What the crowing about the consequences of shutting down Germany's nukes misses

[kristopher]

Given that the corporate interest, as a group, behind coal AND nuclear have about a 90% overlap;
Given that the push for renewables has been obstructed and slowed at every step for more than 30 years by corporate interests which profit from continued use of EITHER coal OR nuclear;

The act of the crowing by the nuclear enthusiasts about added CO2 emissions resulting from the nuclear industry poisoning generations of Japanese strikes me as:

Analogous to the insane ravings of an abusive husband screaming at his battered wife that her broken jaw and fractured arm are her fault for making him do it.


Fukushima: The Radiation Leakage Will Last for Months
3 hours ago

Radioactive leakage from the Fukushima nuclear plant could take several months, said the government spokesman, Yukio Edano, yesterday. ...
5761 related articles

Fukushima Radiation Evacuees Left Guessing From Shelters About ...
Bloomberg - 3 related articles

Greenpeace Expands Radiation Team to Investigate Fukushima Fallout
PanOrient News - 15 related articles

Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences
Volume 1181 Issue Chernobyl
Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment, Pages 31 - 220

Chapter II. Consequences of the Chernobyl Catastrophe for Public Health

Alexey B. Nesterenko a , Vassily B. Nesterenko a ,† and Alexey V. Yablokov b
a
Institute of Radiation Safety (BELRAD), Minsk, Belarus b Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia
Address for correspondence: Alexey V. Yablokov, Russian Academy of Sciences, Leninsky Prospect 33, Office 319, 119071 Moscow,
Russia. Voice: [phone]; fax: [phone]. [e-mail]
†Deceased


ABSTRACT

Problems complicating a full assessment of the effects from Chernobyl included official secrecy and falsification of medical records by the USSR for the first 3.5 years after the catastrophe and the lack of reliable medical statistics in Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia. Official data concerning the thousands of cleanup workers (Chernobyl liquidators) who worked to control the emissions are especially difficult to reconstruct. Using criteria demanded by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the World Health Organization (WHO), and the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) resulted in marked underestimates of the number of fatalities and the extent and degree of sickness among those exposed to radioactive fallout from Chernobyl. Data on exposures were absent or grossly inadequate, while mounting indications of adverse effects became more and more apparent. Using objective information collected by scientists in the affected areas—comparisons of morbidity and mortality in territories characterized by identical physiography, demography, and economy, which differed only in the levels and spectra of radioactive contamination—revealed significant abnormalities associated with irradiation, unrelated to age or sex (e.g., stable chromosomal aberrations), as well as other genetic and nongenetic pathologies.


<snip>

This section describes the spectrum and the scale of the nonmalignant diseases that have been found among exposed populations. Adverse effects as a result of Chernobyl irradiation have been found in every group that has been studied. Brain damage has been found in individuals directly exposed—liquidators and those living in the contaminated territories, as well as in their offspring. Premature cataracts; tooth and mouth abnormalities; and blood, lymphatic, heart, lung, gastrointestinal, urologic, bone, and skin diseases afflict and impair people, young and old alike. Endocrine dysfunction, particularly thyroid disease, is far more common than might be expected, with some 1,000 cases of thyroid dysfunction for every case of thyroid cancer, a marked increase after the catastrophe. There are genetic damage and birth defects especially in children of liquidators and in children born in areas with high levels of radioisotope contamination. Immunological abnormalities and increases in viral, bacterial, and parasitic diseases are rife among individuals in the heavily contaminated areas. For more than 20 years, overall morbidity has remained high in those exposed to the irradiation released by Chernobyl. One cannot give credence to the explanation that these numbers are due solely to socioeconomic factors. The negative health consequences of the catastrophe are amply documented in this chapter and concern millions of people.

The most recent forecast by international agencies predicted there would be between 9,000 and 28,000 fatal cancers between 1986 and 2056, obviously underestimating the risk factors and the collective doses. On the basis of I-131 and Cs-137 radioisotope doses to which populations were exposed and a comparison of cancer mortality in the heavily and the less contaminated territories and pre- and post-Chernobyl cancer levels, a more realistic figure is 212,000 to 245,000 deaths in Europe and 19,000 in the rest of the world. High levels of Te-132, Ru-103, Ru-106, and Cs-134 persisted months after the Chernobyl catastrophe and the continuing radiation from Cs-137, Sr-90, Pu, and Am will generate new neoplasms for hundreds of years.

