A question for nuclear suppporters

[kristopher]

The science says WE DO NOT *NEED* NUCLEAR ENERGY.

These are the facts of the matter:

Renewable energy resources extracted with *existing technologies* are more than sufficient to meet all of modern societies energy needs on a more reliable grid than now exists.

The renewable path is less expensive.

The renewable energy path is completely sustainable.

The renewable path is safer in all ways.

The renewable path is faster to achieve.

And last but not least in the long run widescale reliance on nuclear power and its controlling infrastructure "would", to quote an associate, "provide an irrevocable justification and impetus for the burgeoning surveillance/police state".

Those are ALL irrefutably true statements.

In light of that why do YOU support nuclear power?

[RandomThoughts]

1. I don't support nuclear power.

Although if done with fusion that did not have waste product I probably would. The waste generated its a bit more then can be rationalized, when solar and wind has not been utilized to its full extent.

Data not function.

[localroger]

5. If it worked, fusion would create waste too

All practical candidate fusion reactions release huge amounts of neutrons. It's hard to shield against them, and they have a nasty habit of changing the isotope of whatever nucleus stops them, often into a radioactive isotope. They also knock atoms out of their positions in the crystalline lattice, weakening metals and making them brittle. The fusion reactor might not leave fuel rods but it will still leave lots of crap that can't be used for anything useful and needs to be buried where nobody will find it for a long time.

(The reason stars don't create a massive neutron flux is that they run a reaction called the proton cycle which converts two protons into neutrons, and a total of four into a stable helium nucleus. Nobody is even pretending that we might develop the technology to initiate the proton cycle, though; it takes much higher temperatures and pressures than the reactions that run a hydrogen bomb.)

[denem]

66. BS

Fusion is a huge waste of money.

Holding fast neutrons is elementary, watson.

[Saboburns]

2. Oh Bullshit

Renewable energy is a wonderful theory, and someday will be wonderful energy. But not in this century.

Now and in the next 50 years renewable energy is a pathetically feeble enterprise that can produce less than 1% of the world's power needs.

Please, before you do it. Don't post those 100 web articles. I don't have anything against renewable energy.

[kristopher]

4. You cannot prove your assertion 'cause the science says you are wrong.

Please show peer reviewed literature supporting your assertion. Be sure it is one that examines the resource availability of renewables extracted using current technologies. Include if you wish one that shows insurmountable or significant problems with grid integration.

[JuniperLea]

6. Thanks for labeling your post bullshit right up front...

You are correct, your post is bullshit unless you can prove it... the burdon of proof lies with the one who makes the assertion, so have at it...

[Lil Missy]

203. Therefore, the burdon of proof lies with the OP.

[Thunderstruck]

9. Wrong.

[Terry in Austin]

76. Needs are relative, aren't they?

>> less than 1% of the world's power needs.

In the next 50 years, it's likely that renewables will be generating very close to 100% of our power. Even if that amount is 1% of what we consume today.

Sadly, "needs" aren't the same thing as "gets." Fission will go the same way as coal, petroleum, tokamaks, cold fusion and perpetual motion machines. It's a poorly-scalable, highly-subsidized lab stunt that we need to wise up about, and fast.

[Nevernose]

130. It already produces 16% of Germany's electricity

So there goes your assertion that renewables are a "pathetically feeble enterprise that can produce less than 1% of the world's energy." They're already exceeding targets by 25%; given their plan of 60% renewable within 50 more years, they may very well achieve total energy independence in that time.

What we lack isn't renewable power, it's political willpower.

But don't let facts get in the way of your preconceived notions...

[Sirveri]

231. Renewables produces 11.67% of US power too. But 8.17% of that is hydro.

And lord knows we can't expand that and kill anymore fish or destroy habitats... Can't build solar plants in the desert because that's protected or something... Can't build windmills, that will kill birds... Can't do coal because of climate change and mountain top removal... Can't do nuclear because of waste... can't do nat gas because of fracking... can't do oil because we're running out of that... Can't do fusion because that doesn't exist...

Plenty of stuff we can't do, so we play against each other and then the entrenched powers that be with their money and connections get to decide. Our future holds coal.

[kristopher]

234. No, it doesn't. The tide for renewables is unstoppable

We don't have the fossil fuels to meet everyone's needs which will push the price up with or without carbon pricing. Renewables are already competing head to head and displacing new coal generation and whether the reason is a carbon tax or just price increases due to demand, renewables are, unlike nuclear, economically poised to deploy.

The selection process is, to all extent and purpose, over. Now we need to ramp up production.

[Sirveri]

240. Which is why numerous solar thermal plants were canceled in SoCal?

Even centralized forms of renewables aren't allowed by the PTB.

[KittyWampus]

131. waste to energy is already being done. You are out of touch/misinformed.

[NuclearDem]

3. Oddly enough, I'm not a huge fan of nuclear power either

At least until we decide not to build reactors on fault lines...

[OmahaBlueDog]

126. There's a big part of the problem

The nuclear reactor in Blair, NE (about 20 miles from Omaha, near a small, rural community) makes a lot more sense than the exact same reactor built anywhere in California.

[MikeW]

7. renewables are part of the equation but ...

You'll never reliably power a large city with them. What happens if you have dry spell, low winds and or cloudy skys?

How about NYC?

The challenge for r-industry supporters is: how do you provide a reliable 24/7 uninterpretable power source?

Solar? Ok you'd need a mega surface area to even have a hope of providing a large city with that

Wind? Not reliable, sometimes even in windy spots ... it ain't windy.

Geothermal? only in select areas

Hydro? Select rivers and the tidal turbines are still just experimental + they pose other problems for marine life.

I suggest you read this article

http://motorcitytimes.com/mct/2010/07/green-energy-failure-windmills-solar-panels-and-hydro-project-cant-reliably-provide-power-for-87-people/

[kristopher]

8. How about real sources from scientists who have studied the issue in detail.

They say, with no exceptions, that you are wrong.

Given that you are wrong, why do you support nuclear power?

[MikeW]

15. I gave you a real world example

Since non of it has been tested on a large scale.

Any "scientist" publishing manuscripts on the subject is playing with modeling data only.

I'll ask the question again ... WHAT ENERGY MATRIX (types) would provide 24/7 energy for a large city reliably?

Googling it quickly resulted in not very much for LARGE CITIES.

[kristopher]

18. You have "given" nothing but nuclear industry lies that actual scientists have refuted

I'm not interested in debating the lies, I want to know why you believe them when you would never for one second consider believing similar claims from the coal or fossil fuel industries?

[MikeW]

22. I found this for you an actual Solar project in development

Pflugerville TX, population ~16K their plan is to build a solar field ~ 600 ac. of land required.

Now extrapolate that out for say New York City .. how much land does that require? and where do you get it?

Kris you apparently dont understand DU, you tossed your hat into the ring with your first post but failed to provide verified sources, links.

Dont expect it to NOT be questioned.

YOU assume Im pro nuclear, which Ive not stated in any of my posts.

[kristopher]

26. If I'm wrong it should be easy to prove with SCIENCE

Garbage that is at the level of Rush Limbaugh isn't acceptable.

How about real sources from scientists who have studied the issue in detail.

[Confusious]

33. Well, yes it is

The problem is you ignore anything that doesn't agree with your already built in biases.

"Does not compute, does not compute" You don't even take common sense into account.

If it's not from someone who agrees with you, it an industry lie, a dupe for the industry, etc, etc.

[fascisthunter]

120. show the proof

[Confusious]

129. Read his posts

I've read enough of them to know his MO.

you can even see it right here on this page.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=644471&mesg_id=646257

[fascisthunter]

133. uh uh.... show the proof

[Confusious]

140. Well, I get the feeling you're not going to find anything

to your liking, based on the fact that you're repeating the exact same thing people are telling Kris, except to me, who does not "support" his views.

nice try, don't play that game. Maybe next time, don't be so obvious.

let the denials begin.

btw, here's another

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=644471&mesg_id=647200

another BTW, you have to read to find proof.

[fascisthunter]

145. game over

good night

[HuckleB]

160. In other words...

... since you have no evidence to back up your stance, how is your stance anything but fascism at its worst?

:shrug:

[Confusious]

162. Yea figured "the game" was rigged.

There's my proof, along with other subtle hints.

Someone who wanted evidence would actually ask questions. "The game" as you call it was to make me jump through hoops.

I think I win actually.

[HuckleB]

165. .

Unfortunately, evidence and science means nothing to this one. These are not the droids you are looking for, move along.

[HuckleB]

147. We're all waiting for the OP to show proof of his claims.

Next.

[kristopher]

193. No the thread is to expose the lies of the nuclear industry.

What you need to decide is whether you would like to explain why you support nuclear so that I can help you separate fact from fiction. If you support nuclear it is because you believe certain things to be true. The nuclear industry is like every other industry in that they are completely willing to manufacture false information to promote false beliefs in order to gain public support.

If you want to explain the reasons you support nuclear we have something to discuss, otherwise...

[FreeJoe]

206. Bizarre

This whole thread is bizarre. You post some extraordinary comments with not a single shred of evidence to back them and then demand evidence for all counter claims. Anyone that looks around at the world will quickly see that not even the greenest developed countries in the world are close to surviving on green energy sources alone. If no one is doing it and no one is even on a path to getting there, why should I believe your claims that it can be done?

You can try your sophistry of claiming something outlandish and daring us to waste our day researching it for you. I'm going to stick to Occam's razor and say that something that virtually everyone wants that isn't happening is probably very difficult or not possible.

Just for fun, it should also be noted that fossil fuels are solar energy. They are stored solar energy from millions of years ago. Wind and ethanol are solar energy converted to other forms more recently. Solar energy is really just nuclear energy with the power plant a lot further from us.

[kristopher]

212. So your evidence for disbelieving the science is your anecdotal observation that...

...since renewable energy is not presently the core element of our energy system, it can never be.

Fine. That is easy to address; it lies in the economics of how the global energy infrastructure developed.

Wood gave way to coal because coal has more energy per pound/cubic foot; an important point when either mobility (trains) or space (people's basement) is the criteria for selection.

Coal gave way to oil for much the same reason: the energy density and transportability is better with oil than with coal. Another advantage for trains was that oil doesn't produce cinders from the smokestack (many urban areas forbade trains because of the fire hazard from coal cinders).

During this period population was relatively low so the external effects of these fuels was not a factor.

The oil embargoes of the 70s prompted us to switch back to coal for electric generation.

Our electric generation system developed around the use of heat to boil water and turn some sort of shaft by harnessing the energy in the steam from the boiling water. Because electric power was new, the most cost effective use of this system was not to put a large cumbersome machine requiring a dedicated operator in every home, but to build a large centralize unit and string wires to other locations.

Thus was born our 'grid' and the practice of selling electricity by the unit.

Along with the increased use of the fuels that powered that grid, however, came two problems; one was resource depletion, the other was increased negative impacts on the world external to the power plants. Particulate air pollution, toxic coal ash and climate change are the best known of these problems.

Eventually with increased energy demand we have come to the point where these externalized problems that are not included in the price of our electricity got so bad that we have developed a need to change the sourcing of our electricity.

When we examine the options available to do that in the context of modern times, it turns out that the most effective solution is to discard as much as possible the technologies that rely on using heat to boil water to make electricity. It turns out that it is far more effective to use modern technologies designed to produce electricity directly, such as wind, solar and hydro to name the top three (there are a number of others).

There are no major technological obstacles to using renewable energy to meet 100% of our energy needs. The primary reason this is true today is the nature of the grid that has grown over the past 100 years, but that is a different discussion. Just let me say that electrical engineers specializing in the operation of our power system view and often refer to the grid as "the largest machine in the world". It has it's own set of operational characteristics that make it a unique apparatus that is as completely different from its constituent elements as a complete car engine is different from a spark plug or a piston.

Within the operating parameters of the machine the electrical engineers call "the grid" renewable energy is fully functional.

I hope this brief history lesson helps you to see the logical fallacy in the belief that the evidence provided by lack of a fully functioning society based on renewables. If we apply that logic to other technologies that you are more familiar with, we get claims such as "man was never meant to fly" or "computers will never be in every home".

Thanks.

[bighart]

207. I find this statement compelling:

"The nuclear industry is like EVERY OTHER INDUSTRY in that they are completely willing to manufacture false information to promote false beliefs in order to gain public support."

So by extrapolation would that not include the green energy industry?

I long for the day when all of our electrical needs are produced by sustainable means and all transportation is pollution-free but I sincerely doubt that either of them will happen in the 40 or so years (+/- 40 or so years)I have left on this planet.

[kristopher]

213. Do you disbelieve any of the statements in the OP?

I agree about the industry part of what you say. However, the academic community is where I have been and the conclusions in the OP are based on work out of that sector.

