+- +-

+-User

Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
 
 
 
Forgot your password?

+-Stats ezBlock

Members
Total Members: 39
Latest: robbrogers
New This Month: 0
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Stats
Total Posts: 8003
Total Topics: 220
Most Online Today: 2
Most Online Ever: 48
(June 03, 2014, 03:09:30 am)
Users Online
Members: 0
Guests: 2
Total: 2

Post reply

Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.
Name:
Email:
Subject:
Message icon:

Attach:
Help (Clear Attachment)
(more attachments)
Allowed file types: doc, gif, jpg, jpeg, mpg, pdf, png, txt, zip, rar, csv, xls, xlsx, docx
Restrictions: 4 per post, maximum total size 1024KB, maximum individual size 512KB
Verification:

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview


Topic Summary

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: February 09, 2017, 07:20:24 pm »

Have you ever seen the documentary Pandora's Promise? Perhaps you would find it insightful.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nyjyWxDdoWM

Welcome to this forum, Dave. I don't want to scare you away, but it seems we are getting off on the wrong foot, so to speak.  Let us begin. 8)

Before I discuss your post, please look at this pie chart. If you claim the subsidies on that chart are inaccurate, then I can prove you are mistaken. It's a bit dated. The subsidy swag for polluters has actually gotten even more outrageous in comparison with the pittance that Renewable Energy has gotten.  >:(

 


I certainly have seen that Propaganda film called, "Pandora's Promise". It is chock full of very clever half truths that manage to completely cloud the actual issues of cause and effect in regard to cost/benefit (i.e. POLLUTION COSTS to the biosphere) in the generation of energy for human civilization. Renewable Energy is totally misrepresented as being "insufficiently reliable" to power  civilization, too "expensive" and so on. The derisive icing on the cake is the totally false claim delivered in 'I'm your friendly Doctor telling you this for your own good' tone that those that support a 100% Renewable Energy powered world are to be pitied for their "wishful and unrealistic thinking". 

Uh Huh... Nuclear Industry Welfare Queen Profits have absolutely nothing to do with it, of course... 


A very insightful and fact filled critique was made of the writings of those nuclear industry propagandists who pitch that film and every half truth uttered in that film by objective energy analysts. I posted on it here years ago in the Nuke Puke board.

Here is a repost (Originally posted November 08, 2013, 02:42:15 pm):

A more appropriate name for the Breakthrough Institute shameless liars is the BROKEN-RECORD or the BROKEN-THROUGH with NUCLEAR BALONEY Institute. Enjoy this expert and detailed debunking of theses low down lying cads.
 

The Breakthrough Institute – Why The Hot Air? PART 1 of 2 parts             

June 17, 2013 Thomas

I’ve recently stumbled upon a number of articles by the Breakthrough Institute (BTI) that aimed at discrediting renewable energy on the one hand and on the other preaching about nuclear energy as the solution for the global energy crisis of the 21st century. With their hearts and minds pre-set on pushing their narrative, that some kind of a nuclear salvation is being held back by leftish environmentalists (sinister!), the so called German “Energiewende” (Energy Transition) has apparently become a regular target of the Breakthrough Institute staff’s publications.


Pandora's TURD  ;D

Public displays of ignorance and misrepresentation of facts are neither new nor rare when commentators try to discredit the feasibility of a shift to a renewable energy supply. This most regulary includes unscientific pandering to conventional wisdom. In the case of the Breakthrough Institute’s recent articles on Germany and solar energy, all of the above are certainly the case.

The Straw Men Army

As I mentioned at the top, I am writing this because I’ve recently stumbled upon a couple of Breakthrough Institute articles — I wasn’t too familiar with the “Breakthrough Institute” before that. In the middle of May, the Breakthrough Institute (BTI) published an article comparing the alleged costs of what its analysts call “the German solar program” and the costs of a Finnish nuclear project currently under construction and which is plagued by cost overruns. A couple of weeks later, Michael Shellenberger (BTI President) & Ted Nordhaus (BTI Chairman) published an article defending the previous article against unspecified criticism and making a couple of incredibly silly claims in the process.



Reason I wrote this post.

So here’s a roundup of a few straw men, dubious connections, distortions, and stuff that’s plain and simply silly.

#1 – Irrelevant “Cost” Comparison

[unscientific pandering to conventional wisdom]

Comparing the alleged gross-price tag of Germany’s solar policy with a Finnish nuclear project might seem like a very clever thing to do, but in reality it’s simply silly. The comparison suggests a non-existent equality in circumstances, goals, and preconditions that simply isn’t there.

What I am trying to say is, that if you want to judge two policies or projects, you should judge them foremost by their goals and motivations, not by an unrelated number game.
The motivation and the goals of Germany’s unprecedented solar policy are neither a secret nor hard to research (EEG 2004, Article 1). For decades, the main problem of solar had been identified as it being too expensive to deploy. But, at the same time, only deployment and mass production would lead to significant cost reductions. To overcome this barrier, the German parliament adapted the Feed-in-Tariff (FiT) in 2004 to incentivize the installation of solar PV systems, thus creating the first uncapped mass market for solar power. It was  the goal to reduce the technology’s cost through deployment, innovation, and market forces within the solar industry. The plan has succeeded a lot faster than anticipated and the cost of PV is expected to decline by at least another 50% by 2020.



The development of feed-in-tariff rates for solar power (actual production costs / kWh are a bit lower).

In  contrast, the goal of the Finnish nuclear power plant had been to have a fully operational 1.6 GW Generation III+ nuclear reactor by 2009 for $4.2 billion. Since the decision for the new nuclear plant was made in 2000, that would have been 5 years of planing and permitting and 4 years of construction. Since the current estimate is that it might enter commercial operation in 2015 — 10 years after construction began — and at a price of approximately $11.1 billion, it can with no doubt be considered a massive failure.

Everyone can judge for themselves what they want to think about the two political projects.
On one side, a German policy that may have come with a price tag to consumers, but has successfully triggered the global commercialization and industrialization of an energy technology that sat dormant for far too long. (In addition, Germany’s solar industry — far more than solar cell manufacturing — still provides 100,000 high-paying jobs and is registering more patents than ever before.)

On the other side, the newest commercial product of the veteran nuclear industry failing miserably at delivering what it promised.

But there’s no arguing about the outcome. In most places around the world (including Germany), installing solar technology onsite can now lower the bill for households, businesses, and even industries. It takes only a few weeks/months from making the investment decision to producing a relatively certain monthly amount of peak-load power.

For any new nuclear power project, there is no such certainty nor is there a similar market-driven investment incentive at the horizon — even after almost 60 years of commercial nuclear power. (This is all something the BTI didn’t care to mention.)

I won’t delve into how nuclear and solar operate in different technological and economic paradigms at this point, but it should be obvious to everyone that neither solar panels nor a nuclear reactor represent a complete energy system.

#2 – A Dubious Source as the Main Witness

[Questionable Motives]

I was not surprised to find the “100 Billion Euro disaster” paper written by Dr. Frondel of the RWI at the heart of the the first BTI story. What’s amusing is the naïve sort of “a German wrote it, it must be true!” attitude that is rather prevalent in many articles/comments that quote his work. Rarely does any journalist follow the money or intentions, nor does the American press care about the criticism of Dr. Frondels’ work.

In reality, Dr. Frondels’ analysis is nothing more than a simple calculation of a price tag. He then chooses to equate the price tag with macroeconomic costs, by overly simplifying and ignoring the complexity of the economic reality. Basically, the study was written to give lazy journalists easy-to-copy-&-paste headlines and snippets in order to attack solar energy (which is controversial, of course, which brings in readers and makes the journalists look “critical” and “smart”).

Undoubtedly, those economic interests that have commissioned the RWI study and fund the work of people like Dr.Frondel are very pleased to see the BTI making such “good” and uncritical use of their investments.

I’ve created this little infrographic below to illustrate some background information on the history of Dr. Frondels’ study and other somewhat related information. See what you can find.



To give you an even better understanding of the general nature of Dr. Frondels’ work in recent years, I would just like to refer you to the RWI’s publication called “Positionen Nr. 45” from April 2011. The title of this particular RWI paper was, “The Cost Of Climate Protection – A Look At Electricity Prices.” In it, Dr. Frondel comes to the surprising (Who pays the piper, calls the tune) conclusion that German household electricity prices in 2011 could have remained at their 1998 levels if it wasn’t for all that nasty climate action!

I personally find it fascinating how the BTI chooses to utilize Dr. Frondels’ work to discredit renewable energy and attack people like Bill McKibben, while at the very same time, the whole Keystone XL decision is an increasingly important issue in the US.

Well, whatever reasons the BTI may have for its recent urge to make renewables look bad, it did choose not to mention the dubious connections of its main source on the alleged economics of Germany’s renewable energy policy. Its reasoning for withholding this relevant background information is obvious though:  A study comissioned by the American Oil & Gas industry, written by a guy who is involved with a German version of the Heartland Institute simply isn’t a very convincing main witness when you are try to make a simplistic case against renewables in favor of nuclear energy.

#3 – The Emissions Blame Game

[Misrepresenting & Oversimplifying]

The good folks at the BTI love to foster the myth that less nuclear must lead to higher emissions, and that Germany’s decision to phase out nuclear will kill the climate. Unfortunately, there is no denying the fact that emissions did in fact rise in 2012.

However, not mentioning the colder-than-usual winter (including the related French electricity crisis in February 2012) and the increase of coal-powered electricity exports due to the collapse of the European emissions trading system is a willful choice.

For the record, with 317 Mio tons of CO2, the 2012 emissions from electricity generation are still well below the 5-year pre-recession average (2003-2007) of 330 Mio tons. If you consider that the German economy made a strong comeback after the global recession in 2009, with record-breaking employment and export levels, this becomes even more significant (i.e. energy productivity increased).

In fact, 2012 emissions per kWh were almost 10% lower compared to 2002, which was the year with the highest nuclear output in Germany. More info on total GHG emissions (not only the 30% caused by electricity generation) is included below.

#4 – Renewables have had no impact!

[Clown Territory Loss of Reality Disorder(?) / Pandering to conventional wisdom] 

In their opinion piece titled “No Solar Way Around It,” Shellenberger and Nordhaus get carried away and make the following remark:

“In reality, there’s little evidence that renewables have supplanted — rather than supplemented — fossil fuel production anywhere in the world. Whatever their merits as innovation policy, Germany’s enormous solar investments have had little discernible impact on carbon emissions.” – No Solar Way Around It, BTI

This statement is a showcase example of the smartass microcosm the BTI president has chosen to populate with his fact-free wisdom. I don’t know what he was trying to say, but the only thing he could have hoped to accomplish is to reinforce anti-renewable mythology. By doing so, he obviously disqualified himself as a reasonable member of the energy debate. But
I am hopeful that he’ll correct his claim….

Here are the facts, plain and simple, for you to judge:

Click here for PART 2

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: February 09, 2017, 07:18:30 pm »

Have you ever seen the documentary Pandora's Promise? Perhaps you would find it insightful.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nyjyWxDdoWM
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: September 28, 2016, 06:27:51 pm »

Vermont delegation clashes with nuclear industry

Sep. 27, 2016, 9:59 pm by Mike Faher

VERNON — As the federal government works to come up with new rules for decommissioning nuclear plants like Vermont Yankee, U.S. Rep. Peter Welch can distill his hopes into two words.

“We’re trying to say over and over again: ‘community involvement, community involvement, community involvement,’” said Welch, D-Vt.

He doesn’t believe the nuclear industry has the same goals. That’s why he and 14 other federal lawmakers — including Sens. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Patrick Leahy, D-Vt. — have sent a letter to the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission expressing their concerns about the industry’s recent lobbying.

The Nuclear Energy Institute is pushing for “limited scope”  ;) rulemaking that does not, for instance, mandate increased state and local input in decommissioning. But the lawmakers’ letter contends that approach “risks prioritizing the concerns of the nuclear industry over those of our constituents.”

Quote
“This feels very much like a brazen effort by the (nuclear) industry to jump ahead of the line,” Welch said Tuesday.

Vermont Yankee was a divisive presence in the state during its 42-year run as an operating nuclear facility. The end of power production at the Vernon plant, however, signaled a new era of conflict.

Issues — often pitting Vermont officials against plant owner Entergy, the NRC or both — have included the proper uses of the plant’s decommissioning trust fund, the scope of emergency planning and the timing of decommissioning.

Those conflicts have stemmed partly from a lack of clear federal regulations for decommissioning nuclear plants. Rather, nuclear licensees are forced to seek a variety of license amendments and regulatory exemptions to make changes after their plants shut down.

So the NRC   has started a years long process to come up with better decommissioning rules, with officials saying the agency “understands that the decommissioning process can be improved and made more efficient and predictable.”