A detailed study reveals that 3.8–4.0% of all deaths in the contaminated territories of Ukraine and Russia from 1990 to 2004 were caused by the Chernobyl catastrophe. The lack of evidence of increased mortality in other affected countries is not proof of the absence of effects from the radioactive fallout. Since 1990, mortality among liquidators has exceeded the mortality rate in corresponding population groups. From 112,000 to 125,000 liquidators died before 2005—that is, some 15% of the 830,000 members of the Chernobyl cleanup teams. The calculations suggest that the Chernobyl catastrophe has already killed several hundred thousand human beings in a population of several hundred million that was unfortunate enough to live in territories affected by the fallout. The number of Chernobyl victims will continue to grow over many future generations.

[XemaSab]

1. I think you and I might be the only people on the energy payroll

I have been more than forthcoming about which sectors I have worked in (natural gas, solar, and hydro), but you have not provided the same level of disclosure.

Where does the kristopher paycheck come from?

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[XemaSab]

4. I should hasten to add

that I'm also a true scotsman... er, woman. :)

[kristopher]

5. It isn't a word game...

Lots of environmental organizations are looking at the environmental impact of renewable energy projects. That is calculated against the external environmental costs of climate change and nuclear by them also and it does not equate to rejecting deployment of renewables in favor of nuclear - ever. There is simply no legitimate way such comparison can be made where it favors nuclear as a solution. The ONLY way to arrive at an outcome favorable to nuclear is by playing games with the analysis, such as limiting analysis of nuclear's carbon emissions to only one or two of the 13 stages of nuclear's fuel cycle emissions.

Data Trimming, Nuclear Emissions, and Climate Change
Kristin Sharon Shrader-Frechette
Sci Eng Ethics (2009) 15:19–23

Abstract
Ethics requires good science. Many scientists, government leaders, and industry representatives support tripling of global-nuclear-energy capacity on the grounds that nuclear fission is ‘‘carbon free’’ and ‘‘releases no greenhouse gases.’’ However, such claims are scientifically questionable (and thus likely to lead to ethically questionable energy choices) for at least 3 reasons. (i) They rely on trimming the data on nuclear greenhouse-gas emissions (GHGE), perhaps in part because flawed Kyoto Protocol conventions require no full nuclear-fuel-cycle assessment of carbon content. (ii) They underestimate nuclear-fuel-cycle releases by erroneously assuming that mostly high-grade uranium ore, with much lower emissions, is used. (iii) They inconsistently compare nuclear-related GHGE only to those from fossil fuels, rather than to those from the best GHG-avoiding energy technologies. Once scientists take account of (i)–(iii), it is possible to show that although the nuclear fuel cycle releases (per kWh) much fewer GHG than coal and oil, nevertheless it releases far more GHG than wind and solar-photovoltaic. Although there may be other, ethical, reasons to support nuclear tripling, reducing or avoiding GHG does not appear to be one of them.

[XemaSab]

6. I had an interesting chat yesterday with a dude who works for the CEC

I was at Petco to trade in a muzzle for a bigger size (long story) and I stopped to look at dog toys. There's a company called Fat Cat that makes toys that the dogs don't shred immediately.



This dude came around the corner with a dog that looked like an Australian cattle dog/dalmatian mix. Since all natural resource professionals recognize one another as fellow travelers on sight, we got to talking.

His sense on the matter is that many companies putting forth renewable energy proposals in the state of California are just trying to skim taxpayer and investor dollars, and very few of these proposed projects will ever be built. Furthermore, he's totally opposed to handing the desert over to people who want to blade the whole thing for light industrial development.

You insist that I'm totally opposed to renewable energy, but I'm not. I'm totally in favor of geothermal and rooftop solar, and I'm excited about the future of tidal energy. Hydropower is problematic in many ways, but since we already have dams, we may as well get as much energy out of them as possible.

I'm not a fan of wind; it's unpredictable, hard on the grid, and the siting issues are a CF. I'm also not a fan of massive corporate solar plants that destroy habitat and contribute to erosion and groundwater depletion. We need renewables, but replacing a corporate coal plant with 20 corporate solar plants built on public lands is not the way.

To be perfectly honest, a big part of my cynicism towards corporate renewables is the fact that the battle against climate change is over, and we lost. If we were going to take climate change seriously, I might be willing to make some concessions towards things like desert landscapes, but right now the projects that are planned seem to just add a loss of desert and grasslands to the loss of tundra, mountaintops, and oceans that our energy consumption habits are already accelerating.