[bighart]

225. In all of my reading on the subject of sustainable energy the one

theme that I come across time and again is that while the technology to produce green energy is getting better the current service and supply network is in no way ready to store and distribute it.

[bighart]

227. If you are implying that we should be generating the power at

the consumer level and that green tech will support that I agree that it is possible in theory. There have been a couple of attempts using modern solar and wind power to produce homes in my area that are 100% self-sufficient in this regard but to my knowledge none have been successful. One prohibitive factor has been cost, another space and a third permitting for large enough wind generation. While this is anecdotal evidence I have not seen much to the contrary that is sustainable and easy enough to replicate on a large scale. I am not sure how we could handle end-user based production for areas that don't have sufficient wind and experience a lot of overcast skies. Hydro and geo-thermal are obviously not practical on a homeowner basis.

[kristopher]

230. It is more than theory.

A goal of making a single home 100 percent self-sufficient makes no more sense in a renewable grid than it would for every incorporated area in the nation to be on its own grid.

There are definitely regulatory hurdles, but that isn't technology. It is more of a matter of entrenched energy institutions protecting themselves against a competitor with their political clout.

There are a number of micro-generation technologies for hydro but yes, that is limited by the number of people who have a suitable water supply and a large enough drop in elevation across their property. Geothermal heat pumps are a great addition to just about any home.

The cost issue works this way - currently nuclear is the most expensive. To get to where it is at it has required subsidies at a rate that (literally) pays more to the nuclear industry than the value of all the electricity they have ever produced. For example, the if the value of industrial electricity in a given time period was 6.5 cents per kilowatt the total of the subsidies to the nuclear industry during that same period might be 7 cents. Which means the public pays twice for the same elctricity, once with the subsidies, and once without.

Even economists who support nuclear power acknowledge that it isn't a power source that can be promoted within a market system. It is too complex, it takes too long to build and to provide an economic payback, and very very expensive to build. No corporation is able to commit $10B for 60 years for one plant.

Investors look at the time frame and laugh. In 10 years solar i expected to be les expensive than new coal no matter what nuclear does. Policy initiatives promoting energy efficiency are also going forward since as energy efficiency provides absolutely the most bang for the carbon reduction buck. What that means to the investor is that the future market is uncertain at best. Non-industry analysts such as government analysts, academics and investment houses consider the probable rate of default on new nuclear plants in projected energy markets to be on the order of 50-70%.

That means the only way to build more nuclear is for the government to socialize the effort and through such socialization erase the market opportunity for less expensive renewable technologies.


I would need to know the specific objections related to space for me to address that specifically, but I can say at this time that space too isn't an issue where nuclear is superior.

Thank you for the input.

[kristopher]

229. The grid must be upgraded no matter what we do.

If the proposal were to drop 1000 gigawatts of renewable generation onto the grid in one fell swoop then the existing condition of the grid would be a huge obstacle. But that would be the case no matter what the source of generation, no?

The existing condition of the grid is actually a factor in favor of renewable energy sources. We are going to have to move to a "smart" network for many reasons related to energy efficiency and electric vehicles. That type of network is orders of magnitude more refined than the present grid. The smart grid is also an core element of grid built around small scale renewable energy sources.

With nuclear we would miss one of the major benefits of this investment in that while the degree of reliability would be improved, the fact that generation is centralized would make the system subject to large scale cascade failures. Distributed generation creates a system interwoven on a much finer scale and provides a degree of redundancy in the system that increases reliability dramatically.

What specifically is your understanding of the issue of storage?

[Confusious]

32. If you don't support it 100%

or question ANY assertion he makes, you are a friend of nuclear and an enemy of renewables.

[Paradoxical]

63. Bullshit.

Come down from your pedestal, oh holy one.

[HuckleB]

101. What's bullshit?

:shrug:

[verges]

151. No exceptions? I doubt that.

Nothing is agreed upon universally.

[kristopher]

154. Perhaps you can find such a study, but I've not seen one produced since before '92.

[grahamhgreen]

29. Yes, you can.

[grahamhgreen]

30. Yes we can!

Figure 1.4: 16 Years of Global Wind Energy Development 1991-2006 Compared to the First 16 Years of Nuclear Development



Wind energy increased its share of total capacity in the EU to 7 per cent in 2007, and its impact on new generation capacity has been noticeable. 30 per cent of all power capacity installed between 2000 and 2007 was wind power, making it the second largest contributor to new EU capacity over the last eight years after natural gas (55 per cent). In 2007, no other electricity generating technology increased more than wind power in the EU. 6 per cent of all new capacity over the eight-year period was coal, 3 per cent fuel oil and 2 per cent large hydro, with nuclear and biomass coming in at 1 per cent each (Figures 1.5 and 1.6).


http://www.wind-energy-the-facts.org/en/part-4-industry--markets/chapter-1-wind-in-the-european-power-market/wind-in-the-eus-energy-mix.html

[Confusious]

35. It's easy to start from zero and have great growth

If I start selling cakes and sell one, my growth is 100%.

Lets see how they do when they gotta get into the 5% (from 1% right now)

2010 has been flat for renewables, except in china, but everything is booming in China, 'cause they started from zero.

[Nevernose]

136. How's that 24/7 uninterruptable power source working out in Japan right now?

You are correct that there are challenges. My solution, and many other people's, is back-up natural gas with massive investment in renewables until safe and nuclear thorium reactors come on line. They'd be totally safe and many people think that with a heavy enough research focus (a Manhattan Project) we already have the essential know-how.

[kristopher]

182. And why would we spend 20 years building a renewable infrastructure based on...

the principle of distributed generation?

There are 6 countries actively and legally selling nuclear power systems to anyone they can find to buy them. The competition is fierce. If thorium has the answers to the problems that plague the nuclear industry, why are they not marketed?

No one has blocked development. France, Canada, Russia, China Korea, Japan - they all have not only the ability to do the research, but also the economic incentive to differentiate their product from that of their competition, that means that the most nuke savey people in the world have not pursued thorium as a commercially viable product for some very good reasons. The concept isn't new. The technologies have not changed in any way that enhances their economic viability as a competitor against renewable and conventional energy sources.

Now, I could get into a hair splitting contest with you about why thorium SOUNDS good, but in the end it wouldn't matter. The fact that the quasi-governmental entities that market nuclear power FOR PROFIT have rejected it as not competitive means it would have zero chance on an open market against either renewable energy or conventional energy. The one guarantee that can be made is that it would cost more than the technologies that have already been 20 twenty years in the pipeline and are just now starting to be built.

That obviously leads us to the issue of lead time and technology development. Go to the World Nuclear Association's website and consult India in their profiles of the various country's nuclear programs. Take a moment to observe the overall process behind India's effort, the time line it has followed and the course they plot ahead. Then go to the section on Canada and read the history of the CANDU program. Again. consider the time to development and the ambitions for tomorrow.

Then ask yourself about what we are going to do between March 2011 and the time the technology you believe is a good solution will be ready to present to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to *begin* an evaluation that will take about 15 more years.

What place within the energy system of let's say 2040-2045 do you think will be a good fit for thorium reactors? What I'm asking is where will it find a market for its electricity?

If you say you support nuclear power, you do not support thorium because it isn't actually an available option. To BELIEVE it an option, you have to not understand the way the energy sector is developed over time. Particulary the way development trends in the infrastructure are already committing themselves to a *distributed smart grid* in order to facilitate the changeover to electric cars. The electric car industry will mass produce battery packs also suitable for home energy systems storage. You hear a lot about what will happen in the area of energy storage, so you might have heard how this use of high capacity advanced batteries which are already developed will play a major role in the solution.


I hate to be so pedantic, but already underway we have today's complex system in the process of evolving into a decidedly more refined entity with a far more sophisticated neural network controlling it and I feel you should be aware of that when you are considering where thorium will fit into the future.

[Sirveri]

232. Thorium isn't much different from standard LEU and/or MOX fission.

It was originally conceived during the 1960's as a way to export nuclear power technology while eliminating the risks of proliferation. Basically you get a seed fuel (LEU), then surround it with a shell of thorium. This thorium absorbs neutrons and through beta decay changes into U233 (or 234 if it absorbs 2 neutrons, 235 if it absorbs 3). After that the process is pretty much identical to standard nuclear fission with the exception of the fission product chances. India is currently the pioneers of this technology because they also have 5% of the worlds thorium, I believe they have a pilot plant currently in operation. The reason it doesn't proliferate is because the resulting decay products are uranium and thus aren't capable of chemical separation like Plutonium.

[kristopher]

236. This thread isn't about selling nuclear propaganda.

When examined closely thorium and all the other wonder-cures of the nuclear industry are shown to be fatally flawed. For example, if thorium was practical (which it isn't) considering the example of India it would be 30-40 years minimum before design was completed and approved.

By then, the market is fully saturated with renewable energy that is a fraction of the cost of what the nuke could deliver.

The thread is about the claims nuclear industry makes that the 'facts' in the OP are false. Do you disbelieve them? If so can you explain specifically why?

[Zax2me]

10. Because Obama does

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703363904576200973216100488.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

[kristopher]

13. Fair enough.

I have a question but first some information:

The economics behind nuclear mean that the support he is providing is little more than lip service. The stated goal of his support is to give the industry a chance to prove they can compete on their own in an unregulated energy market. There are no plants planned that can even come close to being built for a price that is competitive with renewable energy. The GAO states that new nuclear plants have a 50+% chance of going bankrupt even with total support by the government.

The two most likely reasons Obama is supporting nuclear to the extent he is are:
He wants to advance the real solutions to climate change - energy efficiency, electric vehicles and renewable energy deployment - and he is in his negotiation mode and is trading with the Republicans.

The second is that one of the largest nuclear plant owners/operators has been a strong supporter of his for some time and he is throwing them a bone.

So my question to you is do you think political expediency is a better foundation for deciding on the future of our energy system than science?

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

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

[kristopher]

14. Pronuclear MIT disagrees with you

They have identified 4 issues that MUST be solved before widescale deployment of nuclear power is recommended.

Fist is cost, the second is waste, the third is safety and the forth is nuclear weapons proliferation risk.

Do you have any academic sources that support your claims? I do. I have spent years in academic study of how best to move away from fossil fuels to a noncarbon economy and I have reams of peer reviewed science that supports everything I've posted.

That means I KNOW the scientific literature on this subject and I KNOW that ALL of your claims can be sourced to a plethora of industry PR groups like the Nuclear Energy Institute, the American Nuclear Society or the World Nuclear Association.

Those claims are not part of the academic literature because they cannot withstand careful examination by knowledgeable experts.

[MikeW]

16. lets have some links.

[kristopher]

20. Here is one

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=644471&mesg_id=645952

[Chris_Texas]

37. Hint: we already HAVE widescale deployment

While it obviously is not distributed in this way, one out of every five homes you see is nuke powered. I would call that pretty widespread.

Which is not to say that these issues are not real mind you. I am sure that they are, along with a thousand others yet to be discovered -- some probably far more important, such as dealing with mega-tsunamis. And none of that takes anything away from what I said.

As a society we can choose to move forward with nuclear. As I am rather fond of technology, prefer a booming economy to a dead one, prefer to see our wealth stay here rather than leave the country, and prefer clean air and water to toxic death soup, I vote nuclear.

We could also choose to stay where we are, treading in toxic water while we hope something better comes along. It's a choice, but not a good one. If we can manage to survive long enough, eventually someone will come up with something that is a better and practical alternative. If, big if, we survive that long. But know this -- when it does, whatever it is, it will ALSO have issues -- some perhaps incredibly dangerous. When you are treading water, struggling to keep your head up, and a boat comes along, your best bet is to get the hell on board. You don't stop first to find out if they offer shuffleboard on the Promenade Deck.

We have nuclear NOW. It works NOW. Baring the most powerful and destructive disasters in recorded history, it's also bloody well safe. And as I have said elsewhere, given the scope of the catastrophe Japan is facing the coverage this nuclear issue is drawing is downright repulsive. It is entirely possible that tens of thousands of peopel are dead, millions more lack food or water or shelter. It's cold and they have nothing -- no blankets, jackets... they are counting upon the most primitative energy source known to man, fire, to keep themselves from dying of hypothermia.

[kristopher]

43. So you choose deliberately to ignore the actual science and accept industry PR?

There is no alternative in reality. Your view is a false construct created by an industry. Do you accept information from the likes of Massey Energy, Koch International or Exxon with an equal lack of credulity?

I gave a list of true statements in the OP that are not arguable in the scientific community. That is why I'm so confident that no one can produce peer reviewed literature that disproves them. You choose to deny that reality and rely on what exactly?