It’s an opportunity for everyone with an interest in decommissioning — including activists, governmental officials and plant operators — to try to shape that process  ;). NRC spokesman Neil Sheehan said the commission has received more than 170 comments on rulemaking.

As could be expected, there is plenty of disagreement. For example, Vermont officials pushed for more financial regulation of decommissioning nuclear operators, while the Nuclear Energy Institute — a Washington, D.C.-based industry group — countered that such regulations are unnecessary.

The institute argues that there’s already a “proven regulatory framework” for decommissioning and no need for wholesale change. The group is asking the NRC only to adopt clear regulations so plant operators don’t have to undertake costly, time-consuming license amendments and regulatory exemptions.

In a Sept. 16 letter addressed to NRC Chairman Stephen Burns, Welch and his colleagues aren’t buying it. “We are concerned by recent requests calling on the NRC to narrow the scope of this rulemaking,” the lawmakers wrote.

Quote
The legislative group — consisting of Vermont’s delegation, 11 lawmakers from Massachusetts and one from Illinois — lay out their vision for better nuclear plant decommissioning. Their requests include:

• Community involvement should be enhanced, in part by requiring plant operators to include state and local officials’ input in their decommissioning plans. 


• Decommissioning trust funds should be used “strictly for statutorily authorized purposes.” 


• Spent nuclear fuel must be moved into sealed dry casks “as quickly as possible.” 


• All of a plant’s emergency capabilities should remain in place until that fuel transfer takes place. 


• A former nuclear site should be “returned to beneficial use promptly instead of decades after the plant ceases operations.” The federally approved program called SAFSTOR currently allows decommissioning to take up to six decades.   >:(

In their letter, the lawmakers argue that “delaying consideration of these important issues would hamper the NRC’s proper goal of comprehensively reviewing and revising the rules that govern the decommissioning process.”


Welch has been heavily involved in the decommissioning debate via his seat on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which has jurisdiction over nuclear issues. “The rulemaking process is underway,” Welch said Tuesday. “We have had some positive signals from the NRC that they would take very seriously our request about local government participation.”

Quote
But Welch is concerned that the Nuclear Energy Institute “is wanting to basically bifurcate the rulemaking process” and overlook his requests. Welch equates it to “the industry charging ahead and the community falling behind.”

Rod McCullum , a Nuclear Energy Institute senior director who handles decommissioning issues, doesn’t see that as a fair assessment. The changes proposed in the congressional letter, McCullum argues, actually would hamper decommissioning by making it more expensive and less efficient.   ::)


“Let’s fix this in a way that makes it more efficient so we can get to what the community and the utility are both interested in, which is safe and timely decommissioning,” McCullum said.

“We’d love to work with the signatories of this letter in that direction,” he added. “But we must look at the unintended consequences as well.”

Sheehan said the NRC is not taking a stance on the legislative letter, as staff members are still reviewing the many comments submitted on decommissioning rulemaking.

He cautioned that the work of creating new regulations for decommissioning nuclear plants will not be quick. At this point, the agency’s schedule calls for a final decommissioning rule to be presented in 2019 to NRC commissioners, who must vote before it can take effect.

“We have made clear that the decommissioning rulemaking process will take several years, which is not unusual for the development of new regulations given all of the steps involved,” Sheehan said.


http://vtdigger.org/2016/09/27/vermont-delegation-clashes-nuclear-industry/
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: March 15, 2016, 12:01:30 am »

Agelbert NOTE: And example of a well meaning person being insulted by a nuke puke propagandist troll:  >:(
Quote

To Agelbert:


I wanted to ask you for your feedback on the dude who thinks radiation is not a problem - and hey, if you don't want to get into it, NO worries. I actually wonder if the guy is out to lunch anyway (he's got comic strip "heroes" for his Facebook page photos... that's enough to turn me off... not exactly worthy of any of my respect... I am assuming he is a grown man). But I have a hard time leaving an argument, especially when I get insulted. Again, if it looks to you like he is indeed out to lunch, I'll walk away promptly, and just continue to be very happy to know people like yourself! There is another fellow I follow via Disqus, goes by the moniker: "darkmark". I very much need to be reminded that there are folks out there ready, willing and able to take aim at the fools.

_____________

What I posted to him, in response to something he said to me, was the following:

Mike, you are being presumptuous. Oh, and by the way, did you read the article you posted up there about the babushkas in Chernobyl? Not in any place in it does it say that radiation is safe.

How much radiation is safe? Zero. There is no such thing as a safe level of radiation. Much like the lead poisoned water we’re hearing about, radiation is cumulative. The more you get; the more you get to keep.
You want some real science?

Dr. John W. Gofman, Father of Antinuclear USA Movement
Professor of Molecular and Cell Biology, Emeritus UC Berkeley

Poisoned Power is the most authoritative case against nuclear power ever written. The Atomic Energy Commission cover up about the health effects of ionizing radiation. Gofman established the biomedical division of he Lawrence Livermore Lab. He was given a $3.5 million dollar annual budget per year from 1963 o 1970 to study the biological effects of ionizing radiation. He was pronuclear when he as given the research project. In 1969, they took their results to the AEC Chairman Glenn Seaborg.

Seaborg rejected the results, quashed the study and cut his budget to $150,000 in 1970. Gofman laid off his 150 research assistants and resigned in the same year. The AEC when on to blackball Gofman in the nuclear industry Poisoned Power tells the story in it entirety.

In 1965, Dr. Ian MacKenzie published an elegant report entitled "Breast Cancer Following Multiple Fluoroscopies" (British J. of Cancer 19: 1-8) and in 1968, Wanebo and co-workers, stimulated by MacKenzie's work, reported on "Breast Cancer after Exposure to the Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki" (New England J. of Medicine 279:667-671), but few were willing to concede that breast-cancer could be induced by low-LET radiation.

Gofman and his colleague, Dr. Arthur Tamplin, quantified the breast-cancer risk (1970, The Lancet 1:297), looked at the other available evidence, and concluded overall that human exposure to ionizing radiation was much more serious than previously recognized (Gofman 1969; Gofman 1971).

_________
This was his    reply:

I miss Dr Seaborg. He told good stories. The first time I met him he was wearing a t-shirt that read "I'm in my element." It was the year they named Seaborgium after him. :)

As much as he contributed to chemistry, I think his most important work was when he was working on the national educational policy and wrote in his report that if a foreign country had imposed our system of schooling upon us, we would rightly consider it an act of war.

You quoted Mercola. Exactly the same level of veracity as realpharmacy or naturalnews. I'm sorry that ear candling and oil pulling don't cure cancer. Really, I am. Meanwhile, the rest of us have science to do. ;)  ::)


Well, that troll (that is what he is) pretending radiation is "okay" in small doses, that's one of their cons. You see, back in the late 1920's some fools thought radiation was great stuff and were drinking radium solutions. They began to die and that was the end of that. Then some other fools in the late 1930's claimed that radiation (from abandoned mines with a high radioactivity) "accelerated" the evolution of fruit flies there. Have you seen all those pretty pictures or drawings of a fruit fly with two sets of wings the "radioactivity increases positive mutations" crowd loves? The Geneticists made it their symbol!

Well, if you study college level biology, you can't avoid it. It's THE icon of all the fools claiming radiation is "okay" (AND all the geneticists claiming evolution provides for all positive mutations - something that, despite what you may have read, has NEVER been proven - but that's another subject.  ;D).



What they always have left out is that the fruit flies (Drosophila melanogaster) with that extra pair of wings are sterile AND only ONE PAIR of wings has muscles for flight attached to it. IOW, it's NOT a positive mutation. It's an evolutionary disadvantage to be sterile and have a dysfunctional pair of wings to drag around.

The term for what radiation actually does to life forms is "mutagenic" effects.

Insects, which are far less susceptible to radiation damage than mammals, because they have proportionately less water than mammals in their tissues, still experience severe mutagenic effects.

But that didn't stop the radiation lovers. The "love" for radiation got even worse when the bomb was invented in 1945. If you look at the Nuke Puke section of this forum and the topic 1950s, you will see what I mean.

http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/nuke-puke/the-nuclear-insanity-of-the-1950s/msg182/#msg182

Like the government then KNEW what radiation does since the 1930's (LONG before the bomb!), the troll you are dealing with undoubtedly knows and is pushing, not only the lie that "low doses are like an x-ray or flying in an airplane at 30,000 feet" but, once he gets you t accept THAT, the next step is the con about low doses being "GOOD" for you. They even have a name for that bit of heinous mendacity. It ls called "Hormesis".

You can test your troll very easily buy asking him if he thinks Hormesis can help humanity. He will wag his head up (through his written reaction) and down so furiously that it will make your head spin.

At any rate, I'm a veteran of taking those propagandists apart piece by piece. They just move the goal posts and dance this way and that, no matter what hard scientific proof you present to them or even the data from the Eminent Dr. Gofman. You saw how your troll tried to pretend your post on data from him was not accurate ( the old questioning the source TRICK    ). Dr. Gofman is hated by the nuke pukes because he was one of them and proved conclusively that there is no "safe" dose.

So, instead of accepting the evidence (that Dr. Gofman merely built upon from the older 1930's hard data), they continue disparaging the truth.

They claim to be objective. They are not. But they use the ignorance of most people against them. These propagandists sound oh so calm as they rattle off some half truths that ignore all the dangers in radionuclides.

For example, the fact that most people don't understand radionuclide photon frequency energy math (Most people wrongly only associate photons with light - and the energies of the photon frequencies - there are several bands in each radionuclide - are completely off of people's radar  :() makes it very difficult for the average person to understand how the linear model of radiation dosage is a con perpetrated by the Nukers (against Dr. Gofman's will) so scientists and doctors doing epidemiological studies of cancer clusters near nuclear power plants people would NOT have a scientifically accurate starting point to link radionuclides with cancer.

Radionuclides radiate in all directions. When a person ingests them the damage is HUNDREDS of times worse than an x-ray or flying at 30,000 feet. Yet the nukers pushed this linear theory to low ball the effects. It was a despicable scam based on mens rea from the start.     


I could go on and on but, to give you a brief (though the document isn't vey brief  ;D) of what is the truth and what you are up against with these nuker trolls, I dug this up from my files and am posting it here for you to read at your leisure.

These nuke pukes have no ethics whatsoever.  >:(

Here are some snippets from a paper discussing how background radiation, once heralded (wrongly) as the cause of evolution and natural selection because it induces mutations that are passed on to future generations. The problem they encountered is that about 98% of mutations in life forms are deleterious, not beneficial. Any statistician will explain to you that if you increase the mutation rate, you decrease the viability of the species experiencing all the mutations. But that did not stop the nukers from developing the LNT theory happily adopted by the AEC and EPA.

The target theory, earlier developed and now factually proven by the proportionality of inverse proportionality distance to damage from ingested radionuclides, is still hotly contested by the nukers claiming their ARE beneficial effects to radiation. The fact that the immune system will respond to an insult and appear to be "benefited" by some radiation is reverse logic. We are built to address certain insults. Add them up and our immune systems are overcome. this is science instead of wishful thinking. The LNT is still the favorite (and thoroughly misleading and inaccurate because it ignores the damage from nanometer distances with ingested radionuclides) of the nukers for obvious reasons (not mentioned in the paper, of course).

Origin of the linearity no threshold (LNT) dose–response concept
Edward J. Calabrese

Keywords Ionizing radiation · Linearity · Dose response · Risk assessment · Threshold dose response ·
Target theory · Eugenics · LNT

Babcock and Collins (1929a, b) tested the hypothesis of Olson and Lewis (1928). They found a location in which the natural radiation was twice that found in their University of California/Berkeley laboratory. Using the ClB strain sex-linked recessive Drosophila assay, they reported an increase in mutation that corresponded in the same proportion as the difference in background radiation, supporting the proportionality hypothesis. Detailed experimental methods including the actual radioactivity levels were never published, although such data were promised to be provided in a subsequent paper.

In 1930, Hanson and Heys provided further support for the hypothesis that “natural radiation may be responsible for the mutations that are the grist of the natural selection mill with the resulting evolution of new forms.” Their findings were based on a study of fruit fly mutations in an abandoned carnotite (i.e., uranium) mine. Such interpretations were initially supported by commentaries by various authors (Lind 1929; Dixon 1929, 1930).

In 1930 Muller and Rice University physicist, Mott- Smith, challenged this LNT evolution perspective by
reporting that natural radiation, which was of such a lowdose rate, could only account for about 1/1,300 of the gene mutations that occurred spontaneously in Drosophila melanogaster, assuming a linear dose response. The authors concluded that other causes must explain the origin of most mutations that spontaneously occur. Nonetheless, in his dissertation, under the direction of Muller, Oliver (1931) stated that cosmic and terrestrial radiations must account for some proportion of the spontaneous mutations (see Muller 1930).
Target theory versus LNT (Linear No Threshhold)

The radiation target theory as applied to mutations was formulated by the detailed interactions and collaborations
of leading radiation geneticists and theoretical physicists during the mid-1930s. Although Muller was a geneticist, he was drawn quickly toward the physics-mutation interface, accepting significant elements of target theory for radiation-induced mutational effects, including the important assumptions that damage was proportional to the energy absorbed, linear dose– response modeling and that effects were cumulative and deleterious (Muller et al. 1936).