I also think that the first step in a new energy future is making EVERYTHING as energy efficient as possible. I know that I am not the poster child for this, but I am hopeful that we're all in the beginning stages of a long journey towards a greener future. :)

[phantom power]

7. Are those dog toys made out of neutronium?

Because that is the only material my dog won't destroy.

[XemaSab]

8. They feel like super-heavy canvas

Mocker chewed the legs off her alligator toy, but the body is still intact. :shrug:

[kristopher]

9. Fence in Pacific to try to corral radiation coming from nuclear plant

Fence in Pacific to try to corral radiation coming from nuclear plant

Tokyo (CNN) -- Workers at the stricken Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant are onto Plan C in their bid to stop highly radioactive water from gushing directly into the Pacific Ocean through a cracked concrete shaft, a Japanese nuclear official said Monday.

Neither of the first two attempts to fill up the 20-centimeter (8-inch) crack outside the No. 2 reactor's turbine building -- on Saturday by pouring in concrete, and then Sunday by using a chemical compound mixed with sawdust and newspaper -- has been successful.

This is the latest, but hardly the only challenge at the nuclear plant, 240 kilometers (150 miles) north of Tokyo. The facility has been in constant crisis since the epic March 11 quake and subsequent tsunami knocked out systems that kept nuclear fuel cool and was followed by several explosions.

As they mull other ways to cut off the leak at its source, workers will install a silt fence along a damaged sea wall surrounding the plant, Hidehiko Nishiyama of Japan's nuclear and industrial safety agency said Monday. The aim of this screening, which is usually used to halt erosion at construction sites, is to prohibit the spread of radioactive particles into the sea.

Workers also ...

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/04/04/japan.nuclear.reactors/index.html

[kristopher]

12. Odd how critics pretend this information isn't here -

Data Trimming, Nuclear Emissions, and Climate Change
Kristin Sharon Shrader-Frechette
Sci Eng Ethics (2009) 15:19–23

Abstract
Ethics requires good science. Many scientists, government leaders, and industry representatives support tripling of global-nuclear-energy capacity on the grounds that nuclear fission is ‘‘carbon free’’ and ‘‘releases no greenhouse gases.’’ However, such claims are scientifically questionable (and thus likely to lead to ethically questionable energy choices) for at least 3 reasons. (i) They rely on trimming the data on nuclear greenhouse-gas emissions (GHGE), perhaps in part because flawed Kyoto Protocol conventions require no full nuclear-fuel-cycle assessment of carbon content. (ii) They underestimate nuclear-fuel-cycle releases by erroneously assuming that mostly high-grade uranium ore, with much lower emissions, is used. (iii) They inconsistently compare nuclear-related GHGE only to those from fossil fuels, rather than to those from the best GHG-avoiding energy technologies. Once scientists take account of (i)–(iii), it is possible to show that although the nuclear fuel cycle releases (per kWh) much fewer GHG than coal and oil, nevertheless it releases far more GHG than wind and solar-photovoltaic. Although there may be other, ethical, reasons to support nuclear tripling, reducing or avoiding GHG does not appear to be one of them.

[JDPriestly]

13. kristopher, when profits are to be made, facts are ignored.

Keep posting this information. Thanks.

[Nihil]

16. So true.

And anyone who thinks that this attitude is the sole preserve of
the one "side" of the argument is either ridiculously naive or ...
... profitable ...
:shrug:

[kristopher]

17. Then step up to the plate and support nuclear in a legitimate discussion,

You are attempting to create an equivalency where there is none. There is nothing subjective about the consequences of nuclear or coal nor the lack of similar global damage from renewables. The coal/nuclear side of the discussion has a need to lie, dissemble and mislead based on the fact that in open and informed debate it simply cannot win.

EVER.

!
V

[Nihil]

20. And yet again, your post has nothing to do with its predecessor.

If you had read my previous reply (.16), you would have seen that
I was in agreement with JDPriestly (.13):

.13>>> when profits are to be made, facts are ignored
.16>> So true
.16>> And anyone who thinks that this attitude is the sole preserve of
.16>> the one "side" of the argument is either ridiculously naive or ...
.16>> ... profitable ...

You, on the other hand, ignored the truth of that post and blustered
on about "stepping up to the plate" to support nuclear (something that
isn't going to happen as I have already stated that my support for nuclear
power has waned) in yet another attempt to deflect from the fact that
*both* sides of the "debate" receive funding - a point that, unlike
XemaSab, you appear to find particularly embarrassing and, as such,
you become ever more desperate to prevent it from being aired.