[Chris_Texas]

72. Facts

As I stated above, nuclear is not something we are debating using in the future. We already use it now. In america we burn coal for about 40% of our electricity. Nuclear and natural gas both produce about 20% each. (All of the alternatives like wind, geo, solar and what not, combined, produce about 3%.)

Of the big three, nuclear is the safest by far, and with the least ecological damage.

I have not suggested that it can not and will not be improved with practice, or that there are no issues that need to be solved. However, time has demonstrated that the costs and damage from burning coal and gas and what not are very real and there is really not much we can do to mitigate them. We can have toxic air and water, global warming, acid rain, and Deepwater Horizons... there is no way to avoid these things -- at best we can push them off onto the third world and pretend some of them are not happening.

Or we can have electric cars, clean air and water, end global warming, and comparatively cheap energy. I am rather a fan of these things. How about you?

[kristopher]

83. So, simply put you just are not interested in the conclusion that the science commands.

You would rather manufacture your own reality with anecdotal, high school level reasoning.

[HuckleB]

106. Got mirror?

:rofl:

[grahamhgreen]

21. One nuclear disaster can change the cost/benefit ratio to negative. It's too expensive when you

factor in the disasters.

[Chris_Texas]

44. Which disaster was that?

Actually, go on and talley them ALL up. Add together the total cost in human lives from all nuclear accidents over the entire history of nuclear power.

Then compare that to... fuck, compare that number to ANYTHING. Compare it to lightning strikes, bea stings, drowning in Jello. But to be fair, go on and compare it to the number that die every year from cancer and lung disease, compare it to the cost of our poisoned water, compare it to "Gulf of Crude" BP just gave us, or on a smaller scale any of the hundreds of refinery explosions. And if you care about global warming, go on and compare the numbers you come up with to the estimated death toll for climate change.

[grahamhgreen]

45. When you compare all of the disasters caused by windmills to nuclear power, wind becomes cheaper.

[Chris_Texas]

55. Wind (and other energy sources) are a fine choice to augment nuclear

And perhaps one day they (or something better still) will replace both.

But in the meantime we need to go with the best we have available now.

[grahamhgreen]

56. See post #30

[grahamhgreen]

88. The fact is: "In 2008, renewable energy supplied around 19% of the world's energy consumption."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_resources_and_consumption#cite_note-ren21-p15-20

The time is now to abandon the dirty, dangerous, expensive nuclear folly.

[Chris_Texas]

153. Including hydroelectric and geothermal, yes. Like lots of dams do you?

I am all in favor of utilizing as much renewable energy as technology permits.

Surprisingly, we have an EXCELLENT tool with which to evaluate and test cost versus return.

For the last forty years we have had companies fighting (and usually failing) to build nuclear power plants -- in general they have been blocked by "environmental" groups backed by big-oil and other mega corporate interests. Exxon Mobile wants you burning OIL.

If solar and wind were such a great return on investment we would have companies fighting for all that free energy. It sounds like a GREAT deal! You just throw up a bunch of panels and collect the money for as long as the panels last. And you have NO ONE standing in your way. Certainly not the left, and it's not like rethugs hate anything that pays CEO's great money. So why aren't they?

Could it be that maybe, just maybe, it doesn't work quite as well in practice as the optimistic press releases suggest?

[grahamhgreen]

174. Actually, I do like dams. If Obama didn't provide the loan guarantees for nukes, they would not be

built.

[bananas]

24. I've never seen so much misinformation in one post. nt

[Chris_Texas]

52. Got any facts?

Sorry, but with all due respect, you need more.

You have sixty years of nuclear history you can dig through to make your case that nuclear, the power that currently powers twenty percent of America, is simply too dangerous to exist.

Sixty years of history. Sixty years of poisoned air and water. Sixty years of explosions wiping out towns. Sixty years of dead oceans. Sixty years of climate change. Only, all those things and more -- millions of deaths -- caused by oil and coal. Great stuff a hundred years ago, but today we have better.

[phantom power]

12. I think we should build a bunch more renewable power and confirm all that science.

[truth2power]

17. I am opposed to nuclear power and I wonder

why there isn't the technology without the hideous and catastrophic consequences for failure, that will do one simple thing....boil water.

That's all nuclear power plants do. They boil water to create steam to turn a turbine.

[MikeW]

25. you can do it with the Sun .. but only when its sunny

[truth2power]

144. What about storage batteries. i think these problems could be surmounted

with money and will.

[kristopher]

36. Electricty can boil water. We don't need to boil water for electricity. nt

[truth2power]

155. Oh, my. Yes, of course. Let me clarify...

Whether it's a coal-fired or a nuclear plant, they produce steam (from boiling water) to turn a turbine. Of course there are other ways to turn a turbine...water-power (hydroelectric) or even solar power. And those giant windmills aren't boiling water up there. They have some sort of generator that's powered by the turning of the windmill.

The point is that, IMO, nuclear power is a terrible technology with catastrophic effects if something goes wrong.

Even if it fails once in a hundred years, it's not an acceptable risk as far as I'm concerned. Some people are willing to assume more risk than others, but in this case it's not good enough for me.

[Confusious]

39. Solar plants do it to

Concentrated solar. You want a link, request and you will receive.

Or you can just look it up on Wikipedia.

[truth2power]

146. I'll look it up. thanks. n/t

[LAGC]

19. Come up with a serious plan that can power big cities and industries reliably and continously.

Then we'll talk about taking nuclear power off the table.

[kristopher]

23. That capability has been confirmed since at least 1992.

Why do you trust information from the nuclear industry while rejecting the findings of independent researchers when you would never consider accepting such conclusions if they were put forth by any other industry?

[MikeW]

27. report, link, citation to 1992? COME ON KRIS

we're all waiting!!

:popcorn:

[LAGC]

28. I don't base my opinion off of what the nuclear industry says.

I base my opinion on what many professors at my local university engineering department all say: there's simply no way to meet all of America's future energy needs without SOME reliance on cheap nuclear power.

Eventually, once the costs of large-scale renewable energy sources becomes more economical, we will be able to phase nuclear power out. But in the meantime, its a far better alternative than coal...

[kristopher]

40. Then it should be a simple matter to prove that - demand that they do so for...

they are teaching "common knowledge" that has been manufactured by the nuclear industry PR machine; common knowledge that is clearly refuted in the scientific literature.

Start your own research with the keyword "distributed grid"

[eridani]

183. One of the major problems with nuclear power is that it ISN'T cheap n/t

[cleanhippie]

74. Confirmed by who? From what?

Can you provide data or evidence to support your assertion?

[kristopher]

86. Please see post 82

[cleanhippie]

97. Is there a reason you are refusing to source your claims?

Its difficult to have a debate on this subject if we can just throw out claims without substantiating them.

[kristopher]

107. Because I want to know why you don't *already* believe them since they are true.

I'm not trying to persuade you, I want to pick your brain.

[joeglow3]

152. I HAVE to call bullshit

I don't even know how many people here have asked for a link and you refuse time and time again. Get off your fucking high horse and take advantage of all the ears you have here. Gather people to your cause instead of pissing them off and forcing them to run away.

[kristopher]

156. I didn't start this thread to prove the renewable case, I started it for nuclear supporters...

...to defend their attacks on renewables. I've been hearing the same evasions on this forum for years now, and it is time for the nuclear proponents who claim that renewables cannot do the job to back-up their assertions.


Do you not believe the statements in the OP?If not, why is that so?

Can *YOU* provide any support for your beliefs that is a product of peer reviewed science?

[joeglow3]

187. Even MORE reason to quit the evasion tactics

You claim this is a thread specifically for those with views different from your own. Take the opportunity to bring people TO your cause. Honestly, there is so much common sense being avoided here, the ONLY conclusion I can come to is you are talking out of your ass.

[kristopher]

190. No the thread is to expose the lies of the nuclear industry.

What you need to decide is whether you would like to explain why you support nuclear so that I can help you separate fact from fiction. If you support nuclear it is because you believe certain things to be true. The nuclear industry is like every other industry in that they are completely willing to manufacture false information to promote false beliefs in order to gain public support.

If you want to explain the reasons you support nuclear we have something to discuss, otherwise...

[kristopher]

194. Well?

You were extremely persistent, I thought you wanted to explain your support for nuclear.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=644471&mesg_id=652696

[joeglow3]

196. I question the ability of renewable sources generating the needed power

Please show me something showing I am wrong. Where is the peer reviewed evidence that we can feasibly power the world with renewable energy with today's technology.

[kristopher]

197. The evidence is everywhere.

Why do you not already know that renewables can power the planet. Have you been so convinced of the opposite that you have just dismissed anything that contradicted your belief?

The reason I ask is this, the information really is just about everywhere. It was established firmly in 1992 and has been accepted by the scientific community ever since. A lot of people don't pay much attention to things like energy supply, is that it? A general impressions cemented in place by no particular interest in the overall topic?

I really would like to know.

[joeglow3]

200. And yet, you still refuse to provide a link

Take this as an opportunity to educate people. I work in taxes. When someone posts something misleading on here, I take the opportunity to educate them and show them truth. I certainly don't get on my high horse, talk down to them, tell them they are wrong and that "the evidence is everywhere." Really, while you may know alot about renewable energy (I am not convinced yet, though), your social interaction skills need some serious practice.

[kristopher]

201. What do you think is false about the list in the op and *why*?

I'm aware that most of those who are pronuclear have made that judgment based on the fact that they do not know or believe the statements in the OP.

Again, given that I KNOW those statements are true, the natural question is WHY people believe they are false?

If you refuse to tell me WHY you think they are false, attempting to persuade is futile. I cannot address your objection without you making clear what specific belief you possess, because no matter how valid and relevant the evidence is to the end goal of the energy transition, you want the discussion to be one where you have the opportunity to dismiss any evidence I might present with a tactic such as a facile shifting of the goalpost. The persistence you and other display in trying to get me to give you "proof" is an obvious ploy to avoid defending YOUR position.

That is why I liken the nuclear supporters who have pursued that strategy on this thread to climate deniers. Climate deniers do the same thing. The sit back and present no evidence that actually supports their claims, but instead engage in a tribal game of sniping at the valid science with completely inane and irrelevant nonsense. However since there is no foundation to their position in reality, when you elicit their objection ahead of time they are forced to confront the weakness of their position.

That's the dynamic that exists when you have overwhelming evidence on your side.

[joeglow3]

204. Most people expect support when claims are presented

No one in the education/science community think you state something and leave it up to the other side to disprove it. Instead, you back your claims up with verifable support. Something you have refused to do.

[kristopher]

209. Thank you for you time.

In other words you are unwilling to state the basis on which you believe the facts to be false. What I'm doing is precisely what happens with real scientists as opposed to internet tribal warfare.

The established facts are the established facts. It is the nuclear supporters who falsely deny the established facts listed in the OP.

The burden of proof is ALWAYS on those who are making the contrarian claim.

YOU are making the contrarian claim.

[joeglow3]

224. So, I can make any claim and YOU must disprove it

God exists. Now disprove it or admit it is true.

[joeglow3]

226. Well?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=644471&mesg_id=665899

[Zoeisright]

238. What a strange username.

Do you work for the nuke industry?

[grahamhgreen]

34. See post #30

[originalpckelly]

41. Why mess with terrestrial nuclear when we can do it with the sun?

The sun has the biggest fusion reaction going in our solar system, you know.

Why not use that?

We can do it.

The technology has already been studied by NASA:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space-based_solar_power

There's one big ass problem with it: it's in space. That makes it fuggin' impossible to do, because it'd be too friggin' expensive to send up and provide a real solution.

You could however use these as a poor man's space-based solar power:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_altitude_airship

The problem with this was not the merits of the technology, but that it was just cut from the budget. That was a missile defense platform, but we could use this for a civilian cause.

We could do this shit, it would be a fuck lot easier to service than a space-based system. Extremely fucking cheap in comparison. It could be extremely high in the atmosphere. You can probably figure out a way to make it blend in with the sky, so you'd never even see them.

They could wirelessly transmit power to the ground, an already established technology. If NASA could do it from space, we can do it from extremely high altitude.

You could build the envelop of the airship to act as a reflector dish to aim on a centrally supported arm with a something that would convert the sunlight into electricity, send that to a structure on the bottom of the ship that transmits the power to the ground. Have a station on the ground that receives the power, and sends it out to the people on the grid.

You could also wirelessly transmit power ship to ship, and really it would be more of a station, to account for darkness at night. You could send power around the world to power your side of the grid. Or you could store it somehow, but transmission of the power being generated might just be an easier problem to solve.

The vehicles would be above the weather, so all of the major catastrophes of the past that involved bad weather and airships couldn't bring it down. This would also mean that you'd have reliable solar collection.