This excitation was proposed to affect a permanent change or mutation to a different molecular structure. Ionizing
irradiation was the only effective way to induce mutations; it showed no threshold, suggesting that the absorption
of radiation is a quantized and additive process (von Schwerin 2010).

A “quantum-jump” was considered to be the physical process caused by a hit on a target, resulting in mutation. Treatment effects induced by a physical agent like ionizing radiation were believed to be caused by one or several discrete biophysical events, that is, hits on a target. Based on hypotheses about what constituted a hit, statistical models were used to construct dose–response relationships. If there was only a single hit on a single target, the dose response was linear. As the number of assumed hits increased, a more threshold like the dose response would appear.

 
This conceptual framework led to the conclusion that mutation was a single-hit process, proceeding from a single ionization, from a quantum of ionizing radiation in a specific sensitive zone of the gene. This theoretically based perspective became not only a workable model but a firm belief within the radiation genetics community even though there was no knowledge of the physical nature of the gene.

Ionizing radiation

In the radiation risk assessment area, two endpoints were adopted to which linearity was applied: germ cell mutations
and cancer. In the case of germ cell mutations, based on several publications in the early 1950s by Muller (1951,
1954), the BEAR I Genetics Panel (1956) proposed to limit exposure to ionizing radiation such that exposure would not exceed doubling of background mutations from conception through the first 30 years of life. The panel assumed that exposure to ionizing radiation could cause mutations to germ cells in a linear manner and had the potential to cause adverse genetic effects in individuals and future generations. The panel derived a risk assessment methodology for application to both first-generation offspring and total genetic risk, including future generations. The panel derived a doubling dose method (i.e., the dose of ionizing radiation, assuming linearity at low dose, that would equal the number of mutations resulting from background exposure), to estimate population-based risks. This doubling dose methodology would predict the number of genetic diseases based on three parameters: the assumed doubling dose, the proposed exposure limit and the background incidence of genetic disease.

http://radiationeffects.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Calabrese-2013_Origin-LNT-concept.pdf

As to the radiation induced mutagenicity in fruit flies,
here's a modern, below please find a modern, up to date study. No insects are not human. In fact insects, because of lower water percentage content in their tissues, are MORE resistant to radiation than mammals are. Do you want a link to that too, Mr. "biologist Scientist"?

 Mutagenic Effect of 5000 r Gamma Rays in Drosophila simulans
MUHAMMAD HASSAN
Postgraduate Department of Zoology, Government College, Faisalabad–Pakistan

SNIPPETS

Irradiation treatment. For irradiation treatment, 45 unetherized young (2-3 days old) male Drosophila simulans
flies were exposed to 5000 roentgens (r) of gamma radiation in COBALT60 GAMMA CELL (220 Canadian make with the radiation chamber 21 x 155 mm). In the cell chamber,36 flies within the bottles were kept approximately at the distance of 10 cm from the target. The exposure time was 2.28 min for 5000 r gamma radiations.

Identification and isolation of mutants. The irradiated males were crossed to controlled virgin females, on the
same day. The F1, F2, and F3 generations were examined to identify visible mutant flies. To identify and isolate the
mutant flies, the phenotypic characteristics namely, sex, body size, eyes, head, thorax, abdomen, bristles, wing
shape, wing venation and genitalia were examined under binocular microscope, at magnification X 100. In each
culture bottle, three pairs of Drosophila simulans flies were kept for 3-4 days and then the flies were released. The new flies of F1 generation were counted and examined under the binocular microscope to identify the autosomal and sexlinked dominant mutations for three successive days until there were no more flies emerging. Pairs of F1 flies were allowed to mate randomly for the production of F2 and F3 generations. The controlled culture was also grown parallel to irradiated flies for the sake of comparison.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Induced Mutants were identified and isolated from the culture of Drosophila simulans flies irradiated by
5000 r of gamma radiation and their genetic pattern was studied to the maximum extent. However, no
spontaneous mutant could be recorded in the controlled strain of the fruitflies grown parallel to the irradiated culture.

It seems likely that these mutants were produced due to semilethal structural chromosome mutations induced by 5000 r gamma radiation, in the present investigation.

http://www.fspublishers.org/published_papers/73648_..pdf

Here's a very good book. As might be expected, NO EVIDENCE has been PUBLISHED about the mutagenicity of Radiation in humans.  But then the AEC had an "agreement" since the 1950s with the World Health Organization (that conducts a large chunk of these studies for the U.N. on many health issues) that NO STUD?Y on radiation effects can be published with the AEC's permission. If you do not get what that means, feel free to call me a raving conspiracy theorist". A think I'm being Occam's razor logical. When you read even the summary, radiation mutagenicity jumps right out at you from the careful presentation of empirical data. What's more, adaptation and hormesis are debunked while they privately admit they don't have "evidence" of human mutegenicity. However, the fact that the risk assessment clearly supports Target theory as opposed to LNT say it ALL. Read on.

Google this book:
Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation:: BEIR VII PHASE 2 (2006)
By Committee to Assess Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation, Board on Radiation Effects Research, Division on Earth and Life Studies, National Research Council.

SNIPPET:

Animal data support the view that low-dose radiation acts principally on the early stages of tumorigenesis (initiation). High-dose effects on later stages (promotion or progression). are also likely. Although the data is limited, the loss of specific genes whose absence might result in animal tumor initiation has been demonstrated in irradiated animals and cells.

Heritable Genetic Effects of Radiation in Human Populations

RISK ESTIMATION METHODS

In the absence of data on radiation-induced germ cell mutations that can cause genetic disease in humans, all of the methods developed and used for predicting the risk of genetic disease from the mid-1950s to the present are indirect. Their strengths and weaknesses are reviewed in BEIR V (NRC 1990). One such indirect method is the doubling dose method, on which attention is focused in this section. It has been in use since the early 1970s (NRC 1972, 1990; UNSCEAR 1977, 1982, 1986, 1988) and is used in the recent UNSCEAR (2001) report.

The Doubling Dose Method

The doubling dose method enables expressing of the expected increase in disease frequency per unit dose of radiation in terms of the baseline frequency of the disease class. The doubling dose (DD) is the amount of radiation required to produce in a generation as many mutations as those that arise spontaneously. Ideally, it is estimated as a ratio of the average rates of spontaneous and induced mutations in a given set of genes:
 
(4-1)
The reciprocal of the DD (i.e., 1/DD) is the relative mutation risk (RMR) per unit dose. Since RMR is the reciprocal of DD, the smaller the DD, the higher is the RMR and vice versa. With the doubling dose method, until recently, risk was estimated as a product of two quantities—namely, the baseline disease frequency, P, and 1/DD:
 

Last link. I promise!

Low dose radiation’s harmful effects on fruit flies – implications for the human species

The discovery, as the scientists state in their article, can shed some light on the problem of individual irradiation sensitivity. It is known that low doses of radiation sometimes result in serious inborn defects, and sometimes leave no traces. In part, it is connected with the a priori random nature of ionizing radiation, but there are also a number of genetically-based molecular-biological differences, many of which have not been yet defined.

SNIPPET

The mutant flies bred by the scientists have a number of significant peculiarities. The experiments have shown that even low doses of X-ray irradiation (not exceeding 10 R) can cause serious defects in those flies' legs.

In addition, the mutant flies' cells are less resistant to the so-called superoxide radicals.

Superoxide radicals are ions which appear in cells under both normal and pathological conditions. Superoxide radicals have very high rates of reactivity, which is why their excess damages many types of bio-molecules, including DNA. The mutations in Drosophilaflies' cells lowered their ability to resist that damage.

“These results may have broader implications beyond the model organism. In particular, they may indicate an increased risk of pathological response to radiation in humans carrying hypomorphic mutations of these genes in their genome (note that both genes are highly evolutionarily conserved). Such individuals may be more vulnerable than the bulk of the population to even low levels of radiation………http://medicalxpress.com/news/2014-05-reveal-secret-vulnerability.html

http://medicalxpress.com/news/2014-05-reveal-secret-vulnerability.html

Adaptation, low dose hypersensitivity, bystander effect, homeisis and genomic instability are based mainly on phenomenological data with little mechanistic information.
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: December 06, 2015, 03:51:52 pm »

A Big Fat Radioactive Lie

Posted on Dec 5, 2015


By Emily Schwartz Greco / OtherWords

Wikimedia 

This piece ran on OtherWords.

Not long ago, no billionaire worth his cufflinks would be caught dead without hurling bales of money at our nation’s educational system. They bankrolled charter schools, high-stakes testing, and the splintering of big high schools into smaller academies. Their failure to make American kids learn more scuffed the luster on this enduring philanthropic fad.

Billionaires have landed, therefore, on a new mission. As Donald Trump might say, they want to make nuclear energy great again

“If we are serious about replacing fossil fuels, we are going to need nuclear power,”    PayPal co-founder and Facebook mega-investor Peter Thiel crowed in a New York Times op-ed shortly before negotiators from 195 nations gathered in Paris to seal an international climate pact. 


Thiel, who personally invests in nuclear energy, made the self-serving demand that the U.S. government forge a “plan to fund and prototype the new reactors that we badly need.”

In other words: What does a guy like me with only $2.2 billion to my name gotta do to get my corporate welfare handout? 

Bill Gates is also advocating heavy public investment in novel designs that these nuclear cheerleaders swear will be safer and cheaper than the 391 reactors that now generate about one in 10 watts around the world.

As the Paris climate talks got underway, the Microsoft co-founder launched an unprecedented multibillion-dollar “clean” energy fund, backed by the U.S., Chinese, and Indian governments, as well as other billionaires and some foundations. Don’t be surprised if it’s nuclear-friendly.

The crowd of rich men with tech cred dipping their toes in these radioactive waters also includes Amazon titan Jeff Bezos and Paul Allen, Gates’ fellow Microsoft co-founder. 
 

But there are many reasons why governments, including our own, should resist their call to pump more tax dollars into nuclear energy. Namely:
Quote
Reactors are expensive, they’re very difficult to shield from terrorist and other security threats, and they’re prone to catastrophic accidents that have created ghost towns in Japan and the former Soviet Union. Furthermore, there are still no solutions for meeting the daunting challenges of safeguarding nuclear waste and cleaning up abandoned uranium mines.

And nuclear power takes too long to crank up. Remarkably, five of the 62 reactors under construction worldwide have been in the nuclear pipeline for three decades. It’s too slow to stop the climate crisis.

Besides — to a much greater extent than solar and wind power — nuclear energy emits its own carbon pollution. Those greenhouse gas emissions come largely through the use of fossil fuels in activities like reactor construction, waste transportation, and uranium mining.

More importantly, successful businessmen ought to be able to spot an uncompetitive industry when they see one.

Here’s what Lazard, an investment bank with $180 billion under management, has to say about today’s top energy options:
Quote
Utility-scale “wind and solar are much cheaper than gas and coal, and less than half the cost of nuclear.”
Renewable energy’s competitive edge makes it no surprise that generation from solar power is now growing exponentially and wind power has been expanding by more than 20 percent annually for the past seven years around the world as nukes have fumbled. The total amount of global nuclear energy remained well below 1996 levels in 2014.

A total of four new nuclear reactors in Georgia and South Carolina are at least three years behind schedule and billions of dollars over budget. That bodes badly for the save-our-nukes billionaire class because (sorry, guys  ;D)  those power stations were supposed to be models for ramping up nuclear energy quickly without cost overruns.

I wonder what they’ll choose as their next losing battle.

Emily Schwartz Greco
     is the managing editor of OtherWords, a non-profit national editorial service run by the Institute for Policy Studies. OtherWords.org.

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/a_big_fat_radioactive_lie_20151205
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: October 30, 2015, 09:40:38 pm »

Quote
Bob Zeliff    
 
October 30, 2015 at 9:10 am
 
This is just another of so many disappointments from the NRC and Entergy.

Obama’s appointees have been Nuclear establishment insiders. They do not seem to serve us well…only time will tell.

Is there open/transparent analysis how the current $600m decommissioning fund will meet the estimated $1200m cost (is that a good estimate??) with all the withdrawals that Entergy is taking.


Bob Dobalina    
 
October 30, 2015 at 11:59 am
 
NO INVESTIGATION INTO ENTERGY FINANCES NEEDED….THESE ARE NOT THE DROIDS YOU’RE LOOKING FOR….