As such, you are doing a very good job in transmitting the message that
wind/gas side of the discussion also apparently has "a need to lie, dissemble
and mislead".

:shrug:

[kristopher]

21. The lies are only needed by nuclear - your false equivalency fails again.

When you have the facts on your side you don't NEED to lie to get funding or support.

[Nihil]

41. No, the lies, evasion, spamming and frantic redirection of threads seem to be needed ...

... by you to avoid re-admitting that your funding comes from
both wind energy and natural gas.

I remember when you first appeared on this forum and you would
proudly state the above. Now you prefer to hide & disrupt the
fact rather than admit that you have a personal & financial
incentive to be biased on certain topics.

Hence your habitual tactic of cut & paste spamming in order to
shut down discussion whenever it trends in a direction that shows
that you are wrong.

Errare humanum est. Perseverare diabolicum.

:shrug:

[kristopher]

43. So now you are stooping to complete fabrication to play "are you still beating your wife" eh?

As I've made clear from the beginning, I'm an independent self-funded researcher here doing research to identify the type and source of misinformation in the public debate over energy. I landed here doing research after coming here for respite from the rightwing onslaught under Bush. I stayed to do research after discovering that the proponents of nuclear energy here were routinely and systematically falsifying information in a way the seemed designed to undermine the facts about renewables. In fact, some of my first posts on DU EE were in defense of nuclear power when inapt comparisons were made about Chernobyl.

I have a background in cultural anthropology and am trained on the subject of carbon mitigation policy, strategies and technologies. My professional profile would place me as an energy policy analyst specializing in the transition to a noncarbon economy.

Considering I've never received any funding other than an academic stipend not connected to any entity other than the univeristy, these attempts by you and others to paint me as a paid operative are going to make interesting reading as part of my findings when I publish.

ETA link to one of my first bookmarked posts:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=115&topic_id=135262

[SpoonFed]

51. I wouldn't worry much...

It's plain to see that Nihil moved from the failed, false equivalency argument,
right past the request to enter into legitimate discussion and immediately on
to character assassination, rather quickly.

Like somebody with an agenda or a personal bone to pick.

[Nihil]

52. I thought sock-puppets weren't allowed on this board?

> Like somebody with an agenda or a personal bone to pick.

Pot vs Kettle etc..
:eyes:


(ETA: To clarify, I'm not meaning Kristopher here.)

[SpoonFed]

54. Huh? So I'm a sock-puppet now?

Hey, why don't you just add me to txlibdem's little mental lapse and equate madokie = kris = spoonfed. Hahaha.

I think Hypocrite vs Non-Hypocrite is apropos.

Doesn't it suck when one of the other monkeys throws the feces back?

I attempt reasoned arguments when a post or comment warrants it,
guess where I think your posts fit in all of that?

[Nihil]

56. Yes.

> Hey, why don't you just add me to txlibdem's little mental lapse
> and equate madokie = kris = spoonfed. Hahaha.

Simply because you are not worthy of that equivalence ... I disagree
with both madokie & kristopher on many subjects (and agree on many
others) but at least they provide information (most of the time :P).
You, on the other hand, have done nothing of the sort(*).


> I attempt reasoned arguments when a post or comment warrants it,
> guess where I think your posts fit in all of that?

You have yet to attempt a reasoned argument(*) but instead prefer
to parrot the usual content-free crap when piling on in someone
else's discussion.

Yes, it is possible that you are just an independent content-free
poster but it is at least equally possible - especially given your
necrophiliac tendencies to old threads - that you are a sock-puppet.

:shrug:

(*) = in the E/E forum - I am not claiming anything with regards
to any other DU forum that you may frequent.

[kristopher]

59. So people that agree with me are sock-puppets?

As for "content-free posters" have you looked in the mirror?

[kristopher]

53. Yep. The stance where climate change is the primary concern...

...was discarded by nihil as soon as it conflicted with having nuclear excluded from the mix. What is particularly telling is the reaction to Jacobson's analysis of our energy options.



Download link: http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/ReviewSolGW09.pdf

You can view the html abstract here: http://www.rsc.org/publishing/journals/EE/article.asp?doi=b809990c

[Nihil]

57. I've called you on that lie several times already.

Still, I guess it provided another opportunity to post
irrelevent bollocks from your hero with his equating
of coal & nuclear and his arbitrary separation of
hydro once he realised that his "numbers" didn't put
a gap between his likes & his dislikes.

:shrug:

Have a nice weekend anyway.

[kristopher]

58. You mean you've attempted to justify your unjustifiable position

with baseless attacks like you just made instead of accepting the very, very clear results of the analysis.