You could make it unmanned, and therefore use hydrogen. Now, both lift gases used in the past, hydrogen or helium, are mainly from fossil resources, but we could figure out a way to make the hydrogen from seawater.

You could put the collectors over unpopulated areas, and design them so that they'd break into tiny pieces if they should blow up.

It's reliable solar power.

And by the way, you could also capitalize on the technology being used for this to ship goods around the world faster than sea transport, and have heavier loads than the current jet air freight. A lot of money could be made there.

[AngryAmish]

186. then slap up a dyson sphere...

[defendandprotect]

157. For the sake of our health and lives, nuclear has to be ended --

and let's start turning those investments and guaranteed loans over to those

working on alternative energy --

[nemo137]

31. I'd like to see links, preferably peer-reviews and not on geocities, for the following:

"Renewable energy resources extracted with *existing technologies* are more than sufficient to meet all of modern societies energy needs on a more reliable grid than now exists."
"The renewable path is less expensive."
"The renewable path is faster to achieve."
"And last but not least in the long run widescale reliance on nuclear power and its controlling infrastructure "would", to quote an associate, "provide an irrevocable justification and impetus for the burgeoning surveillance/police state"."

If you're not willing to back up your "irrefutably true" statements, why should anyone bother to engage you?

[Confusious]

42. Well they are via solar

If you're willing to sacrifice 1/4 of Arizona for all the electricity in the United States.*

Now, if you want to cover over maricopa county, you might find we would be in agreement.....














*Does not include cars and transportation. A 66% increase in size will be needed to power those. Ask your local townspeople if they would like to sacrifice their town. Not valid in some countries.

[kristopher]

47. I'm not asking you to "engage me"...

Those points are not debatable just because you want them to be, they are established facts. The question is why do you not know that and why are you willing to accept information from an industry over information from independent, well qualified and established scientists?

Doesn't that sound a lot like what the climate deniers do?

[Confusious]

50. 70% of scientists support nuclear power

So you are taking the minority stance, same as the climate deniers.

[nemo137]

149. You brought some statements to the table.

And, let's face it, when you throw words like "all" and "irrefutably" around and start invoking unnamed associates, it behooves you to back things up and not just accuse anyone who disagrees with you of being a climate denier.

And, yeah, for the record I am pro-nuclear. If nothing else, because of inertia. We can build nuclear power plants now. We have the technology, it exists, it'll cut down on the amount of coal especially that we use. We have those things ready. It will take (if you'll let me spin out the inertia metaphor) some pushing to get any renewable tech off the ground and running. I would also say that the quake reinforces the need for a non-centralized power grid where we realize that what works in one area might not in another.

[kristopher]

168. Thank you.

Again, I'm not here to defend what science has already clearly established and all of the points in the OP are in that category. I have, on this forum, documented them any number of time over the past several years. What I'm hoping to see is support for the position of nuclear supporters. It is their habit to use a variety of tactics to designed to obfuscate what the science is VERY clear on. Just like climate science the truth is far too complex to overcome a determined assault unless the conditions for debate are controlled, such as in the peer review process.

You have made several statements that you believe to be true. Would it surprise you to know that they are largely not true?

You say that we can build nuclear now. Actually we cannot. The supply chain for nuclear power plants is almost non-existent; if we were to try to ramp up a build out of nuclear (addressing climate change with nuclear would require us to bring a new 1GW plant on line every other day for between 40-50 years) it would take a great deal of time. And then you need on average more than 10 years to plan and build each plant even if everything goes perfectly.

In 2002 the government, in collaboration with the nuclear industry set the goal of approving and building new nuclear by 2010. This was to test new policies that gave the industry everything they asked for and more. They wanted loan guarantees of 50%, they got them and then it was raised to 80%. They got it. They wanted the government to pick up the tab for any delays caused by regulatory issues (you know, those pesky environmentalists?) they got it. And a whole lot more besides as there were a whole array of things they said they needed and they got.

Anyway in spite of the 2010 goal we haven't even come close to bringing one online. They are at least 5-6 years away from the first of the few in the pipeline, but it is likely those will never actually get built.

The main problem for them is money - they are simply not competitive with the renewable alternatives when we look at the what are the expected markets for the time the plants will be completed. That means that what is happening now is based on the least cost technology that can deliver low carbon emissions -the fuel cycle behind that is called "once through" and it depends on uranium ore.

Scaling this up has consequences. If the once through cycle is what we use, we will soon deplete the high quality ore that it depends on to deliver low CO2 emissions. The science is very clear that decreases in ore quality result in increased carbon emissions. So it would be only a short time until nuclear electricity had an emissions penalty that is about equal to natural gas.

The alternative is to recycle spent fuel. It can be made to sound good but that raises the direct costs substantially and brings with it a lot of other problems related to waste handling, transport and proliferation but the central issue for us is costs because nuclear is ALREADY the most expensive option going forward.

Contrary to your belief about getting renewable up and running, the facts tell us that they are already doing that. Behind natural gas they have led the way in new generation several years in a row now.

You are correct about the benefit of non-centralized generation, but that means renewables, not nuclear. Google /NREL distributed grid power energy/ and read a bit about the way it works.

Thanks you for sharing your thinking.

[nemo137]

173. I appreciate your response, but I will still like to see some actual links.

You made fairly specific claims. You're also put in some weasel words about "belief," without providing any actual back-up. For example, you state that "decreases in ore quality result in increased carbon emissions." How? Is it increased difficulty in extracting and processing uranium ore? I would like to see some actual proof on that, although your disdain for peer-reviewed science and airy claims that you've already documented them makes me wary.

[kristopher]

178. Why don't you do the research yourself?

I've given you the framework that shows WHERE your beliefs are not in accord with the science, and spending my time trying to convince you further would be of as little benefit as the 30 minutes I took to write the last post which you've completely ignored.

I suggest you do this: since in your words I have a "disdain for peer-reviewed science" go find the peer reviewed science that supports those claims and, using the explanations I've provided, prove me wrong. It shouldn't be hard if your beliefs are true.

It would be a unique act for a supporter of nuclear power to do that since it hasn't happened here before. Please PM me with the thread and I'll be sure to show up.

[nemo137]

180. Again, ignoring the fact that *you* waltzed in with a series of claims.

For example, your claim about decreasing ore quality leading to increased CO2 emissions (I'm going to assume you're talking about lifecycle CO2 emissions here, where the increase comes from added costs to extract and refine the uranium?) - I looked for that. It turns out that the lifetime CO2 emissions for a nuclear power plant are still about 10 times less than oil or coal fired plants*. Incidentally, I also found the Oxford Research Group's Secure Energy booklet, which projected that total CO2 emissions would pass that of a gas-fired plant by 2070**.

The IPCC, while acknowleging Storm and Smith's higher lifetime numbers, suggests that nuclear power is "an effective GHG mitigation option."*** Although, admittedly, this was from a 2007 report, so if you've got anything more recent, I'd love to hear it.

This is what I found with just the amount of crashing around on the internet that I'm willing to do at 1 a.m., and just on one topic you mentioned. Surely you could have thrown the odd link into your OP, and avoided all the drama in this thread caused by you making unsubstantiated claims and then getting defensive about it?

*http://www.nirs.org/climate/background/sovacool_nuclear_ghg.pdf
**http://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/sites/default/files/secureenergy.pdf
***http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch4s4-3-2.html

[kristopher]

181. van Leeuwan predicts while...

...Savocol is talking about current ore qualities. What van Leeuwan predicts is that with widescale deployment of nuclear power, the CO2 emissions/kwh for nuclear will rise to a level comparable to natural gas. Far from the current 1/10th of coal, that places nuclear energy's lifetime emissions at almost HALF that which we would have if we continued to burn coal.


Since such a global nuclear buildout would economically lock us into that infrastructure for about the next 100 years, do you really think that it is wise to spend out time to build up an entire industry supply chain and then all the plants (one every two days for 40 years)?

Does that really strike you as a good idea?

The IPCC report merely identified options for the short list, they did not attempt to prioritize what is most desirable.

[HuckleB]

38. First, prove the list of claims you offered in your OP.

Then we can start a discussion. (And I'm seriously hoping that we can stop all future nuclear projects.)

[kristopher]

48. I take it that means you cannot refute those statements.

So the only course left to you is to try and shift the focus.

Let me go this far - all the envirnomental groups that deal with energy issues and climate change agree with what I'm saying. Are they lying or is the nuclear industry lying?

[HuckleB]

49. You made your claims.

Now back them up.

If you can't back up your claims, then don't make them.

Game over.

:eyes:

[kristopher]

51. Is the nuclear industry lying or are the environmental groups lying?

Simple question - they can't both be telling the truth.

[HuckleB]

58. Maybe they're both lying to some extent.

But that's just a red herring. Prove your claims or admit that you can't do so.

This is very simple.

[Paradoxical]

60. You do realize that there are environmentalists who support nuclear energy, don't you?

[kristopher]

64. Perhaps you could share the name?

[Paradoxical]

65. "Why a Greenpeace co-founder went nuclear"

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/8835.html

"Today, he co-chairs the Nuclear Energy Institute’s Clean and Safe Energy Coalition and is a harsh critic of what he calls an “extremist” anti-nuclear environmental movement — his former Greenpeace colleagues and others who are unwilling to consider nuclear energy as a solution to global warming.

“Anybody taking a realistic view of our country’s energy requirements knows nuclear has to be a big part of the global warming equation,” Moore said. “These environmental groups are not doing that.”

[kristopher]

68. He is a PAID spokesman.

[Paradoxical]

71. It's his fucking job. He left green peace to work towards what he considers a solution.

But go ahead and stick your head in the sand.

[JBoy]

78. Links are NOT a non-renewable resource.

[cleanhippie]

77. Not until you share the sources for your claims.

[defendandprotect]

158. After Japan -- ????

[Paradoxical]

59. Environmental groups are not full of angels.

They are full of human beings. Human beings who make mistakes.

[cleanhippie]

75. Hold up a sec. YOU made assertions without supporting evidence. It is reasonable to ask

for you to support your claims before debating your claims. That is NOT shifting the focus, it is bringing the focus directly on the claims you made.

[kristopher]

92. I haven't made any "claims" I've recapped the conclusions supported by science.

You want it all wrapped up into a single blog entry. That's impossible. For example, does the following list convince you? It is the "science" behind a single paper that goes into partial support for just one of the points above.