NRC: No investigation into Entergy finances needed   


Oct. 29, 2015, 5:43 pm by Mike Faher 

http://vtdigger.org/2015/10/29/nrc-says-no-investigation-into-entergy-finances-is-needed/

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: October 30, 2015, 02:16:36 am »


Halliburton Sold Nuclear Technology to Iran via Foreign Subsidiaries 

By Iranian.com / October 20th, 2015   

Senate hearing on foreign subsidiaries of U.S. companies dealing with Iran

Halliburton, the notorious U.S. energy company, sold key nuclear-reactor components to a private Iranian oil company called Oriental Oil Kish as recently as 2005, using offshore subsidiaries to circumvent U.S. sanctions. This clip shows Democratic Senators Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) and Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) grilling Sherry Williams, V.P. and Corporate Secretary for Halliburton about the company’s deplorable ethics and questionable practices.


http://www.constantinereport.com/halliburton-sold-nuclear-technology-iran-via-foreign-subsidiaries/
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: October 25, 2015, 02:30:24 pm »

The following is the happy talk press release. The fact is that, even though Dr. Martin Keller is a microbiologist by training, he worked at Oak Ridge Labs, a funnel for nuclear welfare queen money in the USA. We-the-people pay to run that lab and every nuclear power plant operator in the USA has been given ALL the research they come up with FREE so they can PRIVATIZE any profits from that knowledge. So it goes.     


Statement from U.S. Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz on New Leadership at NREL

October 20, 2015 - 5:04pm

“The Department of Energy welcomes Dr. Martin Keller as the new director of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). Martin’s track record in building links between the basic sciences and our Nation’s energy challenges will help NREL reinforce its place as the world’s leading laboratory for renewable energy and energy efficiency research and development.

“I would also like to thank Dr. Dan E. Arvizu for his excellent service of more than 10 years as NREL director. As director, Dan helped to bolster America's research efforts in renewable energy and energy efficiency, and Martin will continue that effort, further advancing America's low-carbon economy. We look forward to seeing the important innovations NREL will put forth in our national interest under this renewal of strong leadership.”

http://energy.gov/articles/statement-us-secretary-energy-ernest-moniz-new-leadership-nrel

Agelbert NOTE: Somehow, I do not expect a former Oak ridge National Laboratory LOYAL member of the "nukes are renewable energy" fecal coliform pushing propagandists to champion wind turbines, solar energy, ground source heat pumps and EVs. I DO, however, expect to soon read a "wonderful" announcement about "advances" in those "small, clean" nuclear power plants our tax dollars have been thrown at willy nilly for the past decade (or more). 


Dr. Martin Keller is a stalking horse for the new nuclear boondoggle of smaller, "safe and clean" (NOT!) nuclear power technology for your neighborhood. Have a nice nuclear day. :evil4:




I'm sure the nuke pukes will applaud.  ::)

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: June 05, 2015, 03:15:56 pm »

Nuclear Plant decommissioning, according to estimates, takes 25 to 100 YEARS! But here's the kicker. NO NUCLEAR POWER PLANT EVER BUILT HAS EVER BEEN TOTALLY DECOMMISSIONED. IOW, we-the-people will be STUCK with the bill after the profit over planet nuke pukes make off with the profit over planet. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paxDogM6MjU&feature=player_embedded

 
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: June 05, 2015, 02:39:15 pm »

Nuclear watchdog wants auditor to oversee Vermont Yankee fund

Amy Ash Nixon Jun. 4 2015, 7:12 pm

Quote
“If Vermont Yankee runs out of decommissioning funds, Vermonters will be left holding the bag. We have lost the right to audit how Vermont Yankee is spending the decommissioning money because it is not regulated as a traditional ‘utility’ but rather is a ‘merchant plant’ selling power where and when it could,” Gundersen said Thursday.

Quote
bob zeliff 
 


June 5, 2015 at 5:53 am


It is becoming more and more obvious that Entergy continues to find ways to not only avoid it’s responsibility to decommission its obsolete plant but is bleeding away funds…evan when the decommissioning fund is INADEQUATE complete the job.

This will leave the final huge clean up bill to taxpayers.

I think it is time not only for Hoffer be given the authority to monitor the decommissioning funds but our Federal Legislators, Leahy, Welch and Sanders to apply pressure to Obama and the NRC to do their jobs responsibly. 



http://vtdigger.org/2015/06/04/anti-nuke-group-wants-hoffer-to-oversee-vermont-yankee-fund/
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: June 01, 2015, 08:12:52 pm »

Nuclear Insanity

Congress keeps funding overbudget plutonium site  with no real customers

MOX Gets Golden Hammer Award for Egregious Waste

The Washington Times has awarded its Golden Hammer Award to South Carolina's Mixed Oxide (MOX) fuel facility. The MOX program, which is intended to convert 34 metric tons of weapons-grade plutonium into fuel for nuclear power plants, is viewed by many as an egregious example of government waste.

In 2004, the project was expected to cost $1.6 billion, with a completion date of 2007. Now, in 2015, over $4 billion has been spent on the project, which is only 67% completed. Congress appears likely to provide $345 million in funding for MOX in Fiscal Year 2016. At this rate, studies have shown that the lifecycle costs for MOX will reach $114 billion. The MOX plant also lost its only potential customer for the fuel, Duke Energy. No other nuclear utility has been willing to take the risk of using MOX fuel in nuclear reactors.

Kellan Howell, "Congress Keeps Funding Overbudget Plutonium Site with No Real Customers," Washington Times, May 7, 2015.


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/may/7/golden-hammer-congress-keeps-funding-overbudget-pl
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: November 20, 2014, 06:59:33 pm »

"What happened at TMI was a whole lot worse than what has been reported," Randall Thompson  told Facing South. "Hundreds of times worse."

Thompson and his wife, Joy, a nuclear health physicist who also worked at TMI in the disaster's aftermath, claim that what they witnessed there was a public health tragedy. The Thompsons also warn that the government's failure to acknowledge the full scope of the disaster is leading officials to underestimate the risks posed by a new generation of nuclear power plants.

Fundamental to the industry's case for expansion is the claim that history proves nuclear power is clean and safe -- a claim on which the Thompsons and others, bolstered by startling new evidence, are casting doubt.

Randall Thompson could never be accused of being a knee-jerk anti-nuclear alarmist. A veteran of the U.S. Navy's nuclear submarine program, he is a self-described "nuclear geek" who after finishing military service jumped at the chance to work for commercial nuclear power companies.

He worked for a time at the Peach Bottom nuclear plant south of Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania's York County, but quit the industry six months before the TMI disaster over concerns that nuclear companies were cutting corners for higher profits, with potentially dangerous results. Instead, he began publishing a skateboarding magazine with his wife Joy.

But the moment the Thompsons heard about the TMI incident, they wanted to get inside the plant and see what was happening first-hand. That didn't prove difficult: Plant operator Metropolitan Edison's in-house health physics staff fled after the incident began, so responsibility for monitoring radioactive emissions went to a private contractor called Rad Services.

The company immediately hired Randall Thompson to serve as the health physics technician in charge of monitoring radioactive emissions, while Joy Thompson got a job monitoring radiation doses to TMI workers.

"I had other health physicists from around the country calling me saying, 'Don't let it melt without me!" Randall Thompson recalls. "It was exciting. Our attitude was, 'Sure I may get some cancer, but I can find out some cool stuff.'"

What the Thompsons say they found out during their time inside TMI suggests radiation releases from the plant were hundreds if not thousands of times higher than the government and industry have acknowledged -- high enough to cause the acute health effects documented in people living near the plant but that have been dismissed by the industry   and the government as impossible  ;) given official    radiation dose estimates.

The Thompsons tried to draw attention to their findings and provide health information for people living near the plant, but what they say happened next reads like a John Grisham thriller.


They tell of how a stranger approached Randall Thompson in a grocery store parking lot in late April 1979 and warned him his life was at risk, leading the family to flee Pennsylvania. How they ended up in New Mexico working on a book about their experiences with the help of Joy's brother Charles Busey, another nuclear Navy vet and a former worker at the Hatch nuclear power plant in Georgia. How one evening while driving home from the store Busey and Randall Thompson were run off the road, injuring Thompson and killing Busey. How a copy of the book manuscript they were working on was missing from the car's trunk after the accident. These allegations were detailed in several newspaper accounts back in 1981.

Eventually, after a decade of having their lives ruled by TMI, the Thompsons decided to move on. Randall Thompson went to college to study computer science. Joy Thompson returned to publishing and writing.

Full article that proves, ONCE AGAIN, that the USA has been a FASCIST Corporatocracy in the service of profit over planet for a LONG TIME here:


http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/04/03/716139/-Startling-revelations-on-Three-Mile-Island-nuclear-power

Quote
“We as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values… when machines and computers, profit motives and property rights, are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism and militarism are incapable of being conquered.”
-- Martin Luther King, Jr. April 4, 1967
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: August 14, 2014, 08:27:41 pm »

Sowing Confusion About Renewable Energy

Readers of The Economist may have been surprised to read in its 26 July 2014 “Free exchange” section on page 63, or in its online version, the “clear” conclu­sion that solar and wind power are “the most expen­sive way of reducing green­house-gas emissions,” while “nuclear plants…are cheaper,” so governments are foolish to boost renewables and mothball nuclear. 

In each of the past three years, the world has invested more than a quarter-trillion dollars to add over 80 billion watts of renew­ables (excluding big hydro dams). That growth is accelerating: solar power is scaling faster than cellphones. Big European utilities lost €0.5 trillion in market cap, as an Economist cover story fea­tured, not because renewables couldn’t compete, but because they competed all too well, wiping out old power plants’ profits. The same is happening to some well-running U.S. nuclear plants, now facing closure as uneconomic just to operate.

Shouldn’t the runaway market success of renewables—soon to beat grid power on price, says Bloomberg , in most of the world—have raised a flag at the Eco­no­m­ist article’s conclusion?

That full-page article highlights a May working paper by Charles R. Frank, Jr. (economics Ph.D. 1963)  , a nonresident fellow at the nonpartisan and notably debate-friendly Brookings Institution. His background is in international development and finance. I daresay most experts on the economics of energy technologies and climate change had never heard of him—but they have now. As soon as The Economist featured his paper, their inboxes and Twitter TWTR -1.06% feeds lit up with incredulity: could his conclusions possibly be true?

They’re not (and yes, I’ve written The Economist a letter saying so). My detailed critique explains why, and cites two other reviews and a podcast. But for anyone who knows the subject, Dr. Frank’s con­clu­sions don’t even pass the giggle test. He finds that new wind and solar power are the least, and new nuclear power and combined-cycle gas generation are the most, cost-effective ways to displace coal-fired power—just the opposite of what you’d expect from observing market prices and choices.

How does Dr. Frank reach his contrarian conclusions? By using, apparently unwittingly,obsolete data and incorrect methods. He assumes wind and solar power half as productive and twice as costly as they actually are, gas power twice as pro­duc­­­tive as it actually is (but with no methane leakage or price volatility), and new nuclear power at half its actual total cost and con­struction time and one-fifth its actual operating cost. He also posits a need for new U.S. generating capacity and bulk electricity storage, but no efficiency oppor­tuni­ties worth mentioning. His strange method of assessing reliability suggests little under­standing of how power grids integrate, and their operators analyze, renew­ables.

So are Dr. Frank’s odd findings artifacts of errors in his methodology, his data, or both? Both, but there are so many mistakes that just nine data points can carry the whole load. My colleague Titiaan Palazzi reconstructed Dr. Frank’s spread­­sheets, reproduced his results, then simply updated the nine most egregiously outdated figures to those in the latest official historical statistics (not forward-looking projections) from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, Department of Energy, Nuclear Energy Institute, and similarly authoritative sources.

Presto! The conclusions flipped. Instead of gas combined-cycle and nuclear plants’ offering the greatest net benefit from displacing coal plants, followed by hydro, wind, and last of all solar, the ranks reversed. The new, correct, story: first hydro (on his purely economic assumptions), then wind, solar, gas, and last of all nuclear—still omitting efficiency, which beats them all.

Beneath Dr. Frank’s wrong answer, however, lurks a useful question. He adopts the distinguished economist Prof. Paul Joskow’s 2011 valid thesis that the way power-sector investments are chosen—lowest long-run eco­nomic cost—is incomplete, because different technologies generate power at different times, creat­ing different amounts of value. Of course value as well as cost should be con­sidered. But interestingly, this case suggests that if we use correct and up-to-date cost and per­for­mance data, the cost- and value-based calculations yield the same priorities, whether judged from the perspective of financial investment or climate-protection effectiveness. That is, adjusting for different resources’ time of genera­tion, though theoretically nice, doesn’t change the result; cost-benefit analysis gives the same answer as a simple cost comparison. The resulting best-buys-first sequence would also gain even more value if other hidden costs, risks, and benefits were counted too.