Each energy source has a set of characteristics that are germane to determining the functional value of that technology. Nuclear and coal are virtually identical in their set of operational characteristics and those characteristics are distinctly different than those of hydro. Hydro allows stepped, incremental escalation or reduction of water flow and associated generation by using sets of generators that are far smaller than the typical coal/nuclear generator. That makes it a far more flexible generating source and, therefore, a far better fit with variability of the best low carbon technologies.

Let me repeat that the only criticism of Jacobson's paper is from 1) the nuclear lobby and 2) the ethanol lobby - both of which are seeking public funding for their technologies that perform poorly in the analysis. A strong indicator that those criticisms are fundamentally flawed is shown by the fact that none of those criticisms were able to make it past reviewers to be printed in the journal as a response to Jacobson.

Now, you've manufactured (or at least you are reciting) yet another misguided, ill-informed criticism of the facts in an attempt to preserve your sense of mental comfort against the otherwise overwhelming assault of cognitive dissonance that Jacobson's paper causes you to experience.

Grow up.

[Nihil]

60. No. To make it perfectly obvious, I mean this lie:

>> The stance where climate change is the primary concern...
>> ...was discarded by nihil as soon as it conflicted with
>> having nuclear excluded from the mix.

My position on climate change being the primary concern
has never changed.

Your accusations to the contrary are lies (or, to use your
own words, "baseless attacks").

All the spam in the world does not excuse you for your own lies.

[kristopher]

61. When you reject the truth behind Jacobson's analysis, you are showing your true colors.

"No", you say? Then show a peer reviewed refutation of what that analysis reveals.

Like I've said many times, that review paper is standard boilerplate analysis that every person delving deeply into the technologies available for responding to climate change works through. All Jacobson did was to write it all down in one place. Yet, instead of accepting the indisputable conclusions that the data leads all researchers who go through it in detail to, you'd rather misrepresent and distort the contents because YOU WANT NUCLEAR POWER MORE THAN YOU WANT THE MOST EFFECTIVE RESPONSE TO CLIMATE CHANGE.

[TheWraith]

10. You didn't actually specify where your money comes from, there.

"Self funding" doesn't mean that you conjure money out of thin air. Either you have a day job for someone, or you get paid by clients.

[kristopher]

11. Or it could mean exactly what I said: I depend on no one else period - as in "independent".

Here is the thing - every post I make is supported by the best science available.

I routinely challenge the supporters of nuclear industry policies to do the same - back up their claims with vetted information.

They (you) never do.

All we are treated to are unfounded rumors and propaganda generated by the lobbying outfits hired by the nuclear industry. Your history of posting is a prime case in point.

Which brings me back to the point of the OP:
What the crowing about the consequences of shutting down Germany's nukes misses
Given that the corporate interest, as a group, behind coal AND nuclear have about a 90% overlap;
Given that the push for renewables has been obstructed and slowed at every step for more than 30 years by corporate interests which profit from continued use of EITHER coal OR nuclear;

The act of the crowing by the nuclear enthusiasts about added CO2 emissions resulting from the nuclear industry poisoning generations of Japanese strikes me as being analogous to the insane ravings of an abusive husband screaming at his battered wife that her broken jaw and fractured arm are her fault for making him do it.

[BeFree]

14. Tell you what The Wraith

If I had any money I 'd be paying Kristopher to post this info.
And would pay you to not ever post again.

How much would you charge?

[Kolesar]

15. Governor Voinovich of Ohio killed the electricity-efficiency law for his coal and nuclear supporters

Back in the 1990s.

I lobbied to get it reestablished and Voino's prime supporter, First Energy, is dragging their heels and not meeting the milestones.

This is why alternatives to nuclear and coal are not succeeding. The Cleveland Plain Dealer has also been a shameless promoter of the coal industry. They write ill informed "editorials" advocating for coal fired plants.

[FBaggins]

18. Is there no overal in renewables as well?

Does GE not make reactors AND wind turbines?

Does TVA not own both reactors and hydro dams?

It's really a pretty silly argument.

[GliderGuider]

19. This was mentioned before. Apparently the overlap only matters if it's nuke/coal

Nuke/wind is OK for some reason...

I think they're all corporate whores, and Vestas is probably no virgin either. Just because you happen to like their product doesn't mean they won't give you the pox.

[kristopher]

23. corporations lie cheat and steal - true.

But usually it is because the product requires lying, cheating or stealing to make money with it.