1 World Health Organization (WHO), The World Health Report, Annex Table 9, 2002, http://www.who.int/whr/2002/en/whr2002_ annex9_10.pdf.
170 | Energy Environ. Sci., 2009, 2, 148–173
This journal is a The Royal Society of Chemistry 2009
2 B. D. Ostro, H. Tran and J. I. Levy, The health benefits of reduced tropospheric ozone in California, J. Air Waste Manage. Assoc., 2006, 56, 1007–1021.
3 C. A. Pope, III and D. W. Dockery, 2006 Critical review – Health effects of fine particulate air pollution: Lines that connect, J. Air Waste Manage. Assoc., 2006, 56, 709–742.
4 M. Z. Jacobson, The climate response of fossil-fuel and biofuel soot, accounting for soot’s feedback to snow and sea ice albedo and emissivity, J. Geophys. Res., 2004, 109, D21201.
28 Ocean Energy Council, 2008, www.oceanenergycouncil.com/ index.php/Tidal-Energy/Tidal-Energy.html.
29 International Energy Agency (IEA), Statistics by county/region, 2006, www.iea.org/Textbase/stats/index.asp.
30 Energy Information Administration (EIA) (2008) International energy outlook 2008, http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/coal.html. 31 D. V. Spitzley, and G. A. Keoleian, Life cycle environmental and
economic assessment of willow biomass electricity: A comparison with other renewable and non-renewable sources, Report No. CSS04–05R, 2005, http://css.snre.umich.edu/css_doc/CSS04-05R.
32 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), IPCC special report on carbon dioxide capture and storage. Prepared by working group III, ed. Metz. B., O. Davidson, H. C. de Coninck, M. Loos, and L. A. Meyer, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2005, 442 pp., http://arch.rivm.nl/env/int/ ipcc/.
33 M. Z. Jacobson and G. M. Masters, Exploiting wind versus coal, Science, 2001, 293, 1438–1438.
34 M. J. Dvorak, M. Z. Jacobson, and C. L. Archer (2007), California offshore wind energy potential, Proc. AWAE Wind Power, 2007, June 3-6, Los Angeles, California, CD-ROM.
35 W. Munk and C. Wunsch, Abyssal recipes II: energetics of tidal and wind mixing, Deep–Sea Res. Part I, 1998, 45(12), 1977–2010.
36 G. I. Marchuk, and B. A. Kagan, Dynamics of Ocean Tides, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1989.
37 S. Krohn, ed., The energy balance of modern wind turbines, Wind Power, 1997, 16, 1–15.
38 E. H. du Marchie van Voorthuysen, Large-scale concentrating solar power (CSP) technology, in Macro-Engineering: a Challenge for the Future, ed. V. Badescu, R. B. Cathcart, R. D. Schuiling, Springer, 2006, (Ch. 3), www.gezen.nl/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2007/ 01/macroengineering-5.pdf.
39 Mendax Microsystems, Solar power plants, 2007, http://www. mendax.com/Solution-Warehouse.aspx?slnid 1⁄4 75&iid1⁄4.
40 K. Tahara, T. Kojimaa and A. Inaba, Evaluation of CO2 payback time of power plant by LCA, Energy Convers. Manage., 1997, 38(Supp. 1), S615–S620, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ ob 1⁄4 ArticleURL&_udi 1⁄4 B6V2P-4DS9V40-3K&_user 1⁄4 145269&_ rdoc 1⁄4 1&_fmt 1⁄4 &_orig1⁄4search&_sort1⁄4d&view1⁄4c&_acct 1⁄4 C000012078&_version 1⁄4 1&_urlVersion 1⁄4 0&_userid 1⁄4 145269& md5 1⁄4 8381efaf8294dc1d2054d3882d53d667.
41 S. Banerjee, L. J. Duckers, R. Blanchard, and B. K. Choudhury, Life cycle analysis of selected solar and wave energy systems. Adv. Energy Res. 2006, www.ese.iitb.ac.in/aer2006_files/papers/142.pdf.
42 R. Delmas, Long term greenhouse gas emissions from the hydroelectric reservoir of Petit Saut (French Guiana) and potential impacts, Global Warming and Hydroelectric Reservoirs, 2005, CDD 363.73874, pp. 117–124.
43 P. J. Meier, Life-cycle assessment of electricity generation systems and applications for climate change policy analysis, Fusion Technology Institute, U. Wisconsin, 2002, UWFDM-1181, http://fti.neep.wisc. edu/pdf/fdm1181.pdf.
44 J. Pearce, and A. Lau, Net energy analysis for sustainable energy production from silicon based solar cells, Proceedings of Solar 2002, Sunrise on the Reliable Energy Economy, June 15–20, 2002, Reno, Nevada, http://jupiter.clarion.edu/?jpearce/Papers/ netenergy.pdf.
45 C. Bankier, and S. Gale, Energy payback of roof mounted photovoltaic cells, Energy Bulletin, 2006, www.energybulletin.net/ 17219.html.
46 V. Fthenakis and E. Alsema, Photovoltaics energy payback times, greenhouse gas emissions and external costs: 2004–early 2005 status, Prog. Photovolt: Res. Appl., 2006, 14, 275–280, www.clca. columbia.edu/papers/Photovoltaic_Energy_Payback_Times.pdf.
47 M. Raugei, S. Bargigli and S. Ulgiati, Life cycle assessment and energy pay-back time of advanced photovoltaic modules: CdTe and CIS compared to poly-Si, Energy, 2007, 32, 1310–1318.
48 V. M. Fthenakis and H. C. Kim, Greenhouse-gas emissions from solar electric- and nuclear power: A life-cycle study, Energy Policy, 2007, 35, 2549–2557.
49 World Nuclear Association (WNO), Comparative carbon dioxide emissions from power generation, 2008, www.world-nuclear.org/ education/comparativeco2.html.
5 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), The physical science basis of climate change, Cambridge University Press, New pdf.
York, 2007, http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/. 6 M. Z. Jacobson, Strong radiative heating due to the mixing state of
black carbon in atmospheric aerosols, Nature, 2001, 409, 695–697. 7 M. Z. Jacobson, Control of fossil-fuel particulate black carbon plus organic matter, possibly the most effective method of slowing global
warming, J. Geophys. Res., 2002, 107(D19), 4410. 8 S. H. Chung and J. H. Seinfeld, Global Distribution and Climate
Forcing of Carbonaceous Aerosols, J. Geophys. Res., ,
2002, 107(D19), 4407. 9 J. Hansen and et al., Efficacy of climate forcing, J. Geophys. Res.,
2005, 110, D18104. 10 V. Ramanathan and G. Carmichael, Global and regional climate
changes due to black carbon, Nat. Geosci., 2008, 1, 221–227. 11 G. M. Masters, Renewable and Efficient Electric Power Systems,
John Wiley and Sons, New York, 2004, 654 pp. 12 National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), PVWatts: A
performance calculator for grid-connected PV systems, 2008, http://
rredc.nrel.gov/solar/codes_algs/PVWATTS/system.html. 13 J. W. Tester, E. M. Drake, M. J. Driscoll, M. W. Golay, and W. A. Peters, Sustainable Energy, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass,
2005, 846 pp. 14 World Energy Organization (WEO), 2007, www.worldenergy.org/
documents/ser2007_executive_summary.pdf. 15 Cruz, J., ed., Ocean Wave Energy, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2008, 431
pp. 16 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Working
Group III, 2007b, http://www.mnp.nl/ipcc/pages_media/FAR4docs/
final_pdfs_ar4/Chapter04.pdf. 17 Department of Energy (DOE), 2008, http://www.fossil.energy.gov/
programs/powersystems/futuregen/. 18 W. G. Colella, M. Z. Jacobson and D. M. Golden, Switching to
a U.S. hydrogen fuel cell vehicle fleet: The resultant change in emissions, energy use, and global warming gases, J. Power Sources, 2005, 150, 150–181.
19 M. Z. Jacobson, W. G. Colella and D. M. Golden, Cleaning the air and improving health with hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, Science, 2005, 308, 1901–1905.
20 International Energy Agency (IEA) (2007) Key World Energy Statistics 2007, www.iea.org/textbase/nppdf/free/2007/key_stats_ 2007.pdf.
21 Wikipedia, Photovoltaics, 2008, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Photovoltaic.
22 A. Leitner, Fuel from the sky: Solar Power’s Potential for Western Energy Supply, NREL/SR-550-32160, 2002, www.nrel.gov/csp/ pdfs/32160.pdf.
23 C. L. Archer and M. Z. Jacobson, Evaluation of global wind power, J. Geophys. Res., 2005, 110, D12110.
24 W. Kempton, C. L. Archer, A. Dhanju, R. W. Garvine and M. Z. Jacobson, Large CO2 reductions via offshore wind power matched to inherent storage in energy end-uses, Geophys. Res. Lett., 2007, 34, L02817.
25 Global Wind Energy Council (GWEC), 2008, http://www.gwec.net/ index.php?id 1⁄4 30#x0026;no_cache 1⁄4 1#x0026;tx_ttnews%5Btt_ news%5D 1⁄4 139#x0026;tx_ttnews%5BbackPid%5D 1⁄4 4#x0026; cHash 1⁄4 6691aa654e.
26 R. Wiser, and M. Bolinger, Annual report on U.S. wind power installation, cost, and performance trends: 2007, LBNL-275E, U.S. Department of Energy, 2008, http://eetd.lbl.gov/ea/ems/reports/ lbnl-275e.pdf.
27 Geothermal Energy Association (GEA), 2008, www.geo-energy.org/ aboutGE/environment.aspwww.geo-energy.org/aboutGE/basics. aspwww.geo-energy.org/aboutGE/powerPlantCost.aspwww.geo- energy.org/aboutGE/potentialUse.asp#world.
This journal is a The Royal Society of Chemistry 2009
Energy Environ. Sci., 2009, 2, 148–173 | 171
50 B. K. Sovacool, Valuing the greenhouse gas emissions from nuclear power: A critical survey, Energy Policy, 2008, 36, 2940–2953.
51 F. H. Koch, Hydropower-internalized costs and externalized benefits, International Energy Agency (IEA) - Implementing agreement for hydropower technologies and programs, Ottawa, Canada, 2000, www.nei.org/keyissues/protectingtheenvironment/ lifecycleemissionsanalysis/.
52 N. Odeh and T. T. Cockerill, Life cycle GHG assessment of fossil fuel power plants with carbon capture and storage, Energy Policy, 2008, 36, 367–380.
53 H. Shapouri, J. A. Duffield and M. Wang, The energy balance of corn ethanol revisited, Trans. ASAE, 2003, 46, 959–968.
54 D. Pimentel and T. W. Patzek, Ethanol production using corn, switchgrass, and wood; biodiesel production using soybean and sunflower, Nat. Resour. Res., 2005, 14, 67–76.
55 A. E. Farrell, R. J. Plevin, B. T. Turner, A. D. Jones, M. O’Hare and D. M. Kammen, Ethanol can contribute to energy and environmental goals, Science, 2006, 311, 506–508.
56 T. Patzek, Science, 2006, 312, 1747, supporting online material. 57 T. W. Patzek, The real biofuel cycle, 2006b, http://petroleum. berkeley.edu/patzek/BiofuelQA/Materials/RealFuelCycles-Web.pdf. 58 M. Delucchi, Lifecycle analyses of biofuels, 2006, www.its.
ucdavis.edu/publications/2006/UCD-ITS-RR-06-08.pdf. 59 D. Tilman, J. Hill and C. Lehman, Carbon-negative biofuels from
low-input high-diversity grassland, Science, 2006, 314, 1598–1600. 60 J. Fargione, J. Hill, D. Tilman, S. Polasky and P. Hawthorne, Land clearing and the biofuel carbon debt, Science, 2008, 319,
1235–1238. 61 T. Searchinger, R. Heimlich, R. A. Houghton, F. Dong, A. Elobeid,
J. Fabiosa, S. Tokgoz, D. Hayes and T.-H. Yu, Use of U.S. cropland for biofuels increases greenhouse gases through emissions from land- use change, Science, 2008, 319, 1238–1240.
62 M. Z. Jacobson, The short-term cooling but long-term global warming due to biomass burning, J. Clim., 2004, 17, 2909–2926. 63 B. Cohen, The nuclear energy option, Plenum Press, 1990,
www.phyast.pitt.edu/?blc/book/chapter9.html. 64 J. Koomey and N. E. Hultman, A reactor-level analysis of busbar
costs for U.S. nuclear plants, 1970–2005, Energy Policy, 2007, 35,
5630–5642. 65 World Nuclear Association (WNO), Energy analysis of power
systems, 2008a, www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf11.html. 66 T. Van de Wekken, Doing it right: The four seasons of wind farm development, 2008, http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/
news/reworld/story?id 1⁄4 52021. 67 D. Chandrasekharam, Geothermal energy resources and utilization,
2008, www.geos.iitb.ac.in/geothermalindia/pubs/geoweb.htm. 68 O. B. Toon, R. P. Turco, A. Robock, C. Bardeen, L. Oman and G. L. Stenchikov, Atmospheric effects and societal consequences of regional scale nuclear conflicts and acts of individual nuclear
terrorism, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 2007, 7, 1973–2002. 69 National Academy of Sciences (NAS), Monitoring nuclear weapons and nuclear-explosive materials, National Academy of Sciences,
Washington, D.C., 2005, 250 pp. 70 A. Robock, L. Oman, G. L. Stenchikov, O. B. Toon, C. Bardeen and
R. P. Turco, Climate consequences of regional nuclear conflicts,
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 2007, 7, 2003–2012. 71 United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA),
Methodology for estimating CO2 emissions from municipal solid waste combustion, 2003, http://yosemite.epa.gov/OAR/ globalwarming.nsf/UniqueKeyLookup/LHOD5MJT9U/$File/2003- final-inventory_annex_i.pdf.
72 M. O. Andreae and P. Merlet, Emission of trace gases and aerosols from biomass burning, Global Biogeochem. Cycles, 2001, 15, 955– 966.
73 M. Z. Jacobson, On the causal link between carbon dioxide and air pollution mortality, Geophys. Res. Lett., 2008, 35, L03809.
74 J. V. Spadaro and A. Rabl, Damage costs due to automotive air pollution and the influence of street canyons, Atmos. Environ., 2001, 35, 4763–4775.
75 M. Z. Jacobson, Effects of ethanol (E85) versus gasoline vehicles on cancer and mortality in the United States, Environ. Sci. Technol., 2007, 41(11), 4150–4157.
76 L. A. Graham, S. L. Belisle and C.-L. Baas, Emissions from light duty gasoline vehicles operating on low blend ethanol gasoline and E85, Atmos. Environ., 2008, 42, 4498–4516.
77 United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Agriculture baseline database, 2008, http://www.ers.usda.gov/db/baseline/ default.asp?ERSTab 1⁄4 3.
78 Hladik, Cellulose ethanol is ready to go, 2006, www.c2c.ucsb.edu/ summit2006/pdf/presentation_maurice_hladik.pdf.
79 M. R. Schmer, K. P. Vogel, R. B. Mitchell and R. K. Perrin, Net energy of cellulosic ethanol from switchgrass, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A., 2008, 105, 464–469.
80 United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Estimated quantity of water applied and method of distribution by selected crops harvested: 2003 and 1998, 2003, www.agcensus.usda.gov/ Publications/2002/FRIS/tables/fris03_28.pdf.
81 Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP), Water use by ethanol plants: Potential challenges, 2006, Summary Data Sheet, http://www.agobservatory.org/library.cfm?refid 1⁄4 89449.
82 D. Pimentel, Ethanol fuels: Energy balance, economics, and environmental impacts are negative, Nat. Resour. Res., 2003, 12, 127–134. 83 P. Torcellini, N. Long, and R. Judkoff, Consumptive water use for US power production, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy, 2003, www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/
33905.pdf. 84 Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) (2002), Water &
Sustainability (Vol. 3): U.S. water consumption for power production – the next half century, Topical Report 1006786, March 2002, www.epriweb.com/public/000000000001006786.pdf.
85 American Wind Energy Association (AWEA), 2008, http:// www.awea.org/faq/water.html.
86 L. Stoddard, J. Abiecunas, and R. O’Connell, Economic, energy, and environmental benefits of concentrating solar power in California, NREL/SR-550–39291, 2006, http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy06osti/ 39291.pdf.
87 S. S. Hutson, N. L. Barber, J. F. Kenny, K. S. Linsey, D. S. Lumia, and M. A. Maupin, Estimated use of water in the United States in 2000, USGS Circular 1268, 2004, http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/2004/ circ1268/.
88 American Bird Conservancy (ABC), 2008a, www.abcbirds.org. 89 J. D. Milliman and R. H. Meade, World-wide delivery of river
sediment to the oceans, J. Geol., 1983, 91, 1–21. 90 Dong Energy, Vattenfall, Danish Energy Authority, and Danish
Forest and Nature Agency, Danish Offshore Wind: Key Environmental issues, 2006www.ens.dk/graphics/Publikationer/ Havvindmoeller/havvindmoellebog_nov_2006_skrm.pdf.
91 D. B. Menzel, Ozone: an overview of its toxicity in man and animals, J. Toxicol. Environ. Health, 1984, 13, 183–204.
92 A. H. Johnson and T. G. Siccama, Acid deposition and forest decline, Environ. Sci. Technol., 1983, 17, 294–305.
93 S. B. McLaughlin, Effects of air pollution on forests. A critical review, J. Air Pollut. Control Assoc., 1985, 35, 512–534.
94 H. Sandermann, Ozoneand plant health, Annual Review of Phytopathology, 1996, 34, 347–366.
95 San Jose Mercury News (2006), April 27, 2006. 96 National Academy of Sciences (NAS), Environmental impacts
of wind-energy projects, 2007, http://books.nap.edu/catalog.php?
record_id 1⁄4 11935 - toc. 97 Lunar Energy, 2008, http://www.lunarenergy.co.uk/
productOverview.htm. 98 T. Williams, Drunk on Ethanol, Audubon, Aug. 2004, http://
magazine.audubon.org/incite/incite0408.html. 99 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC), 2008,
http://www.nrc.gov/waste/hlw-disposal/yucca-lic-app.html. 100 E. StaMaria, and M. Z. Jacobson, New parameterization for wind farm effects on the atmosphere, Proc. AWEA Windpower 2008
Conference, Houston, Texas, 2008, June 1–4, CD-ROM. 101 H. Zerriffi, H. Dowlatabadi and N. Strachan, Electricity and conflict:
Advantages of a distributed system, Electr. J., 2002, 15, 55–65. 102 North American Reliability Council (2005) 2000–2004 generating
availability report, http://www.nerc.com/?gads/. 103 Energy Information Administration (EIA), Nuclear power plant
operations, 1957–2006, 2007, www.eia.doe.gov/aer/txt/ptb0902.html. 104 San Diego Regional Renewable Energy Study Group, Potential for renewable energy in the San Diego Region August 2005, Appendix E: Solar thermal – concentrated solar power, 2005,
www.renewablesg.org/docs/Web/AppendixE.pdf. 105 E. Kahn, The reliability of distributed wind generators, Electr.
Power Syst., 1979, 2, 1–14.
172 | Energy Environ. Sci., 2009, 2, 148–173
This journal is a The Royal Society of Chemistry 2009
106 C. L. Archer and M. Z. Jacobson, Spatial and temporal distributions of U.S. winds and wind power at 80 m derived from measurements, J. Geophys. Res., 2003, 108(D9), 4289.
107 C. L. Archer and M. Z. Jacobson, Supplying baseload power and reducing transmission requirements by interconnecting wind farms, J. Appl. Meteorol. Clim., 2007, 46, 1701–1717.
108 Red Electrica De Espana, Wind power generation in real time, 2008, www.ree.es/ingles/operacion/curvas_eolica.asp.
109 M. Grubb, The integration of renewable electricity sources, Energy Policy, 1991, 19, 670–688.
110 Solarnavigator, Geothermal energy, 2008, www.solarnavigator.net/ geothermal_energy.htm.
111 G. Hoste, M. Dvorak, and M. Z. Jacobson, Combining renewables to provide baseload or load matching power. VPUE Final Report, Stanford University, 2008.
112 Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E), 2008, http://www.pge.com/ mybusiness/customerservice/meter/smartmeter/.
113 W. Kempton and J. Tomic, Vehicle-to-grid power implementation: From stabilizing the grid to supporting large-scale renewable energy, J. Power Sources, 2005, 144, 280–294.
114 California Wind Energy Collaborative, California RPS integration cost analysis-Phase I: One year analysis of existing resources, CEC 500-03-108C, 2003.
115 K. R. Voorspools and W. D. D’haeseleer, Critical evaluation of methods for wind-power appraisal, Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev., 2007, 11, 78–97.
116 RePower Systems, 2008, www.repowder.de/index.php?id1⁄4237& amp;L1⁄41.
117 M. Eberhard, and M. Tarpenning, The 21st century electric car, 2006, http://www.evworld.com/library/Tesla_21centuryEV.pdf.