Making a splash—intentional or not—with a flawed analysis that doesn’t survive more careful scrutiny is nothing new. My esteemed Stanford colleague Dr. Jon G. Koomey cowrote a 2002 Annual Review of Energy and the Environment paper called “Sorry, Wrong Number: The Use and Misuse of Numerical Facts in Analysis and Media Reporting of Energy Issues.” Its abstract says: “Students of public policy sometimes envision an idealized policy process where competent data collection and incisive analysis on both sides of a debate lead to reasoned judgments and sound decisions. Unfortu­nate­ly, numbers that prove decisive in policy debates are not always carefully developed, credibly documented, or correct. This paper presents four widely cited examples of numbers in the energy field that are either misleading or wrong. It explores the origin of those numbers, how they missed the mark, and how they have been misused by both analysts and the media. In addition, it describes and uses a three-stage analytic process for evaluating such statistics that involves defining terms and boundaries, assessing underlying data, and critically analyzing arguments.” It’s a bracing read, with a nice summary and update.

The diligent Dr. Frank  has collected not just one wrong number but a flotilla, together driving a false conclusion that gained a prominent platform in The Econo­mist. The ana­lytic lesson: rapidly changing data quickly pass their sell-by date.

It’s too early to guess whether prompt refutations will prevent the distres­sing phenomenon Dr. Koomey describes, whereby media and advocates fond of a false thesis (or who don’t know any better) keep repeating it long after it’s been de­cis­ive­ly debunked.  Time will tell. But your ability to stay well-informed and to exer­cise your critical faculties can help build sound public discourse. If you hear a claim that sounds nutty, maybe it is. If it is, say so. As biologist Prof. E.O. Wilson wrote, “Some­times a concept is baffling not because it is profound but because it’s wrong.”

This article originally appeared on Forbes.com

http://blog.rmi.org/blog_2014_08_07_sowing_confusion_about_renewable_energy

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: June 24, 2014, 01:32:33 pm »


A. G. Gelbert   
 June 24, 2014 

Final Statement to Bill the "biologist"  2   who, in so many words, is repeating the mantra that the solution to nuclear pollution is dilution. This totally ignores food chain realities expressed by the ingestion and concentration of radionuclides in bivalves and other bottom of the food chain filter feeders which are then ingested by fish, thereby increasing the concentration, not decreasing it (as Bill claims) in higher order life forms like Homo sapiens.

Cardiovascular disease and death increases in that area you claim "only" had increases in thyroid cancer are linked DIRECTLY to guess what radionuclide that is distributed uniformly in human muscle tissues? You obviously haven't looked at the Chernobyl effects data very closely. Also, you claim that my statement that 1 in three persons will get cancer at present is false. Google it! And yes Bill, the increase in cardiovascular disease and deaths, though you nukers will deny it, is definitely linked to radionuclide absorption in muscle tissue. It's not just about cholesterol and sugar! The radionuclide Ce-137 deposition map of the USA is public information LONG before Fufkushima.
Do you want to prepare a graph showing cancer and cardiovascular disease rate increases in this country and Ce-137 deposition from power plants and nuclear bomb tests? Probably not. You prefer to reach for your "correlation is not causation" straw.

If you really think my answer was long or disjointed and irrelevant, you have never read a research paper. If you want to descend into nitpicking minutiae to muddle the issues so I can be accused of getting "off topic" by the anonyMouse Steven, only for you to leap back to generalizations after I give you proof in a detailed answer, that again shows you are into propaganda, not science.

So, for the readers, I will present a really brief summary of the points I made . The proof is in that "long" answer I gave for those who have scientist level attention spans.

1. Mutagenicity of ionizing radiation was proven as far back as the discovery that Drosophila melanogaster has DOUBLE or more the mutation rate (none of said mutations beneficial, by the way) in an abandoned uranium mine. Of note to the readers is that Insects are more resistant to ionizing radiation than mammals because of the higher percentage of water in our tissues. One of the PRIMARY targets of therapy for cancer caused by radiation (Acute Radiation Sickness) are the non-receptor and receptor tyrosine kinase enzymes because of the PROVEN link between radionucllde exposure and tumorigenesis.

2. Target theory, as opposed to LNT is the only way to accurately measure damage from ionizing radiation. The damage is inversely proportional to the distance of the emitter. That is nuclear physics 101. Ingestion of radionuclides is far more damaging than the LNT standards people like Bill and AEC accept (wrongly and inaccurately) because the distance is in nanometers. I can give you a web sight where you can do the math on the group of photon energies for any radionuclide. At nanometer distances, it AIN'T PRETTY, Bill.

3. The main subject here, energy sources and COST, is defined rather selectively by the nukers to exclude AND minimize the health costs to, not just human populations, but the biosphere as a whole that we require to be a viable species, never mind a few centuries of baby sitting used fuel rod assemblies on the taxpayer dime.

The facts prove that, not only is Renewable Energy cheaper, it is the only sustainable alternative because of it's potential for zero waste products that damage the life forms in the food chain vital to our existence. The only nuclear powered furnace we need is the sun. We not only can scale up to 100% renewable energy, any other option is unsustainable and undermines the viability of the biosphere and that of future generations of Homo sapiens.

If you agree, please sign this petition to President Obama:

Demand Liberty From Fossil Fuels Through 100% Renewable Energy WWII Style Effort

Here's a link to the petition: http://www.care2.com/go/z/e/Ai3Tb

We did it with the Liberty Ship massive building effort in WWII; we can do it again with Renewable energy technology and infrastructure.

Thank you

Anthony G. Gelbert
Green Leaf Star American in the Service of Future Generations
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: June 23, 2014, 04:12:16 pm »

joe richardson   
 June 23, 2014 

Mr,. Gelbert,
Thanks for your kind words and endorsement. As I told my Keller I'm not a religious man. But I have studies religious philosophy a bit and ill offer Keller a quote from a book of tales from ancient times,,, 'The Truth Shall Set you Free"..

Thanks again Mr Gelbert, we all have to light a candle against the dark and I appreciate your efforts as doing so also.

Mr Keller,
For all your advanced degrees and all of your experience running every type of power plant there is you seem truly uninformed as to the byproduct of each, and its associated costs.

You wrote,, ,
"I have several advanced degrees, including an MBA. I am quite familiar with the energy business. There is no question that renewable energy folks expect handouts from the government because their product is not competitive. Further, their product is essentially inconsequential to green house gas emissions"

---"their product is essentially inconsequential to green house gas emissions"-- really ????.

I'm not sure if your just truly and stubbornly uninformed or if your just doing as the Republican party reality deniers do here In the sates,, and just keep repeating the big lie,, over and over and over hoping to sway the opinion of someone that's just ignorant and uninformed.

Help me understand, do you really think that by taking a coal plant off line and replacing it with wind of solar,, it has little effect on green house gas emissions???     ;D

I imagine your answer with some sort of,,, well its a matter of scale argument. In that the amount of emissions reduction from one coal plant is miniscule compared to the total? In which case your right. But the process isn't an all in, go for everything at once situation. The reduction obviously begins one coal plant at a time.

And yes, Nuclear plants have zero emissions also. But,, and this but is a BIG but! nuc's have no emissions until some bonehead does (or did) something stupid,, and then the emissions are BIG and unrecoverable and forever.. Its not just a case of giving your neighbors kids asthma from your coal plant emissions, nope, when the arrogance of the nuc plant crowd reveals itself, its a,,, EVERYBODY RUN FOR YOU LIFE situation. As if that'll do any good.

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2014/06/nuclear-giant-exelon-blasts-wind-energy#comment-132744

Agelbert Note: Keller lied to Joe. Nuke plants are NOT carbon neutral. Anyone can Google that. And the false choice Keller presents between coal and nuclear is part of their propaganda pitch attempting to exclude renewables, which can replace both, conveniently for the polluting predators, out of the energy solution picture.  I gave Joe a link the Renewable revolution forum. If he comes here or Googles nuclear power plant emissions, he will be able to throw the proof of Keller's mendacity in his face. I hope he does.  ;D
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: June 22, 2014, 02:27:01 am »


Michael Keller  
 
 June 20, 2014 

You lads are mistaken. I am not defending nuclear power. I am stating that the competitive market place should fundamentally set power prices. Nobody should be given exclusive assistance not available to others.

That means if somebody gets some form of help (e.g. accelerated depreciation) then everybody else gets the same advantage.

As to the Union of Concerned Scientists report, in their current form, new nuclear power plants are not particularly competitive. Make them more competitive or don't build new ones. Ditto for renewable energy.


 joe richardson   
 June 20, 2014 

Mr Keller,
I finally agree with you, "the competitive market place should set power prices", "and nobody should be given exclusive assistance".

I'm not a rigid free market person but that's probably because, while a free market is a great sounding idea, I've never seen it practiced anywhere. Because someone or some industries are always trying to skew the process, and the nuclear, coal and oil industries have historically skewed the process in order to maintain their existence, and profits for a few.

It was the 1970's when we Americans woke up to our dependence on fossil fuels and first glimpsed this dependencies real costs. but we were blinded to the facts by the coal and oil companies and continued down the same road. .
Imagine what the world would be like today if we, and everyone else, had acted on this dependency then and pursued some level of self sufficiency in renewable energy instead of letting the fossil fuel industry skew our reality in order to maintain their profits. Imagine the savings just in the dirty little oil wars that have been waged.
 So,, ill still take windmills slowly turning in the breeze and solar panels soaking up rays any day, to avoid the total costs of fossil and nuclear fuels.


Brian Donovan   
 June 20, 2014 

The "free market"? free to do what? pollute, kill, steal? We need a fair market, not a free market. The democracies must control the corporations and the market, not the other way around, or it's oligarchy. We have given fossils and nuclear massive gov breaks for a century and 50 years, more per KWH over the history than solar or wind have gotten.
 Yes, the newer cleaner technologies Nobody should be given exclusive assistance not available to others.  like the dirty fossils and nuclear power industries. We can';t just turn off the fossils and nuclear plants, that's what we should do for our health., but it will take 10 years or so to phase them out. Just fine fossils and nuclear for all their wastes, allow NO new fossils or nuclear plants, and stop all gov support for them. Nuclear can't even run 1 second without gov protection from liability, we we will have to phase that out, unfair as it is. Already the fossils and nuclear dinosaurs are actually demanding payment for their lost profits from their bad choices, they charge wind and solar with cost that are actually lost profits for fossils and nuclear companies. Don’t believe me? http://www.internationalenergyworkshop.org/docs/IEW%202013_4E1Ueckerdt.pdf
look at the "profile costs of wind, they are the lost profit of the fossils and nuclear companies.
Nuclear and fossils should get NONE of the gov breaks we reserve for companies that provide social value, not deadly pollution.
 Competition is a fantasy at the electrical generation level. Because of the natural monopoly, it is a totally gov regulated market, and must be. We really need to devolve electric and waste fuels down to the local municipal level.
 Like I said, fossils and nuclear plants are damaged by throttling, so much so, they pay for hydro storage and have had to offer negative pricing to prevent throttling. Since unpredictable demand changes happen faster than these plants can throttle, they are useless for it. and in fact an impediment.
 Wind, solar and waste fuels in peaking generators are not damaged physically by throttling, and need never cause negative pricing.

 
 Michael Keller   
 June 20, 2014 

Who decides what's fair? As a republic, the people decide through our laws, elected representatives and judges. I am fine with that. Unfortunately what we currently have are appointed radical bureaucrats unilaterally dictating what is "fair" in defiance of the basic construct of the US constitution.

Fortunately (or perhaps unfortunately for the Democrats) we have elections and the current vast crop of "commissars" may get drop-kicked over the stern. Or perhaps the radical left will again win the elections. In any case, if that's what the majority of people want, then we get to suffer the consequences of our votes.

As far as the "regulated" power markets are concerned, what should occur is the least cost producers should be deployed. Those producers have to comply with environmental laws passed by our elected representatives, as opposed to bureaucratic attempts to unilaterally legislate. That seems to be a defining trait of the left - they believe they are exempt from the laws they do not like and can do whatever they like.

PS Your technical knowledge of power plants (particularly nuclear) is not so good. The machines were designed to operate at essentially full power all the time and are not "throttled". Because the machines are not really designed to reduce load, they basically don't. That means they can indeed send power into the grid and not receive much of a return (or even lose money). That same principal of getting what the markets thinks your product is worth should be applied to renewable energy, which should receive no "feed-in" tariffs (subsidies) from the taxpayer nor should the market be mandated to use renewable energy. Please note, conventional power plants receive no such "feed-in" tariffs or mandates.

Also, I suspect you cause more damage to the environment from the trash and sewage you create than a nuclear power plant can realistically ever achieve. Coal plants do have some issues, but it really boils down to what level of impacts are we collectively (as opposed to say just the radical left "green energy" religious fanatics) willing to put up with relative to the benefits we receive from using coal.