Nuclear fission and coal require such support, renewables not so much.

[GliderGuider]

24. The overlap with wind is much less

I took a look at the list of wind turbine manufaturers in Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wind_turbine_manufacturers

As far as I can tell, at least the following corporations supply both nuclear and wind products:

Areva
Daewoo
Doosan
GE
Hyosung
Hyundai
INVAP
Mitsubishi
Samsung
Siemens
Suzlon

There is a preponderance of crossover in S. Korea (due to their love of heavy industrial conglomerates), but American, Japanese, Argentinian, Indian and French corporations are all doing it.

On the other side of the coin, there is very little product overlap between coal and nuclear companies. The closest they seem to get is that some companies mine both coal and uranium. So direct ownership crossover seems higher in the nuclear/wind pair than in nuclear/coal. there could be a convergence of interest between coal and nuclear electricity providers in such areas as grid design, since they share a centralized generation architecture. Other than that I see a lot of commentary on the net about how Massey and Peabody are rubbing their hands in glee over Japan's little problem.

What sort of coal/nuclear overlap do you actually see in the marketplace? Or is it the centralized generation philosophy of the two sources that causes you to link them so closely, or is there more to the linkage in your opinion?

[kristopher]

25. Look at the entire block of interests involved.

Those conglomerates are into all manner of products and the fact that they carry products in both lines tells you no more than would the fact that GE sells both coffemakers and nuclear reactors. Are you saying that the economic rules governing the manufacture of coffeemakers is the same as those governing nuclear reactors?

And then you have the way nuclear power is in effect at least a quasi-governmental enterprise wherever it is developed. That too is a radically different set of forces than anything in the renewable sphere.

I knew you were bullshitting about walking away from nuclear - you've just gone back in the closet.

[GliderGuider]

26. Is coal a quasi-governmental enterprise as well? How about mega-hydro?

You claim there is an enormous overlap between nuclear and coal, and little between nuclear and wind. I'm trying to get a handle on exactly what you mean when you say that. The fact that I asked you to explain yourself doesn't mean that I'm a closet nadirite, or some anonymous man in women's clothing. It just means I'm trying to understand what you mean. No need to be touchy - I'm still anti-nuke. And anti-coal, and anti-oil, and anti-natural gas, and anti watershed-destroying hydro. Hmmm, that doesn't leave much, does it?

What you see in my questioning is an echo of the fact that at a deeper level I'm actually against all forms of large-scale exosomatic energy, and also deeply skeptical of the intrinsic value of higher technology in general. So while I'm against all those forms of energy I listed above, it doesn't automatically mean that I will give wind and solar a pass either.

[kristopher]

27. Coal and nuclear are two sides of the same coin.

No, coal isn't a quasi-governmental enterprise; it has a lot of power, but it isn't blended with the government.

Hydro is to the extent that we developed much of our hydro capacity during the Depression, a condition that established a government led economic model for development. But,if a project were to be done today it would not be a case where it was bid in any way different than a highway.

What makes nuclear unique is the danger associated with the spread of the technologies. WASTE, SAFETY & PROLIFERATION concerns dictate that a rigid state-run apparatus work hand in hand for development and deployment to a degree that no other industry requires. That the cost is showing itself to be so high that only state actors are able to execute the financing is troubling, but not as troubling as the fact that this approach, when pursued in combination with a market approach for renewable competition, is going to either crowd out renewables or result in very high numbers of bankruptcies. Also troubling would be the concentration of power that would accrue to an even tighter elite should the world orient itslef around powering civilization with nuclear fission.

Given that the civil nuclear fission programs are largely an outgrowth of military fission programs trying to find a way to capitalize on the huge investment of the people's money into these programs; and given that the security, safety and scale issues make total privatization unworkable,
it is the government itself that has taken an active role in marketing fission technology in all the exporting nations.

Beyond that border the coal and nuclear industries are interchangeable lynch-pins in a system composed of a wide variety of industrial and economic interests. Let's call that the "Entrenched Energy Industries". Everything from raw resources for manufacturing and fuels to labor groups to project planning & development to closely-tied government regulators to shipping to mining to financial holdings to distribution to transmission & grid operations to utilities to vested state, local, county & municipal governments; all of these and their associated interdependent businesses have a direct economic interest in preserving the current method of producing and delivering power to the end user.

