projects were also making plans for expansion of coal. Now that nuclear has once again shown that it is far to expensive to build they are shelving their nuclear plans AND their plans for expansion of coal. Whereas they previously had few-to-no plans for incorporating renewables into their mix, they are now starting to turn their attention to building up their renewable portfolio.
Nuclear and coal are economic twins. When you change the system to kill one, you kill the other.
I am very sure that an expanded analysis of the type you quoted could be done. One that looked at the way the economics of coal were preserved by the presence of old nuclear plants. Without those nuclear plants crowding out renewables it is reasonable to speculate that the tipping point in favor of 100% renewables would have been been reached far earlier than the present trajectory.
So the question: Wouldn't it be acceptable to attribute the damages/deaths due to the delay in the changeover to nuclear?
May 1, 2013
http://www.renewablesinternational.net/nuclear-power-very-unpopular/150/537/62320/
This is quite a bit different than what some regular posters here would have you believe about support among Germans for the energy transition, isn't it? If you listen to them, the German public is ready to abandon the effort. Just to be clear - the LOWEST level of support among any party for the continuation of the policy to expand renewables is 68%.
Nuclear power – very unpopular
Nuclear power – very unpopular
Recent surveys in the United States and Germany show that renewables remain very popular – and that an overwhelming majority of people oppose nuclear. At the same time it, surveys show that the political divide is greater in the US over renewables than it is in Germany.
As someone who spends part of his time defending the German nuclear phaseout against proponents of nuclear in the Anglo world, I tend to think that support for nuclear is greater than it actually is. But as our colleagues at Think Progress recently pointed out, a Gallup poll found that only 37 percent of Americans think that "more emphasis" should be placed on nuclear power in domestic energy production. The difference between Republicans and Democrats was also quite salient, with 49 percent of the former leaning towards nuclear compared to only 30 percent of the Democrats.
In contrast, 76 percent of Americans expressed their support for solar power, compared to 71 percent for wind power. Here, the greatest discrepancy between the two parties was the 24 percent gap pertaining to wind power (see chart).
Recent polls in Germany have focused less on nuclear (the most recent ones I could find were from 2011) than on support for the energy transition. But a survey (PDF in German) taken in mid-March on Environmental Minister Altmaier's proposal (since rejected) to "put the brakes on power prices" (which everyone essentially took to mean slowing down the energy transition, and hence renewables) met with great popular resistance, and the differences between political parties was only slight. While 89 percent of the Greens believe that "renewables should be consistently expanded," the figure was 21 percentage points lower for the Christian Democrats, who still came in at 68 percent in favor of renewables. In contrast, 81 percent of the Social-Democrats said renewables should continue to grow, a difference of only 13 percentage points compared to the CDU.
Germany currently has five political parties in ...
Recent surveys in the United States and Germany show that renewables remain very popular – and that an overwhelming majority of people oppose nuclear. At the same time it, surveys show that the political divide is greater in the US over renewables than it is in Germany.
As someone who spends part of his time defending the German nuclear phaseout against proponents of nuclear in the Anglo world, I tend to think that support for nuclear is greater than it actually is. But as our colleagues at Think Progress recently pointed out, a Gallup poll found that only 37 percent of Americans think that "more emphasis" should be placed on nuclear power in domestic energy production. The difference between Republicans and Democrats was also quite salient, with 49 percent of the former leaning towards nuclear compared to only 30 percent of the Democrats.
In contrast, 76 percent of Americans expressed their support for solar power, compared to 71 percent for wind power. Here, the greatest discrepancy between the two parties was the 24 percent gap pertaining to wind power (see chart).
Recent polls in Germany have focused less on nuclear (the most recent ones I could find were from 2011) than on support for the energy transition. But a survey (PDF in German) taken in mid-March on Environmental Minister Altmaier's proposal (since rejected) to "put the brakes on power prices" (which everyone essentially took to mean slowing down the energy transition, and hence renewables) met with great popular resistance, and the differences between political parties was only slight. While 89 percent of the Greens believe that "renewables should be consistently expanded," the figure was 21 percentage points lower for the Christian Democrats, who still came in at 68 percent in favor of renewables. In contrast, 81 percent of the Social-Democrats said renewables should continue to grow, a difference of only 13 percentage points compared to the CDU.
Germany currently has five political parties in ...
http://www.renewablesinternational.net/nuclear-power-very-unpopular/150/537/62320/
This is quite a bit different than what some regular posters here would have you believe about support among Germans for the energy transition, isn't it? If you listen to them, the German public is ready to abandon the effort. Just to be clear - the LOWEST level of support among any party for the continuation of the policy to expand renewables is 68%.
Profile Information
Member since: Fri Dec 19, 2003, 02:20 AMNumber of posts: 29,798