[cleanhippie]

98. Is this a cut-and-paste from Wikipedia?

Your post....

Renewable energy resources extracted with *existing technologies* are more than sufficient to meet all of modern societies energy needs on a more reliable grid than now exists.
Prove it and I will believe you.

The renewable path is less expensive.

Prove it and I will believe you.

The renewable energy path is completely sustainable.

Prove it and I will believe you.

The renewable path is safer in all ways.

Prove it and I will believe you.

The renewable path is faster to achieve.

Prove it and I will believe you.

And last but not least in the long run widescale reliance on nuclear power and its controlling infrastructure "would", to quote an associate, "provide an irrevocable justification and impetus for the burgeoning surveillance/police state".

Prove it and I will believe you.



Do you see the problem here? You made some very strong claims, yet have provided nothing to support those claims.

[kristopher]

105. Why do you believe those are false claims.

That is the point of the OP. If this is all you have to say then we are done.

[Paradoxical]

108. Until evidence is shown that supports a claim, it is assumed to be false.

That's how science works.

How are you not understanding this?

[cleanhippie]

188. FFS! I WANT to believe you, but you have to substantiate your claims.

But with each evasion, you lose more and more credibility. You pretty much have none at this point, so back up your statements with factual evidence and we can move on.

[kristopher]

191. I asked why you support nuclear.

If you want to share that, then we have something to discuss, if not then we don't.
Here is a tip - if you DON'T believe the list in the OP it means you don't understand the facts and you need to scrutinize your sources of information because they are leading you astray.

[cleanhippie]

195. We have nothing to discuss until you substantiate the claims you made in the OP.

Until you do so, there IS nothing else to discuss except your evasion of providing the support for your claims.

[kristopher]

198. Prove the claims wrong.

The nuclear industry is certainly dedicated to discrediting the competition, so their PR guys at the NEI should have it on file, don't you think?

This is my thread, and I asked the nuclear supporters to back up the claim THEY make with solid evidence. The claims of the nuclear supporters are that all the OP facts are not true.

You can't wriggle out of that by pretending you don't understand the OP.

[cleanhippie]

205. Prove the claims right.

YOU made the claims, YOU prove them true. You sound like a religious fanatic making outrageous claims then refusing to support them with any evidence, and instead telling everyone to prove HIM wrong.

Unbelievable.

[kristopher]

214. You are simply being contrarian. Have a nice day.

End transmission.

[bighart]

208. To answer your question I need some clarification

From the op "Renewable energy resources extracted with *existing technologies* are more than sufficient to meet all of modern societies energy needs on a more reliable grid than now exists"
What is with the * * around existing technologies?

[kristopher]

215. It is a tag from the old days to add emphasis to a word or phrase.

[Paradoxical]

99. At least 46 of your links do not work or do not link to any evidence.

At least 1 of your links actually provides evidence that nuclear energy is clean

http://www.nei.org/keyissues/protectingtheenvironment/

http://www.nei.org/keyissues/protectingtheenvironment/cleanair/

"Clean-Air Benefits of Nuclear Energy"


On edit: I hate to laugh, but this is just getting sad.

[kristopher]

109. Did what you just do pass as "science" where you come from?

[Paradoxical]

111. Let me restate this: At least 46 of your links do not work.

They either give an error message or link to things like the DU homepage.

And at least one of your links actually supports nuclear energy.


Did you purposefully try to fuck up this royally? Is this a joke?

[HuckleB]

112. So delay is your only tactic at this point.

Goodness.

:spray:

[HuckleB]

103. In other words, you've made claims, and you don't understand any of them!

:rofl:

[JBoy]

114. You should credit Mark Jacobson when you copy his bibliography unattributed.

[HuckleB]

148. .

:rofl:

[Lil Missy]

202. No. It means YOU made the claims, YOU need to back up your statements.

Links? Sources?

[Confusious]

46. Because it will take 1/4 of arizona to power the United States via solar*

With a capacity factor of 20%.
















* Does not include transportation. a 66% inrease in size will be required. Ask your local townspeople if they would like to sacrifice their town. Not valid in some countries.

[Capitalocracy]

62. Sounds doable.

If you put a solar panel or two on every roof, put a bunch of them on the roofs of things like schools, supermarkets, office buildings, military bases, all that stuff, then does that amount to the same amount of energy as filling 1/4 of Arizona with solar panels? Sounds like it could come close.

How about if you add solar panels to roads (something they're working on that's looking very doable in the near future)? Will that do the trick?

How about also adding wind, underwater turbines, and a slew of other innovative technologies that exist today? Think we can hack it with all that?

And how many jobs would it create to do so?

OK, so I'm not saying shut down all the nuclear power plants. As a matter of fact, as we go phasing out old energy, let's shut down coal first. But we can eliminate them.

[kristopher]

67. We have enough "brownfield sites" to accommodate solar.

Then there are ALSO the residential and commercial rooftops.

[Capitalocracy]

80. And have you seen this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ep4L18zOEYI

[Confusious]

95. there aren't that many roofs and some buildings

have more then one level.

in the future, yes that stuff will do the trick, not right now though. 50 years from now.

there is not one commercial wave plant in operation right now. environmental groups are already contesting the land required for solar plants.

We need something to get from point A to point B or we walk, or never get there.

[JBoy]

53. Link-free posting of "irrefutably true statements" = religion.

[MikeW]

54. no links, no reports, no data ... we're all still waiting Kris ... all you have to do is post em.

[Paradoxical]

57. Part of your OP is absolutely true. The other part, not so much.

Renewable energy is the future. It must be the future.

However, that does not mean that it is viable as the primary source of energy at this time. Research and technological advancement is still needed. On our way towards energy independence, we must be willing to take steps away from fossil fuel consumption. Whether or not you want to admit it, nuclear power is one of those steps.


Also, reliance on nuclear power does not in any way shape or form perpetuate a "police state". I don't know what kind of absurd logical chains you have to navigate to come to that conclusion. But it's ridiculous.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

61. If what you say were true, I wouldn't support the use of nuclear energy.

Since it isn't, yet, I do - we need nuclear power as a stopgap between fossil fuels - which we need to stop relying on as soon as possible - and renewable sources - which we can't yet afford to rely on.

The crucial mistake you make is "The renewable path is less expensive" - this is simply not true.

[kristopher]

73. Yes it is true.

What type of evidence would convince you of that point?
Reports from the academic community?
Evaluations by independent nonprofit analysts?
Reports by profit motivated credit rating agencies?

[cleanhippie]

79. ANY evidence would convince us, but you have provided NONE AT ALL.

You seem to be ignoring the repeated requests by nearly everyone here for you to show the source for the claims you made. Why won;t you source your claims?