While it is true that many of these at the organizational level will also have a role in a renewable distributed grid, it is evident from the nature of the structural shift that their role will be diminished greatly even if they are survivors of the change-over. For example, transmission and distribution will be important, but the smart grid is going to create an entirely new management paradigm that will have to be adapted to and their function will shift more and more from one where they "keep the lights on" to one where they "top off your tank" when your more local neighborhood and home systems need supplementing. As for those "local systems", they will be dominated by a range of companies with new names but all having the characteristics of any other mass production good such as consumer electronics, cars, appliances, etc.

Change is an instinctually unsafe condition when you are in a secure immediate position. When the system that keeps you "safe" is preserved it is good and when it is threatened you tend to want to protect it. Renewables threaten that entire system, nuclear only a small slice of it.
Coal and nuclear are two sides of the same coin.

You are sniping on behalf of nuclear. If you want to deny it, fine, but it only works when no one is paying attention.

[GliderGuider]

45. Thanks for that.

OK, I understand what you mean now by “quasi-governmental”, and I agree – nuclear is a governmental industry to a much greater extent than any other large energy provider. And yes, both nuclear and coal are entrenched industries in electrical generation, just as oil is on the transportation side. Part of that entrenchment is the nature of the beast (esp. for nuclear) and part of it is simply related to size and history.

Wind and solar power are of course preferable in every way to nuclear, fossil fuels and large hydro. My only cavil is that they still produce large amounts of exosomatic energy, which I personally abhor but which can’t be helped.

It will be very interesting to see how the spectrum of competing interests and effects (entrenched power, government support, global warming science, the technical and industrial development of wind and solar power, public inertia, public desire for change, environmental consciousness, public fears of radiation, peak oil, the desire to keep the lights on and the tank full, the potential collapse of Japan as a global economic power) rebalances over the next couple of decades.

The main areas of disagreement between us are that I still think global warming caused by fossil fuels is more significant than the risks of nuclear power by a couple of orders of magnitude, and I want to see a significant global power-down of human civilization. However, given current events, that’s really neither here nor there. The effects of Fukushima on Japan and its psychological fallout on the rest of the world are far more immediate game-changers and have nothing whatever to do with either of our preferences.

As you say, industries that have achieved power and held it for a long time do not relinquish it voluntarily, which is why I hold out so much hope for the physical, social and economic effects of Fukushima and Peak Oil. I’m very happy to witness a crack in the façade of human technological hubris – I’m just sorry that it has required such misery to force the issue onto the front burner. The way events have unfolded convinces me more than ever that humans as a collective do not make rational decisions. Instead we mostly “make decisions” through the force of external circumstances, then rationalize our behaviour afterwards.

[kristopher]

46. Your final thought expressed somewhat differently:

"Infrastructure rules." (paraphrasing Marx)

[Confusious]

28. Renewables require more subsides per KWH generated

I showed you that, you found the government report, then proceeded to omit, or outright ignore, points in it that didn't agree with your view.

Honesty from you? not so much. Omission is also a lie.

[kristopher]

30. Not true at all. You are using fission industry propaganda that trims data.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=286086&mesg_id=286142

[Confusious]

32. True, and again

You ignore anything that does not agree with your view, which is an omission and a lie. You didn't even link to the actual report.

[kristopher]

33. Do you know how to use google?

How petty do you actually need to be?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=285888&mesg_id=286136

[Confusious]

34. Wrong one again

While you might say it, I wouldn't say calling someone out on bullshit (i.e. omitting facts) is petty.

You call people liars, shills and idiots all the time, with little proof. I call you out for omitting facts and now it's "petty" because it's you?

There's a word for that.....

[kristopher]

35. If you think your accusation is true then you have an excellent chance to put me on the spot.

Complaining that there is a missing link to a named document that you could google in 15 seconds is petty. So step up and do more than accuse - document what you are saying - specifically show *how* I have falsified something. Come on, now is the chance you've been praying to have for years...

The post is in this thread and everything you need is identified. Go for it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=285888&mesg_id=286136

Why not take the cure instead?
!
V

[Confusious]

36. You seem to want to change the argument

You didn't falsify anything. If I was to fall for that, of course you can ignore it, because it didn't happen.

You OMITED and IGNORED facts.

BTW wrong thread again

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=278186&mesg_id=278319

[kristopher]

37. Then I have no idea what you are talking about. POST SPECIFICS

According to you I omitted an "unknown something" from an "unknown document" and that somehow proves I'm "ignoring facts."

Jeebus, no wonder you support nuclear.

[Confusious]

38. I gave you the topic, posted the thread

If you can't read, it's not my problem. I guess that's why you cut and paste so much.