Brian Donovan   
 June 20, 2014 

Keller, the constitution gave the Congress total control of the US market and economy, including money itself. The bureaucrats just follow the elected leaders. It was Cheney that gave the fossils and nuclear industry a blanket exemption from liability and environmental laws, You think the dems are bad? I do to, but not compared to the GOP. Thanks for agreeing that I fully understand the inability of nuclear power plants to throttle. That's just what I said.
 Try reading again. There is no free market for electric, nor is the "free market " a good idea.
Subsidies and FIT SHOULD be given to clean safe, sustainable technologies that are cheaper in the long run. We should not allow monopolies, and corruption of the gov to keep fossils and nuclear going and growing. Why would you think otherwise?

Nuclear power plants receive 500M$ worth of gov support per year per reactor according to the Duke energy CEO. He used that figure to sell investors. There are lots of gov support other than direct subsidies. Liability insurance for instance. Fukushima and Chernobyl will kill about a million people each with cancer. I don't think me trash does that., and if they would do what I suggest and convert it to energy, fuels and raw materials it would help the environment. I have a septic tank, it fertilizes my lawn. Nice try though.


PJ van Staden   
 June 21, 2014 

A.G. you're welcome.

The Law used to put criminals on trial, but nowadays criminals make the Law, isn't it? Brian is right in this, and its true in just about every large scale trade. Governments don't set up trade regulations themselves, but the "major" role players of trade sit alongside when those regulations get stipulated, with priority number one to make sure its as difficult as possible for new players to enter the trade and market. So yes, "free" my *rse! The only religion we're talking about here is called, Holism, which entails that everything should be kept one whole amongst the incumbents and the governing politicians.

Here we are, able to predict how long we still will be reliant on fossils (transport more than energy). We already see the effects in nature, super storms, tsunamis, earthquakes and the damage that goes with it, with absolutely zero chance of degrading in intensity, but O-yes!, we're going to put up more nukes???
You know, sometimes I wonder, shouldn't I take up street wiping and picking up litter as a job, for what value do scientist's have in a world where ignorant fools who think they're gods, called politicians and businessmen, against every warning and sign, anyway steer us directly into hell???

So, we put up all these nukes and every "2nd day" have to throttle it down when a super storm wipes out the network it supplies? Wake up man, please!


 joe richardson   
 June 21, 2014 

Mr. Keller,
Please stop trying to use the argument that wind and or solar plants damage nuclear and fossil plants from the need to vary plant output, i.e.throttling,,,,, the argument is ridiculous.
 All machines are designed to run the best and longest at a given speed and any variations in this cause wear and shortens its life. That's just a fundamental of mechanics and physics, I think its ever a Newton law of some sort, something about an object in motion tends to stay in motion unless acted on by an external force..Sound familiar?
Or,, in simpler terms, in regards to moving machinery, force=resistance, resistance=wear, wear=costs.. One of those great cosmic muffin rules.

And the fact that nuclear and fossil fuel plants has such massive construction, operating and deferred costs (read that as ignored long term costs) is fundamental to the argument that they are not cost effective in the long term compared to wind and solar.
Sorry. but its simple physics and math.


 

 Michael Keller   
 June 21, 2014 

Richardson,
You are a pin-head. I've never said wind and solar plants physically damage nuclear plants, although they can reduce revenues because the market price of power is artificially reduced by the special treatment given wind and solar. Most nuclear power plants were designed as base load units that operate at full load. That is how these particular machines are run. Reactors can be designed to maneuver (e.g. military reactors) but the economics would be poor.

Suggest you take a remedial course in thermodynamics if you actually want to know the fundamentals behind energy production.

Wind and solar are not low-cost, Owing to their variable nature, capacity factors are dismal. That means costs have to be distributed over relatively few operating hours. Further, the value of the power also varies according to when it is needed. Power in the middle of the night has significantly less value than power in the middle of the afternoon.

Renewable energy is generally not profitable. However, the parasites who own the machines think they are entitled to special access to the taxpayers and consumers wallets to make profit from their non-competitive enterprise.


 

 joe richardson   
 June 21, 2014 

Mr Keller,
True forgive me, you may not have said renewables damage fossil and nuc plants but that's what and where your old argument about their inherent issues with tapering, trimmimg, throttling, curtailing and negative pricing and cost per kw/hr is all about.
Renewable plants are more adapt at meeting the variable demands, and nuc and coal plants aren't. Sounds like an adapt or die situation to me and nuc and coal plants haven't shown much adaptability.
But have no fear, your job is secure,,, because of the nuc waste generated and stored on site at every nuc plant, they will require someone to baby sit each for the next few hundred years,,, even if it's production is ZERO.
Well,, unless you work someone near the ocean, a flood plain, a hurricane, tornado, or earthquake prone area, or a place where some whacked out terrorist stays up all night figuring out how he can blow it up. Well in that case, sleep tight..
 

 

 joe richardson   
 June 21, 2014 

Oh Mr Keller, also, you said,
"the parasites who own the machines think they are entitled to special access to the taxpayers and consumers wallets to make profit from their non-competitive enterprise".

Didn't this discussion begin with Exelon, one of the largest nuclear plant operators In the world complaining about renewables killing their profits?


 

 Michael Keller   
 June 21, 2014 


Renewable energy is the cause of rapid fluctuations in the grid because of its intermittent nature. Renewable energy is the problem and are not the solution. The solution is to figure some way to cost effectively store renewable energy when it is not needed. Alternatively, figure out some way to rapidly cover the load when renewable energy suddenly takes a nap.

As far as Exeleon is concerned, they are correct that government interference (renewable mandates, feed-in tariffs) in the energy market is creating contrived price signals that do not reflect the actual value of the power.



A. G. Gelbert   
 June 21, 2014 

Joe Richardson QUITE ACCURATELY tried to point out to Keller the Nuker that " this discussion began with Exelon, one of the largest nuclear plant operators In the world, complaining about renewables killing their profits!"

Thank you Joe. The problem with Mr. Keller is that he has his own rather interesting definitions of "level energy resource playing fields", "help" (a LOT more than accelerated depreciation is involved there!), and let us not forget those adjectives he uses like "particularly" to describe new nukes as to not being "profitable".

Oh, and his definition of "profitable" and "profit" is an Orwellian masterpiece.

While we are on the subject of accounting terms that mean one thing for nuclear power plant operators and something a bit less "limited in scope" for the rest of us, I am sure he will tell you that nuclear power plants enhance our national security. Again the highly selective mental processes of these bright masters of game theory dictates that his own job security is what said nuclear power plants really provide. And of course, that word "our" means all of us to help out with "national security" (nuclear power plant "subsidies") while Keller the nuker logically gets the "profits" from "all that work he is doing for the rest of us" to enhance our National Security.

I'm sure they have a special dictionary of terms to keep the newbies (they're usually retired nuclear submarine officers looking for a job) from adding and subtracting properly...

I've got to admit, they certainly are undaunted and unflappable (while being totally mendacious) in their claims. They have excellent "message" discipline. It's almost as is they are given a script before they come on these boards. They are really, really "good" at stubborn denial of economic realities to suit their wallets.

Expect them to get more voluble as renewable energy continues to eat their lunch. :>)

Thanks again Joe Richardson for telling it like it is. Well done!

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2014/06/nuclear-giant-exelon-blasts-wind-energy#comm132677

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: June 22, 2014, 02:23:40 am »

Boy this is NUCLEAR ROCK AND ROLL! 
    ::)     




50 Comments


Brian Donovan   
 June 19, 2014 

Keller,

Coal plants are damaged by throttling, as are nuclear power plants, and not because of the lack of variable speed pumps, but because they are boiler based, with huge thermal masses. http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy12osti/55433.pdf
http://www.ipautah.com/data/upfiles/newsletters/CyclingArticles.pdf

Combined cycle are also less flexible than simple turbines.

Flexible peaking and reserve turbines and diesels need to be designed for the task. These peaking generators area already installed to deal with the massive unpredictable changes in load.
"Batteries needed to cover the periodic loss of renewable energy would be stupefying expensive"
Nah it would be stupefying stupid,since it's not needed.

NPP and coal plants cause the negative [pricing events that have happened. Solar, wind and waste to fuels have no problem throttling.
http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21587782-europes-electricity-providers-face-existential-threat-how-lose-half-trillion-euros
It's time for coal and nuclear to stop picking consumer pockets and taxing us all for their expensive inflexible dirty deadly power. Solar, wind and waste fuels are cheaper, clean and safe.
 


Michael Keller   
 June 19, 2014 



Donovan,
I've run and managed all the power plant types you mentioned. The machines can and do change power levels. However, ramping the machines up and down has to be done within set rates. Further, times between overhauls are shortened if power level changes are excessive.

Wind turbines and solar plants are not immune to issues caused by the forced reduction in output, although the problem is more financial in nature. They bring in less money if forced to curtail operations. That means fixed costs (e.g. debt repayment) must be distributed over fewer megawatt hours of generation. That drives up their costs which are already well above typical market prices. Leads us directly to the fact that "renewable energy" plants are parasites run by "welfare queens"


PJ van Staden   
 June 19, 2014 



Keller

(Leads us directly to the fact that "renewable energy" plants are parasites run by "welfare queens")

You shouldn't knock the little child that is busy growing up that badly. Your statement is depleted of understanding, for your reference speaks from the current dynamics as things are right now. There comes a day that renewables will approach its mature strength, and much of that strength will reside in time zone linkage, then most of this negative pricing will vanish. Negative pricing, in fact, if you think about it, is due to systems in isolation. Once that isolation disappears and the market widens, the need to throttle will ease out.

If not that, then upcoming technology will eliminate intermittency. Both ways coal and nuclear will become obsolete. The writing is thus on the wall: "Start complimenting those 'parasites' of the 'welfare queens,' for its your future."


joe richardson   
 June 19, 2014 



Mr Kellers comments that, "renewable energy plants are parasites run by welfare queens? is absurd and so typical of those insisting on keeping their heads in the sand, ignoring reality and trying to push nonsense and lies in support of the fossil fuel industry out to the public.
Coal plants have been subsidized by generations of coal miners living in poverty and working in appealing conditions all the while suffering the ill health effects of coal production first hand, and depending on the rest of us to subsidize their health care. Nuclear, gas and oil fired plants have lived off government welfare, or corporate welfare, tax breaks, subsidies, favorable labor laws, favorable or non existent pollution regulations, zero interest loans, the same health care costs as other renewables from their toxic waste and by product etc etc for so long, most people have forgotten how to count their REAL costs. As evident by so many of the comments here.
And as far as costs go, throttling or curtailment is a fact of life at all power plants and its a fact of life because the loads vary day to day minute to minute and only the ignorant don't understand this. We don't live in a flat line easily predictable world, never have, never will. And only the ignorant don't understand that any effect this variations in output may have on a particular plants equipment is part of its overhead, or costs.
And ill accept the TOTAL cost of a wind or solar plant over that of a nuclear or coal plant any day of the week, any week of the month and all year long. And that's with no corporate welfare skewing the picture. Those that continue to preach about the good of the coal, gas, oil and nuclear industry and how evil renewables are, really need to look inward at themselves and ask themselves,, who am I serving by spewing all of this nonsense, the public?, my kids? their kids, or big oil, big coal and individuals such as the Koch brothers? The head in sanders really need to look inward at themselves and ask, what happened to common sense and conscience.

 




 Michael Keller   
 June 19, 2014 



If we're going to play your silly little "total cost" game, then you need to include the cost of the benefits of actually having power produced by nuclear and fossil plants. That is an extremely large number.

Fact of the matter is , renewable energy receives a direct subsidy of over $20/MWh of production. Nobody else gets that. Parasite is a pretty good description.

Renewable energy needs to stop crying like spoiled little brats and grow-up. Compete and win by improving the economics of your product.


PJ van Staden   
 June 19, 2014 



Renewables are growing up! Its exactly what I said...

Subsidy in production??? That's not "subsidy." Its penalty! And that penalty will kept being paid by coal and nuclear until their death, which is just fair taking into consideration all the evil it has incurred on mankind and its habitat. Ignorance has to make way to knowledge. And in power generation, renewables are the knowledge and conventionals the ignorance.

Forget the money, it cannot buy you a new earth when this one melts down. You should rather be thankful that you have the opportunity to pay that production penalty to renewables.

Cheer up man! Life is greater than money.


 

 joe richardson   
 June 19, 2014 



Mr Keller,
Total cost isn't a "silly little game" its a business reality and its a sum of immediate costs and deferred or ignored long term costs. I can only assume you had no concerns about cost, short term or long term while you were running every type of power plant there is because you were too busy enjoying your free lunch from the subsidies and tax breaks you enjoyed while you ignored the truth. Its a real world out there and reality will hit you in the face sooner or later. Sometimes it comes in the form of a lawyer demanding billions of dollars in penalty payments.
If you doubt it, ask the tobacco or asbestos industry about the effects of deferred or ignored long term costs. They probably wont be able to give you a number though, they wont know the total cost of their willful negligence for a long time,,, as is the case with the fossil fuel and nuclear energy industries.