[JVS]

81. This

[Recovered Repug]

84. It must be true, I read it on the internet.

Well, in the OP actually - but still.

[DCBob]

69. Wow.. cheaper, safer, faster, and more sustainable... what's not to love.

pipe dream.

[kristopher]

82. I'm not trying to persuade anyone with this thread

Really, I just want to know why you don't believe it. I've spent about 9 years now studying how to make the transition away from fossil fuels and I'm confident of what the science says. What I don't understand is the attitude that rejects that science in favor of PR from any industry. Can you explain it? Can you show ANYTHING to support your rejection of the science?

[MikeW]

85. you want people to believe (in) you

"I just want to know why you don't believe it. I've spent about 9 years now studying how to make the transition away from fossil fuels and I'm confident of what the science says."


If your that knowledgeable in the field then surely you have some data, reports, links, studies SOMETHING that we can read.

Sorry if we dont take your word for it, but we dont take your word for it.

[Luminous Animal]

91. You can view it here...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x626150

The OP has written extensively on this topic.

[DCBob]

90. I think you need to present some evidence instead of just repeating the words "science" & "facts"..

over and over again... its getting monotonous.

[Maru Kitteh]

93. +1

[kristopher]

113. Where did you "learn" that those claims are false?

The question I'm asking with the OP is why you believe they are NOT true. Since they are, it is a matter of concern in exactly the same way that the beliefs of people who reject the science-supported conclusion that global warming is real, that it is man-made and that it is a threat.

I'm not interested in trying to convince you, I want to know why you feel the need to attack what I know to be true.

[DCBob]

115. The better question is: Why are you so convinced they are true?

That would help us to understand where you are coming from.

[kristopher]

118. Because I've done 9 years of research on this topic.

That is real research; lots of reading, writing papers, giving presentations all that kind of stuff. All of it self funded by a long suffering wife and a dwindling bank balance.

[DCBob]

121. How about your thought process? What particular pieces of evidence convinced you?

duration <> enlightenment

[kristopher]

123. A question for nuclear suppporters

The science says WE DO NOT *NEED* NUCLEAR ENERGY.

These are the facts of the matter:

Renewable energy resources extracted with *existing technologies* are more than sufficient to meet all of modern societies energy needs on a more reliable grid than now exists.

The renewable path is less expensive.

The renewable energy path is completely sustainable.

The renewable path is safer in all ways.

The renewable path is faster to achieve.

And last but not least in the long run widescale reliance on nuclear power and its controlling infrastructure "would", to quote an associate, "provide an irrevocable justification and impetus for the burgeoning surveillance/police state".

Those are ALL irrefutably true statements.

In light of that why do YOU support nuclear power?

[DCBob]

125. Now you are going in circles...

never mind. I'm going to bed. Ciao.

[Union Scribe]

159. Then it should be pretty simple to (re)produce the work.

[cleanhippie]

70. How long and at what cost would it take to replace current nuke power output

with renewables?

[kristopher]

87. I wouldn't replace existing nuclear until it wears out.

I'm concerned with the most rapid transition to a carbon free economy that we can effect.

[Paradoxical]

89. No you're not. You're concerned with demonizing nuclear energy.

[Luminous Animal]

94. Nuclear energy is doing a pretty good job of demonizing itself.

[Paradoxical]

100. Actually it's not. 14,000 years of cumulative operation with only 2 major accidents.

It's doing a pretty good job of validating it's safety records.

[defendandprotect]

167. Did you forget Japan already? And, are you saying this emergency in Japan is over?

How much illness do these plants cause simply when they're working normally ---

or are we all just getting cancer cause we decided to?

Schultz also did an interesting recap of the Three Mile Island Castrophe tonight

reminding us of the tremdendous damage to health --

[defendandprotect]

163. No one needs to "demonize" nuclear -- it's doing that to itself --

[cleanhippie]

96. Ok, but how long and at what cost would it take to replace the current output of nuke power?

And where did you get the data you posted in your OP? Can you source that?

[DCBob]

102. Seems he gets most of his "evidence" from some group called the Rocky Mountain Institute..

They seem like a legit organization but its hard to follow their claims and extrapolate into reality. It's kind of like "it looks good on paper but.."

[kristopher]

104. Well...

---"Ok, but how long and at what cost would it take to replace the current output of nuke power?"

That would depend on when we replace it. If we do it now it will divert funds from capacity to shut down coal and then natgas. IF we wait until the plants need to be shut down for safety, it will be far less expensive since renewable energy is on a steep downward sloping cost trajectory.


---"And where did you get the data you posted in your OP?"

The OP doesn't contain data, it contains conclusions that vast amounts of data are required to support. Did you look at my response to you in post 92?

[HuckleB]

110. This OP is only hurting those of us who support more renewable energy.

It's almost as if it's a psy-ops by the boogie men of nuclear energy.

It's just bizarre.

[kristopher]

116. This thread is specifically asking a question of the nuclear supporters.

Why have you spent 8 posts over almost 2 hours getting involved when you supposedly support renewable energy?

Your behavior indicates a frustrated nuclear supporter.

[HuckleB]

117. And now you offer up an ad hominem attack.

Shocking! :sarcasm:

Considering that you've made it clear how little you understand any of these issues...

Support your OP, or move along. You are only hurting those of us who hope to limit risk in the future.

Thank you.

[Paradoxical]

119. You are out of control. Take a step back and breath.

The world is not out to get you. Make some hot tea, maybe put a couple shots of whisky in it. Clear your mind and come back to the discussion.

I mean this with all the sincerity in the world. You have transitioned from an understandable level of fear and reversion into a realm of unjustifiable paranoia.

[defendandprotect]

166. During the CA ENRON-rigged power shortages, at the same time over a four month period....

they put up sufficient wind power to serve 175,000 homes -- !!

[defendandprotect]

164. Even after Japan? They wanted those plants shut down saying they s/be closed down ...

They were also not built to withstand the seismic activity that had increased over

the last 40 years --

Global Warming is causing increasing numbers of earthquakes and increasing their intensity --

Some suggest that it is also creating more volcanic activity --I agree!

[fascisthunter]

122. well done!

:thumbsup:

[HuckleB]

134. So, an OP with nothing to back up its claims is well done?

And you call yourself "fascistunter?"

:wow:

:rofl:

[fascisthunter]

138. You Offer Nothing

go try to bait someone else chuckles.

[HuckleB]

143. Awwwwww.

I offered as much as the OP did.

Interesting that you failed to notice that.

:rofl:

[Dj13Francis]

124. When done correctly

nuclear energy can be extremely safe and cost effective. However, it is damn near impossible to ensure that nothing can go wrong. Engineering a plant to withstand a 8.9 earthquake is all fine and good, until the 9.0 hits. While these types of events are rare, they can and do happen. I believe that nuclear power should have a place in today's world, but in places where seizmologists and geologists have determined are relatively safe, and with designs that have multiple redundant safeguards to ensure absolute safety. Otherwise you have this type of thing...

[kristopher]

128. What about events such as Davis Besse?

[Dj13Francis]

141. Um...

I was unfamilar with what you're referring to until I just looked it up. And yeah, it looks like a bunch of unintended shit has happened there. Shit happens. Absolutely. That's why these types of plants need multiple redundant safeguards. And they also ought not to be done on the cheap... Privatization equals cost cutting... Safety must be the utmost concern. You know, upon thinking about this reply I'm having a hard time trying to justify my position. Fuck it. Let's do away with all nukes.

[TNLib]

127. There are multiple problems with just using renewable energy

The main being our transmission grid. If we have a ton of solar panels in the desert generating mega watts, how does that power get over to the east coast in the dead of winter? Our transmission grids are not set up to distribute power that way.

Having worked at a power utility company I've come to conclusion that the technology in use hasn't changed that much for the last 100 years. The power generator is still the same basic design and our transmission grid seems to be a mess.

[kristopher]

135. Thanks for the response.

That is a perspective that would be accurate (if not *completely* correct) if the grid that has developed around large-scale thermal sources of generation. But there is another way the machine that delivers our power can be conceptualized. It is referred to a "distributed generation" and it has distinct advantages over a centralized grid.

Making it even more practical is the development of power management technologies that can view demand and supply at the level of individual homes and electric automobiles.

A lot has changed in the last 100 years.

[Teaser]

132. Not a supporter or a villifier of nuclear

it's problematic, and I'm greatly conflicted by it, in the face of climate change.

I believe that renewables can supply most/all of our energy needs, but there is no delivery infrastructure for them yet. And booting that up could take ~20 years.

So nuclear will persist until at least then.

[kristopher]

137. Existing nuclear plants should be the last of the old infrastructure to go.

But we need to direct funds at the sources that provide the most bang for the carbon reduction buck, and nuclear is dead last on that list.

[Teaser]

139. Agreed.

We need breakthrough tech ASAP, and unfortunately we don't have a congress willing to spend to make it happen.

Dunno what to do, really.

[kristopher]

171. No we do not "need breakthrough tech ASAP"

Right now we have everything we need to leave fossil fuels (and nuclear) behind except the cooperation of the Republicans.

[Teaser]

175. no, we really don't.

Infrastructure and delivery. None of it is set up yet. And distribution. And mass production.

That's where the breakthrough needs to be made. Rapid scaling of solar cells. Some way to spray paint solar cells onto any surface and turn it into a working solar panel. Portable plug in power supplies that can set up in a few hours. Conversion, right now, is hard.

We can power the country off of this tech, but we have no way to plug into that available power. And we will not for years, or decades.

[kristopher]

184. Portable plug in power supplies?

Please tell me more about that and what you mean by "no way to plug into that available power". It would also be good if you could clarify what is hard to convert "right now".

Thanks.

[Teaser]

185. k

1) no large scale solar farms ready to go online (grid scale)
2) truly efficient solar cell tech not assembly line ready (no large numbers
of factories ready to crank out the volume of most efficient cells we need in the short term)
3) insufficient wind farms to supply grid sufficiently
4) No simple kits to allow individual users to easily supply their own homes with power. Installation is expensive and difficult.
5) Lack of arable dedicated land for biofuel production.

We have a lot of promising research and a lot of demonstration projects thus far. That's about it.

Put simply, there are no cables laid so we can just flip a switch and jump over to renewable resources. And even if there were, there aren't enough supplies built right now to make that switch possible. Building the infrastructure that will allow us to do this will be like building a whole new system of interstate roads. And that took time.

[kristopher]

189. Thank you

You said that nuclear would persist for 20 years and now that your meaning is clear I see we agree. It is my turn to clarify; the question is whether or not new build should be renewable energy or nuclear.

What you basically seem to be saying is that we need to transition to renewable energy. Your evaluation of the state of the global renewable industry is about a decade behind the times, so your perspective on how far along we are is a bit wide of the mark. WFor example we are far beyond "a lot of demonstration projects" as there are a large number of large scale solar farms on line here and around the world. That is the prime economic niche for solar at this stage of the industry's development. but it is also actively moving into the next niche that its declining price has opened - commercial rooftop solar.

The remainder of your list says, in essence, that the process of transition hasn't been completed yet. Saying that we don't have enough wind or solar installed is accurate, but there are no technological obstacles to the process of doing so. What is important to the question of the OP is that competing the build out will be less expensive and more rapid with wind and solar than it would be with nuclear. The final product of that effort will be more reliable than nuclear and it will be far safer than nuclear. It is important to me personally that renewables are a kind of infrastructure that will have strong positive benefits in the area of empowering the individual against the control of one of life's most important inputs - energy - by corporate or government forces. Nuclear energy on the other hand, lends itself to the accumulation of centralized power and the level of danger associated with it is a strong force for pushing society towards a state oriented around their requirements for security.

Finally the issue of biofuels. Current generation biofuels are not desirable as a solution to AGW with land use being only one of the associated issues. However carbon neutral biomass for generation is a big part of the move away from coal, and although advanced biofuels requiring little land have not been economically viable in the past, the rising price of petroleum is moving their economics forward. What is notable on this front is that personal transportation is moving to electric drive vehicles so we are not planning on the use of biofuels for that application. We will be looking to these advanced technologies for powering our heavy lift sector such as air, shipping, construction and agriculture.

We have plenty of "supplies" to make the transition but it will take time to effect. The most important thing we can do to make that happen as quickly as possible is to extract policies from the government that make it absolutely clear that we are committed to a transition. Because of the ambiguity that an "all of the above" solution sends in the economic realm a firm rejection of new nuclear is one of the best ways to make that happen.

[defendandprotect]

169. Oh .. strongly disagree with that ... these plants should be closed ...

and too many of them have been extended --

There were some interesting stories as well today on nuclear power threads/Japan

from people who did contracting work on some of the plants --

frightening --

And if we really believe in "terraism" then they would certainly not be TARGETS

we should be reproducing!!