Here, since you seem to have such a problem:

subsidies

nuclear $.00159 per KWh generated
solar $.02434 per KWh generated
wind $.02337 per KWh generated

[kristopher]

42. You've provided nothing at all except unsupported misinformaiton

Your posted numbers omit the fact than nuclear power has received the lions share of non fossil energy subsidies for more than 50 years with no apparent payoff; for all the money we've spent we see a steadily escalating cost curve for nuclear. When we compare that to renewables we find that a small fraction of the total amount spent on nuclear has resulted in rapidly declining costs that for wind are already competitive with coal and rapidly declining costs for solar that are competitive with natural gas and will soon be less expensive than coal.

http://www.1366tech.com/cost-curve /

In other words: subsidies work to help the renewable technologies stand on their own but with nuclear they do nothing but prop up an industry that cannot be economically viable.

Of course the numbers you posted are the fission industry’s preferred way of framing the impact of subsidies however the "per kwh" numbers presented are merely a snapshot of a current year of production divided by that years subsidies for each power source (or at least, a very incomplete version of what is counted as a subsidy DOE since they omit most of the actual support in their accounting - see UCS report below).

The information they are trying to obscure is in this chart where you can see that the the fission energy subsidies have, over time, produced no results towards mainstreaming the economics of fission reactors os that future subsidies will not be required.
Full report: http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/nuclear_power/nuclear_subsidies_report.pdf



This chart shows that when we look at lifetime subsidies against lifetime production of nuclear fission power the subsidies fission has received are worth more than the average value of the electricity produced. So while you claim fission subidies are $.00159 per KWh generated, this independent analyst specializing in the field of identifying and valuing subsidies puts the lifetime subsidies per kilowatt hour of fission electricity produced is closer to $0.05 /kwh.

That's right. We paid for every kilowatt of nuclear fission derived electricity twice, once through the utility and once through the tax man.

You won't hear that from the nuclear industry.

[Confusious]

47. You have to look at lifetime

because if you looked at the subsidies it receives today, right now, it would receive less, per KWH, then renewables.

You're pulling a shell game. Don't look at today because that would make renewables look bad, look at the lifetime.

"wind are already competitive with coal and rapidly declining costs for solar that are competitive with natural gas and will soon be less expensive than coal."

Sure, if you don't look at the subsidies they receive. Of course you don't. I don't think I've ever seen a post from you showing that.

[kristopher]

22. Yes there is overlap - perhaps 20% instead of nuclear/coal's 90%

Large scale wind is part of the picture, and the makers of wind turbines are often owned by large corporations.

However you display a complete lack of understanding of basic economics when you try to portray the situation with those mass produced commodities as the same as the enterprise that builds, operates *and supplies fuel for* large centralized thermal plants.

[XemaSab]

29. Do you have a study showing this?

:shrug:

[kristopher]

31. A study showing what?

People seldom do studies on self-evident propositions; and to anyone that understand the nature of the present grid vs a distributed renewable grid, the process of learning about that nature makes it a self-evident proposition.

If you'd like I could provide you with references that would help you understand how power systems work. And then you could explain why you think the professionals have it wrong.

ETA: see post 27 above:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=285888&mesg_id=286136

[Confusious]

39. No, he has no study, hence his answer.

Any "self-evident proposition" would tell you that energy companies aren't going to go down with a fight, and it's not "mom and pop's" installing giant wind farms or solar farms, 'cause "mom and pop's" don't have the bucks, nor do the middle class have the money to build and energize a distributed grid. Nor do they have the power to balance the load on such a grid.

It all happens by ***MAGIC**** tah da! according to some.

[XemaSab]

49. I'm tellin' ya

The dude from the CEC that I talked with the other day sincerely believes that many solar projects are just scams to raise investment capital and government cheese.

[Confusious]

40. Southern california Edison

In the renewable biz

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=post&forum=115&topic_id=285888&mesg_id=286101

Duke energy, largest nuclear power company, in the renewable biz

http://www.duke-energy.com/environment/renewable-energy.asp

Your statement? bull......

[kristopher]

44. .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=285888&mesg_id=286136

[Confusious]

48. Has nothing to do with what you posted

I would say nice try, except it really wasn't that good.

[SpoonFed]

55. Can I tell you?

How much I appreciate your well thought out one line quips and how they make threads like this so very interesting to read. You've added a lot of clear and well-documented insight into an otherwise difficult subject with all of your rigorous forethought.

My middle finger sure is getting a work out on account of you... (from all the scroll-wheeling).

[kristopher]

50. kick