 

 Michael Keller   
 June 19, 2014 


Actually, the plants were Independent Power Producers. If the units were not profitable, we're out of business.

You characters are clearly "green energy" religious fanatics incapable of engaging in rational discussions.


joe richardson   
 June 19, 2014 

Profitable provided someone else carried a significant amount of their "total cost" no doubt.


joe richardson   
 June 19, 2014 

And i'm not religious, not at all I prefer to be a realist, unlike those that prefer to put their heads in the sand and hope things don't catch up with them. Or worse, someone that has no concerns for those he's stole from, or hurt from their greed.

 

 PJ van Staden   
 June 19, 2014 


Mr. Keller, you accidentally threw in the wrong word there; Its not "green energy" religious fanatics. Its "green energy" reality fanatics. Like Joe said, it might hit you in the face sooner or later.

I'll tell you what is not rational. Its you trying to justify yourself on a website where you in the first place don't belong, and in the second place are trying to create a philosophy to justify the unjustifiable with. Its not going to work, because you lack the insight to understand why renewables are tomorrow's reality.

 

 Michael Keller   
 June 19, 2014 

You guys are really good at demonstrating my point. Silence the blasphemers! The evil "rich" need to pay! How about we throw in the Koch brothers into the discussion as well?


PJ van Staden   
 June 19, 2014 



Mr. Keller, no man, you threw in the wrong word again. Its not "silence the blasphemers." Its "silence the intellectuals."

The reason is: Its not good for intellectuals to talk all of the time, because it tires them, but first and foremost, it prevents them from thinking. And we need their creativeness to create solutions that will still be valid to the challenges of our time. So you see, Mr. Keller, since the conventionals could not create healthy energy in over 50 years time, we are now kind of forcing you to start utilizing your above average intellectual strength, for we desperately need it.

Thus, no hard feelings. We are trying to help you.

All the best


joe richardson   
 June 19, 2014 



I thought I had already!! but that's ok. Anything about how the Koch brothers have exploited both the citizens of the world and it environment certainly has a place in any discussion about corporate welfare and greed of the fossil fuels business.
Lets start with this, "Shortly after the new year, 1999 the Justice dept. and EPA announced that Koch had agreed to pay a 35 million dollar fine, the largest ever levied under the Clean Water Act. up to that point. Accusing Koch of "egregious violations""
And then we can go with, "EPA Administrator said that the fine sends a strong message to those that try to profit from polluting our environment will pay the price?. . There's that darn inconvenient truth of "total cost" again.
Lets add, "Koch Industries was fined 8 million dollars for illegally dumping millions of gallon of ammonium laced wastewater and spilling some 600,000 gallons of fuel into a wetland in the nearby Mississippi river"
And the Koch brothers story of greed and criminal activity goes on and on so I wont bore you with more inconvenient facts. But try reading a book, ill suggest Sons of Wichita by Daniel Schulman.
Youll find these and so many more facts about the Koch brothers and how their greedy dealings in the oil and coal business has damaged us all,, all while enriching them.
But no fear, they do good things with the money they grab.. They won a yacht race a few years ago!! and I hear that more than one brother has a great wine collection. Oh, and have you ever heard of the John Birch Society? yessir, another Koch Brothers high point,, pathetic.


Michael Keller   
 June 19, 2014 



So how's the "green" Kool Aid! You lads have really gone over the edge.


PJ van Staden   
 June 19, 2014 



The adrenaline of going over the edge is even greener, thank you!
And thanx for leaving.



 A. G. Gelbert   
 June 20, 2014 

Michael Keller said, "Actually, the plants were Independent Power Producers. If the units were not profitable, we're out of business. "

Tell me Mr. Keller, what part of this REPORT by the Union of concerned Scientists do you not understand?
Report: "US Nuclear Power Still Not Viable without Subsidies"

(24 Feb 11) A new report entitled "Nuclear Power: Still Not Viable Without Subsidies", prepared on behalf of the Union of Concerned Scientists, provides a detailed review and quantification of subsidies to nuclear power in the United States. The report concludes that subsidies to the nuclear fuel cycle have often exceeded the value of the power produced. Subsidies to new reactors are on a similar path.


The analysis claims to catalog in one place and for the first time the full range of subsidies that benefit the nuclear power sector. Since its inception more than 50 years ago, the nuclear power industry has benefited-and continues to benefit-from a vast array of preferential government subsidies. Indeed, as the report shows, subsidies to the nuclear fuel cycle have often exceeded the value of the power produced. Subsidies to new reactors are on a similar path.

 The most important subsidies to the industry do not involve cash payments, the report concludes. Rather, they shift construction-cost and operating risks from investors to taxpayers and ratepayers, removing from investors an array of risks ranging from cost overruns and defaults to accidents and nuclear waste management. This approach has remained consistent throughout the industry's history, according to the report, which claims that market choices that would otherwise favor less risky investments are distorted as a consequence. Although it may not involve direct cash payments, such favored treatment is nevertheless a subsidy, with a profound effect on the bottom line for the industry and taxpayers alike.

 Link to full report

Executive summary

http://www.eceee.org/all-news/news/news_2011/2011-02-24b

Your gravy train of taxpayer theft is about to end, Mr. Keller. We-the-people kind of resent being fleeced for you "Independent" LOL! power producers.

PJ,
Thanks for your patience, persistence, fortitude and reasoned, fact based logical arguments. These creative accounts in the nuclear power plant taxpayer fleecing racket need to get reminded of their history of grand larceny as often as possible :>).

They should all be required to live within ONE MILE of a reactor they get "profits" from so they can learn first hand what those "irrelevant" costs are all about. :>)

 joe richardson   
 June 20, 2014 


Mr Gelbert is absolutely right. The nuclear industry has had virtually all of its costs transferred to the public via an assortment of sleazy means. And the worst part is the real long term costs wont be realized for generations.
If you could get an honest answer from the Japanese government id suggest asking them what they think it'll cost them for the failings of their nuclear plants.
Failings that are the direct result of human beings and low costs designs to save a dollar. What rocket scientist decided to put their back up generators anywhere near where a tidal wave could reach them??? This in an area that's suffered earthquakes and tidal waves for,,what,,a few hundred thousand years of verifiable geologic history???
No one should ever doubt that this sort of decision was made on the basis of money...Such folly and such lies and such greed.
Betcha they wish they had a few thousand windmills off their coast instead of these nuclear plants now!!

WAR CONTINUES IN NEXT POST!  ;D
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: June 22, 2014, 01:23:49 am »

Nuclear War at Renewable Energy world CONTINUED! ;D


Fred Linn   
 June 21, 2014 

Bill Scutt------" I am a biological scientist, and the mainstream biological community would not agree that alpha emitters are much worse than beta or gamma emitters.
I have seen the lung histology with the embedded alpha-particle as quoted by Brian Donovan. The amount of damage involved is bad and it is spread over an area of somewhere between 10 & 50 micrometers. It's very unlikely the person died of it and it's almost certain it was an incidental finding. 10000 cells is not so much out of a 100 billion lung cells. It's quite certain that cigarettes damage > 10000 cells each and every day in a smoker. My guess is that a resident of Beijing would suffer >10000 cells damaged each and every day from air pollution even if they don't smoke. "------------

I don't know what you are, but you are NOT a biological scientist. No biologist alive would make such stupid statements.

 The completely flawed and off the wall logic tends to indicate a political huckster or special interest hack writer.


A. G. Gelbert
June 21, 2014

Bill Scutt claims his hero is right in claiming "live in a radioactive world and we are superbly adapted to it". I guess he didn't read the extensive testing on Drosophila Melanogaster in the 1930s, long before the bomb. Do you know what mutagenic means, Bill?

mu·ta·gen (myt-jn, -jn)
n.
 An agent, such as ultraviolet light or a radioactive element, that can induce or increase the frequency of mutation in an organism.

muta·genic adj.

muta·geni·cal·ly adv.

muta·ge·nici·ty (-j-ns-t) n.

Tests on fruit flies proved the severe mutagenenicity of radiation on offspring that did not go away, but increased with each subsequent generation; even though only the first had been given radiation doses THAT DID NOT KILL the fruit flies so they lived an average life span.

What next, Bill? Are getting ready to tell us radiation is "good" for us too? That's rather old AND LETHALLY ERRONEOUS news.

Long before the bomb gave you crazies all those lethal toys, there was a "radiation is good for you" craze in this country. The popularity of this "wonder therapy" didn't last. Here's the story, Bill. I guess you never got the word or are paid well to push pro-nuke mendacity.

"In the early 1900s, radiation was considered to have healing properties and was used in products for a range of conditions, including wrinkles and arthritis. The dangers of radiation became well known after the death of prominent American tennis player and industrialist Eben Byers, who said he drank three bottles of radium-laced water each day." (Google it!)
 
Of course the pro-nuclear advocates never got the word and that's how "Nuclear Medicine" was born as a way to charge for nuclear power plant "products". Never mind that short half life tracers can all be made in a cyclotron without the risk, expense and pollution of building a large nuclear power plant, eh Bill?

Did the plant operators hire used car salesmen to sell "nuclear medicine" products to hospitals? We may never know but the pitch was, unfortunately for many, world class. In the 1950s 0ne of ten people were expected to get cancer in their life time. Now it's one out of three. Yes, fossil fuels and chemical industry pollutants contributed but the nuclear power plants are a major, proven, epidemiological studies source of cancer clusters. (Google it!)

But that game is up. Do you know what tyrosine kinase enzymes are, Bill? If you are a biologist scientist, you should. It's linked to over 90 percent of all cancers.

You see, radiation (not a lot Bill, not enough to kill you Bill, just enough to be above that pesky limit you wear those badges in nuclear power plants for) UPREGULATES those enzymes in human tissue.

All mammals have them in every cell. They are part of the apoptosis clock that tells cells when to die.


Guess what? When upregulation from radiation exposure occurs, the TKE "forgets" to tell a cell it is time to die and, instead, accelerates cell division!


That gives us what is known as a tumor. Whether it is benign or malignant is beyond the scope of this post but you can be certain it does not do a human any good. We ARE NOT adapted to cancer from radiation caused TKE upregulation!

The word is out Bill. The nuclear BULL and profit over planet fraud is public knowledge thanks to real nuclear scientists with ethics like Arnie Gundersen of Fairwinds. I learned much of what I know from him.

He has chapter and verse on 3 mile island and it's "effects" on men, women, children and animals. It seems they weren't too "superbly adapted to radiation", Mr. Bill. You calloused bunch of nuclear advocates kept a tight lid on the epidemiological studies but they leaked. Tough luck for you conscience free folks, eh?

You people are right there with the 19th century snake oil salesmen and other entrepreneurs throughout history that are fast talkers doing anything for profit.

And earlier there was this scam:
"Eye drops containing bird dung were used from the 16th century through the 18th century to help treat eye infections." 

Radiation is WORSE, much much worse than bird dung, Bill because every subsequent generation will have more degraded DNA. That means, in addition to more cancers, more deformities and organ abnormalities so you can make money off of nuclear power plants. We are not going to put up with that criminal insanity any more.

I's over, Bill. Live with it.
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: June 20, 2014, 08:31:38 pm »

Nuclear WAR at Renewable Energy World: Continued    ;D

40 Comments

 Michael Keller   
 June 19, 2014 


So how's the "green" Kool Aid! You lads have really gone over the edge.


PJ van Staden   
 June 19, 2014


The adrenaline of going over the edge is even greener, thank you!
And thanx for leaving.



 A. G. Gelbert   
 June 20, 2014 


Michael Keller said, "Actually, the plants were Independent Power Producers. If the units were not profitable, we're out of business. "

Tell me Mr. Keller, what part of this REPORT by the Union of concerned Scientists do you not understand?
Report: "US Nuclear Power Still Not Viable without Subsidies"

(24 Feb 11) A new report entitled "Nuclear Power: Still Not Viable Without Subsidies", prepared on behalf of the Union of Concerned Scientists, provides a detailed review and quantification of subsidies to nuclear power in the United States. The report concludes that subsidies to the nuclear fuel cycle have often exceeded the value of the power produced. Subsidies to new reactors are on a similar path.


The analysis claims to catalog in one place and for the first time the full range of subsidies that benefit the nuclear power sector. Since its inception more than 50 years ago, the nuclear power industry has benefited-and continues to benefit-from a vast array of preferential government subsidies. Indeed, as the report shows, subsidies to the nuclear fuel cycle have often exceeded the value of the power produced. Subsidies to new reactors are on a similar path.

 The most important subsidies to the industry do not involve cash payments, the report concludes. Rather, they shift construction-cost and operating risks from investors to taxpayers and ratepayers, removing from investors an array of risks ranging from cost overruns and defaults to accidents and nuclear waste management. This approach has remained consistent throughout the industry's history, according to the report, which claims that market choices that would otherwise favor less risky investments are distorted as a consequence. Although it may not involve direct cash payments, such favored treatment is nevertheless a subsidy, with a profound effect on the bottom line for the industry and taxpayers alike.