:)

[devils chaplain]

142. I support nuclear power...

... because I still believe it is overall safer in the long run than coal power. HOWEVER I would much, much rather use renewable energy than either of them. If it's feasible, let's do it. And I'd be more than happy to be paying more for energy to do so. The sooner we can stop greenhouse gases and causing turmoil in the middle east through oil addiction, the better.

[kristopher]

228. I think that is the rational view.

Since the alternatives will be far less expensive as they are phased in, we are going to be better off economically also. And the benefits of a distributed grid? Don't get me started...

Thanks for the reply, sorry it slipped through the cracks on the initial go-round.

[OmahaBlueDog]

150. I will try to answer this (knowing I will get flamed for doing so)

First, before we argue about nuclear, I hope that we can agree that electricity from both coal and oil are bad. On a pure CBA basis, coal kills far more than nuclear does (the current, evolving situation not included) when you account for mine accidents, black lung, and pollution. Oil is an environmental and international security nightmare.

Second, I absolutely support wind power. Nebraska, which has enormous untapped wind potential, has been late to the party. There are no reasons that NoDak, SoDak, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, and Colorado can't produce huge amounts of clean energy using this technology.

Solar is a wonderful theory, but I'm not seeing millions of Americans put panels on their roofs, and you'd need huge tracts of land in places like Texas (enemy of renewable energy), Arizona (too worried about the imminent threat of immigration to worry about electricity), Louisiana (see Texas), or Florida (see Louisiana).

There is no reason that nuclear power cannot be generated safely and effectively. However, in the US, current reactors essentially use 1950s-60s core design technology, and use control systems from the 70s and 80s (because, as I've posted elsewhere, regulations and cost make it more attractive to keep the 70's controls operative, than to replace them with something more responsive and powerful --like an I-phone or a Dell laptop). Better reactor designs (pebble bed) exist today. Better controls exist today.

In all three major nuclear accidents, you had a combination of bad design and human failure. TMI, which was caused largely by human error, did involve a partial meltdown, and did not wipe out an entire town or region. Chernobyl did wipe out a region, and you have to realize that Chernobyl involved a combination of really bad design and tremendous human error. When we look at Japan, we'll see an incident somewhere between TMI and Chernobyl. To me, this looks like a "failure of imagination" in design. Why, for example if you felt you must build a nuke in earthquake country, would you do so with three reactors on one site? Why, when you considered earthquake protections, did you consider the buildings (which stood), but apparently did not consider the elements of the triple-redundancy cooling system (of which all the elements failed).

To me, nuclear is still a good option for generating a lot of power with no carbon footprint issues. Should they be built on the West Coast? No. Should they be built near St. Louis? No. Keeping them away from flood zones would be helpful. Do I have an issue with building nukes in places like Valentine, NE or Sisseton, SD? No. I think those places make a lot of sense for nuclear plants.

France and England run a lot of nuclear. They don't seem to have these issues.

[nemo137]

161. +1

Wish I could rec this post.

[kristopher]

172. Thanks for the response.

My objective is the transition to a carbon free economy.

Solar is not only "a wonderful theory" it is a technology that can now compete with natural gas for the peaking market and will, by 2020, be delivering electricity for less money than new conventional coal plants.

Actually there is a very good reason that nuclear cannot be generated "safely and effectively". It is far to complex a system because of the dangers inherent to it. We can devise safety systems out the wazoo, but that leads to inevitable increases in complexity which itslef introduces potential for catastrophic failure. It is also expensive and slow to build for the same reason.

You believe that "better" designs exist today immediately after you reject solar because you're "not seeing millions of Americans put panels on their roofs". Wouldn't it be prudent to ask yourself why those "better" designs are not now being used? Do you think the industry is trying to kneecap itself? Russia, France, Canada, China, Korea, and Japan are competing in a global market yet they are not using or developing the techs you mentioned because they all have flaws that make what IS being developed superior when examined as closely as buyers spending 10s of billions of dollars of tax money are in the habit of doing.

When you have a nebulous, quasi-governmental entity like the collective nuclear industries of the world that is trying to push something it makes sense to me that their claims should be examined closely. Reading my comments and those of other nuclear supporters in this thread do you currently think you have examined the issue as closely as perhaps you should have?

[OmahaBlueDog]

177. I'm not rejecting Solar

Ask yourself - why isn't solar energy being embraced on a huge scale in the US? It's expensive (on an ROI basis), space consuming, and aesthetically displeasing (read: ugly). OTOH, if solar panels covering the rooftop of a typical 4 bedroom home in the US sun-belt could be made efficient enough to provide 220v @ 50 amps (i.e. run a whole house air conditioner), that would be a game-changer (depending on the price, of course). However, the last time I brought this idea up, nadinbrezinski broadly implied I'd been drinking too heavily. I do think it will happen, but it may take 20 more years.

[Zoeisright]

239. Uh, I'll take "ugly" over cancer any day.

And if you add up the TRUE cost of nukes (storage problems, subsidies, cost overruns, cost of sickness and death), they are FAR more expensive than solar.

And space consuming? The dead zone around a broken nuke plant is far, far more space consuming than solar panels. Which I don't think are ugly, because they provide a clean, safe source of energy.

[jtuck004]

170. Respectfully, do you have any links to support those contentions?

Because everything I have read says that renewable, and our inability to store it, simply cannot do what we need electrical to do today.

We continue to drive and kill 40,000 people a year. Other than our intentional nuclear weapons, nuclear accidents have not killed (or even sickened) that many people in our history. And that probably won't change with Japan.

Coal, which we burn today, is and has been irradiating us for decades, and I highly suspect is at least partly responsible for the rise in cancers over the decades.

" Since air pollution from coal burning is estimated to be causing 10,000 deaths per year, there would have to be 25 melt-downs each year for nuclear power to be as dangerous as coal burning." here...

The entire U.S. is being irradiated already from burning coal:

"Assuming a 1 percent ash release to the atmosphere (Environmental Protection Agency regulation) and 1 part per million of uranium and 2 parts per million of thorium in the coal (approximately the U.S. average), population doses from the coal plant are typically higher than those from pressurized-water or boiling-water reactors that meet government regulations."

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/202/4372/1045.abstract

Having lived through an era where they made us crawl under desks to avoid fallout (I got in trouble when I asked the teacher if I would have the pattern of the desk on my body when we blew up like the people in the films) I, perhaps, am not as afraid of well-managed technology. And nuclear is, today, better than it ever has been. We need to shut a couple down that are not built as well as I think they should be, and I think since we found that one is on a fault we didn't know about we should move it, but I have a lot of faith in intelligence and thoughtful progress, not much in superstition.

And, frankly, given the low level of deaths from nuclear accidents, we would probably lose that many a year in a amassive build-out of renewable energy from people falling off of roofs and wind turbines, for much less output.

But I think we need both. And dump coal and natural gas as sources - too destructive.

[kristopher]

176. Yes I have literally thousands of sources and many of them have links.

You are for nuclear because it is better than coal.

OK, but why are you limiting your alternatives to either coal or nuclear.

I hate to tell you this but almost every statement in your post is a product of someone at a place like the Nuclear Energy Institute that is trying to convince you of something that is not in your best interest.

For example, the coal or nuclear dichotomy is complete fiction. Virtually every plan around the world for dealing with climate change is predicated on deploying existing renewable technologies. At that level nuclear is nothing more than a bit player that used its political muscle to get itself a position at the table. Contrary to your beliefs, nuclear and coal are two sides of the same coin in that virtually all of the interest groups that support coal generation can maintain their position by adopting nuclear as a replacement. If we go with renewables their central role in everyone's life will literally disappear - and they know it.

Then there is your example about the radioactivity in coal. Do you have a slate patio or slate floors somewhere in your home? That has about the same level of radioactivity as fly ash. The issue of nuclear waste is what we are seeing right now, waste was stored above the reactors that have exploded and it is going to be a big contributor to the problem if this gets any worse (and it is going to get worse).

The comparison made in your article is to radioactivity of nuclear waste that is safely secured. It doesn't address the radioactivity associate with the mining process nor the common leaks associated with routine operation of nuclear plants. Do you think that a comparison to a material with radioactivity at the concentration of shale is actually an honest attempt to bring you the truth? Or does it show the integrity you'd expect from BP?

I'd suggest you go to the websites of the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS.org) or greenpeace and start there for some independent information. If you want more just PM me.

[jtuck004]

179. Ok. I might go look at it. Again. eom.

[slackmaster]

192. You lost me at "The science says..."

It's not up to "the science" to decide what forms of energy production we should, as a species, pursue. Science in and of itself doesn't make policy. Policy is based on interpretation of the science combined with political and economic analysis of social needs.

You have attempted to poison the well here; anyone who disagrees with "the science" is obviously irrational or has some kind of axe to grind.

[kristopher]

199. You have a funny view of what role science plays in policy

Each energy source has a set of characteristics that are amenable to both qualitative and quantitative analysis.

When there is a set goal that is being pursued it is completely possible, in fact it is standard, to establish the normative goals of policy (solve X problem usually) and then examine the positive economic and technical factors of the solutions.

When that is done in the energy sector, and the goal is the transition away from carbon based energy, the outcome of the technical and economic analysis isn't even close. Nuclear, coal with CCS, and ethanol are poor choices that, if they bring us to our goal at all, do so far more slowly and with far more total costs than the alternatives.

It really doesn't matter who does the analysis, as long as they adhere to the generally accepted rules of evidence and exercise fundamental integrity they will arrive at the same conclusion every time - nuclear is, literally, a third rate solution for AGW and energy security.

Now if you want to assert that we should choose nuclear because they are able to contribute more to the political warchest of politicians than their competition, that is certainly your perogative, but political expediency isn't a value that most people want guiding policy formation.

[cleanhippie]

211. You have a funny way of claiming that "science says..." yet you have shown NO science

to support your claims. You simply state it, therefore it must be true.

[kristopher]

217. Please stop using harassment to disrupt the discussion.

If you don't want to participate, don't.

[cleanhippie]

221. Oh, thats ripe. Me asking you for proof of your claims is now "harrasment"? seriously?

:wtf:

[yawnmaster]

210. What do you mean by "science says"?? how do you define science? eom

[kristopher]

216. Do you think any of the facts listed in the OP are false?

If so, what is the basis of your belief?

[yawnmaster]

218. ahhhh...thats what I thought you meant by "science says". I understand where...

you are coming from (if not the OP)

[kristopher]

219. I'm fully prepared to discuss "the science" as soon as you specify what science I need to share

There are tens of thousands of pages of fully vetted academic research behind that list, am I supposed to provide you with all of it? It has taken me the past 9 years to read a fraction of it, so if I comply with your ridiculous request, when do you suppose we can continue the discussion? I was doing it full time, so if you are only doing it part time it might take 30 or 40 years.

OR

You could stop being a contrarian and join the discussion I requested in the OP. Why do you not believe those facts. If you spcify I can directly provide the proof you ask for in a few paragraphs.

Okay?

[yawnmaster]

220. I will find discussion useless if you view "science" as a religion. ["science says"]

or if you do not understand the scientific method.
If you want to discuss data and stats, say so, but don't call it science.

[cleanhippie]

222. He has YET to post a single source for even ONE of his claims, despite repeated calls for them

from nearly every poster on this thread. He just keep evading and deflecting.

Its sad, really.

[kristopher]

223. WHY do you believe the claims in the OP are false - it is the Point of the OP.

I suspect you know that the statements are true and you are unwilling to expose the misinformation that supports your rationalizations for rejecting them.

Do you share those rationalizations with others frequently?

If so, why not share them with me?

[jacquelope]

233. Because renewable energy is communism!

It ultimately leads to people building solar power on their rooftops which takes away money from the energy industry and that is COMMUNISM!!!

Hey, come on now, it's not the real definition of communism but since when have the Corporate Elites ever cared about that? That's what they'll tell the Tea Party!

In all seriousness though, the only reason to support nuclear power is if you believe there's no way to beat the Corporate Elite and force them not to switch to coal. Solar power is one renewable technology that is viable TODAY... the question is can we beat the corporations and make it replace nuclear and coal?

[kristopher]

235. I grew jacquelopes in my garden last year.

You are the first to voice the capitulation logic. I've been wanting to say it to them for years, but wanted to save it for the right time.

Good show.

You might like this: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x626150

[jacquelope]

237. That thread...archived?

It should be stickied.

[kristopher]

241. I'm doing my best...

I post it fairly often so it's still floating around. They've had a huge number of posts in the past week and they only keep the most current 20 pages of active threads; retiring those that fall below that.