 Link to full report

Executive summary

http://www.eceee.org/all-news/news/news_2011/2011-02-24b

Your gravy train of taxpayer theft is about to end, Mr. Keller. We-the-people kind of resent being fleeced for you "Independent" LOL! power producers.

PJ,
Thanks for your patience, persistence, fortitude and reasoned, fact based logical arguments. These creative accounts in the nuclear power plant taxpayer fleecing racket need to get reminded of their history of grand larceny as often as possible :>).

They should all be required to live within ONE MILE of a reactor they get "profits" from so they can learn first hand what those "irrelevant" costs are all about. :>)


joe richardson   
 June 20, 2014 


Mr Gelbert is absolutely right.     The nuclear industry has had virtually all of its costs transferred to the public via an assortment of sleazy means. And the worst part is the real long term costs wont be realized for generations.

If you could get an honest answer from the Japanese government id suggest asking them what they think it'll cost them for the failings of their nuclear plants.

Failings that are the direct result of human beings and low costs designs to save a dollar. What rocket scientist decided to put their back up generators anywhere near where a tidal wave could reach them??? This in an area that's suffered earthquakes and tidal waves for,,what,,a few hundred thousand years of verifiable geologic history???


No one should ever doubt that this sort of decision was made on the basis of money...Such folly and such lies and such greed.


Betcha they wish they had a few thousand windmills off their coast instead of these nuclear plants now!!


Michael Keller   
 June 20, 2014
 

You lads are mistaken.  ::)  I am not defending nuclear power.  I am stating that the competitive market place should fundamentally set power prices. Nobody should be given exclusive assistance not available to others. 

That means if somebody gets some form of help (e.g. accelerated depreciation  ::)) then everybody else gets the same advantage.

As to the Union of Concerned Scientists report, in their current form, new nuclear power plants are not particularly competitive. Make them more competitive or don't build new ones. Ditto for renewable energy.

Agelbert NOTE: RIGHT... In order for those of us without Orwellian vocabularies to understand what Mr. Keller MEANS BY "competitive" (and don't forget "particularly" - that's a GO-O-O-D ONE!  ;) ), You need to read some of MKing's "rational" inversions of CFS pushed as if that mindfork was the most natural thing in the world!

I say, these game theory "bright bulbs"   :emthdown: are rather slippery. 




 joe richardson   
 June 20, 2014


Mr Keller,
I finally agree with you, "the competitive market place should set power prices", "and nobody should be given exclusive assistance".

I'm not a rigid free market person but that's probably because, while a free market is a great sounding idea, I've never seen it practiced anywhere. Because someone or some industries are always trying to skew the process, and the nuclear, coal and oil industries have historically skewed the process in order to maintain their existence, and profits for a few.

It was the 1970's when we Americans woke up to our dependence on fossil fuels and first glimpsed this dependencies real costs. but we were blinded to the facts by the coal and oil companies and continued down the same road. .

Imagine what the world would be like today if we, and everyone else, had acted on this dependency then and pursued some level of self sufficiency in renewable energy instead of letting the fossil fuel industry skew our reality in order to maintain their profits. Imagine the savings just in the dirty little oil wars that have been waged.


 So,, ill still take windmills slowly turning in the breeze and solar panels soaking up rays any day, to avoid the total costs of fossil and nuclear fuels.   


http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2014/06/nuclear-giant-exelon-blasts-wind-energy#comm132630

Joe gets it! Soon he will figure out that WE DID TRY and WE HAVE tried to get off of fossil fuels since the 1930s!

At absolutely every juncture in the introduction of Renewable Energy sources from ethanol (killed by Rockefeller funded Prohibition 1920-1933) to Chemurgy (killed by big paper, big oil and the chemical giants including Du Pont and Dow Chemical) to building nukes when dams were orders of magnitude cheaper in the 1950s to PV crushed in the 1970s to Wind subsidies killed in the 1980s while tanker hull safety was delayed over ten years (contributing to the  Exxon Valdez mess) to global warming denial by the George C. Marshall institute of profit over planet lying, murderous sacks of **** from the late 1980s to the PRESENT, it was has been a 24/7 ATTACK on we-the-people's choices so we COULD NOT OBTAIN cheap renewable energy.

Part and parcel of this pack of lies is that  oil is presented as a valuable resource worthy of fight wars over for "national security" when it is a biosphere destroying liability.

National security? NO! Fossil Fueler Fascist Security and FREEDOM to BUY our government and keep those God Damned "subsidies" in place! Are we having fun yet? Are you tired of playing "catcher" for the energy oligarchs?

I've got chapter and verse on the energy rip off of a century with lots of dead people from unnecessary wars and lots of totally unnecessary and massively harmful pollution FOR WHAT!!??  To make a SUCKER out of you and me and steal democracy (what little we have) from us in the process.

Details at the Renewable Revolution Forum. Just do a search in the forum with any of the terms above.


Renewable Revolution
 


Here's the NUGGET of TRUTH from this peer reviewed book that will convince you that we have been suckered BIG TIME if you don't want to dig up the info on all the above in my forum:
Quote
Dilworth (2010-03-12). Too Smart for our Own Good (pp. 399-400). Cambridge University Press. Kindle Edition.

"As suggested earlier, war, for example, which represents a cost for society, is a source of profit to capitalists. In this way we can partly understand e.g. the American military expenditures in the Persian Gulf area.

Already before the first Gulf War, i.e. in 1985, the United States spent $47 billion projecting power into the region. If seen as being spent to obtain Gulf oil, It AMOUNTED TO $468 PER BARREL, or 18 TIMES the $27 or so that at that time was paid for the oil itself.

In fact, if Americans had spent as much to make buildings heat-tight as they spent in ONE YEAR at the end of the 1980s on the military forces meant to protect the Middle Eastern oil fields, THEY COULD HAVE ELIMINATED THE NEED TO IMPORT OIL from the Middle East.
So why have they not done so? Because, while the $468 per barrel may be seen as being a cost the American taxpayers had to bear, and a negative social effect those living in the Gulf area had to bear, it meant only profits for American capitalists. "
Note: I added the colored graphics and font size changes and the bold caps emphasis on the barrel of oil price, money spent in one year and the need to import oil from the Middle East.

This totally unjustified profit, never mind the needless lose of lives, then increases the power of the fossil fuel corporations to perpetuate a biosphere harming dirty fuel status quo. How? By "funding" politicians with rather large "donations" to keep renewable energy from competing with dirty energy.

Pass it on. The Democracy you save may be your own...




Posted by: AGelbert
« on: June 14, 2014, 02:12:10 am »

Alvin Hulse   
 June 13, 2014 



This energy plan eliminates the need for nuclear. We cannot do nuclear, alternative energy and energy efficiency. We can, however, do alternative energy and energy efficiency at the same time.

7 Point, 7 Year Energy Plan To Solve Climate Change   


1) Eliminate the investor owned, guaranteed rate of return utility model and replace it with a modified version of the Independent Service Operator (ISO) used in Ontario Canada, California and New York. The principal modification would allow all producers of clean renewable energy to sell their excess electrons into the grid and get paid a check at the end of each month. The chief function of the ISO is established to move electrons around the grid to where they are needed and to provide grid leveling services.

Allowing all producers to get paid every month for their excess power generation will create a nation of energy entrepreneurs eager to make a profit off of their investments. Not only will this surge in energy entrepreneurs invest in alternative energy, but they will simultaneously invest in energy efficiency to maximize the number of electrons they can flow into the grid.

All regional or state ISO's will mandate time of day pricing in order to level daily and seasonal peak demand periods. California already has time of day pricing, which encourages people to reduce consumption during higher rate periods or shift demand to off peak hours. Leveling peak demand reduces unnecessary energy waste at thermal power plants where utilities have to produce more electricity than they can sell in order to build up for peak demands.

The concept of the investor owned, guaranteed rate of return utility model is antiquated and fosters massive energy waste. Thermal power plants operate at a 34 percent efficiency. Grid transmission losses account for another 8 percent energy loss which leaves 26 percent of the remaining power to energize a whole host of inefficient lights, appliances, electric motors, HVAC systems and vampire energy sucking devices. This is an unsustainable energy equation that contributes mightily to climate change. One has to wonder how a utility can make money wasting 74 percent of the energy they produce before it reaches the end user. The answer is the investor owned utility model.

Anytime a utility does not earn its guaranteed rate of return, they simply apply for a rate increase with their industry friendly Public Utility Commissions. In addition, the practice of discounting utility rates to commercial users is nearly ubiquitous. Discounting utility rates has the consequence of providing little or no incentive for commercial end users to invest in energy efficiency.

Under my plan, businesses will create their own profit centers through investment in alternative energy and while simultaneously investing in energy efficiency in order to maximize their excess flow of electrons into the grid. Superefficient Combined Heat Power Plants (CHP), small wind, rooftop solar, biomass to electricity and fuels cell development will explode onto the scene once the barrier of the investor owned utility model is eliminated.

2) Mandate the use of energy efficient LED lighting, energy efficient electrical motors, energy star appliances and heat pump or geothermal HVAC systems in existing residential, commercial, retail, industrial and government properties. Property owners will be entitled to a 50 percent investment tax credit on all energy efficient items approved for retrofits. Rental property owners will be entitled a 100 percent investment tax credit for energy efficiency retrofits. In addition, all properties will qualify for Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) to help fund the upfront costs. Pace programs will have a fixed interest rate at 3 percent. The federal government will impose a $10 megawatt hour carbon tax on utilities/ratepayers to fund retrofits on federal buildings for 5 - 7 years until all government building have been retrofitted. 25 percent of these funds will be allocated to families who rent their homes to help pay for energy efficient lighting.

This will generate $47 Billion per year. Local and state governments will increase property taxes by $200 per year per property for 5-7 years to pay for their building energy efficiency retrofits. This will generate $55 - $60 billion per year for energy efficiency upgrades across America. This represent a $700 billion in U.S. investments in government owned infrastructure over 7 years. I estimate that the private sector under this plan will spend $1.5 trillion on energy efficiency retrofits. This is the combined cost of our two wars. The primary difference is that energy efficiency pays, wars cost.

3) All new buildings, including residential properties, will be constructed to a minimum of Platinum LEED Certification. All items associated with the Platinum LEED Certification will receive a two year bonus depreciation schedule in the commercial sector and a 30 percent investment tax credit for residential properties. In order to offset this cost to the government, the investment tax credit will be eliminated for alternative energy now that business and residential producers can get paid a check at the end of each month. The government will also benefit from the $10 per megawatt hour charge applied to alternative energy.

4) The government will pay $10 Billion to the first five automotive companies in the U.S. who either produce a 5 passenger that gets 125 MPG or can travel 400 miles on an electric charge. They will have five years to develop it. The car must also cost less than $40,000. The auto companies who achieve these goals, will receive income tax free status for the 10 years following the introduction of their vehicle(s) and a retroactive tax free status for the five years of development. Foreign manufactures will not qualify. Their respective governments can establish their own goals.

5) Develop the Interstate High Speed Rail System that will parallel the major East/West and North/South Interstate highways. This is where people travel in their cars and this is where the trains ought to travel too. This system development will be funded by a $5 per barrel oil/carbon tax. There shall also be a $5 tax on all air fares. All people with adjusted gross incomes below $100,000 will receive a $2,500 tax credit for the increase in gas prices.

6) All alternative energy producers will pay a $5 per month surcharge to their utility or the ISO to maintain and improve the grid to smart status.


7) Re-establish U.S. forest cover to the beginning of the 20th century level. Tax incentives shall be provided to landowners to replant their land. In addition, a $5 per barrel oil tax shall be imposed on all imports including the oil traveling to the U.S. via the Keystone XL Pipeline. 20 percent of all greenhouse gases are the result of deforestation.

None of these changes are onerous in comparison to the full effects climate change will cause civilization and the planet to experience in the years to come. In fact, these changes will lead to full employment, better health, lower health insurance premiums, a sustainable energy economy, lower energy costs, lower taxes as government energy consumption is dramatically reduced and energy independence.

Once the energy efficiency programs have been fully implemented, the cost of alternative energy investment will decline dramatically. We will only be replacing what the new demand for electricity will be as a result of the sharp reduction in energy consumption caused by energy efficiency improvements. Most of these costs are offset to consumers and businesses through the energy savings they will achieve by retrofitting their properties and by the investment tax credits. These are real energy savings that will flow to them as long as they own their properties.

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2014/06/old-reactors-v-new-renewables-the-first-nuclear-war-of-the-21st-century#comment-132470
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: June 07, 2014, 03:46:46 pm »

Old Reactors v. New Renewables: The First Nuclear War of the 21st Century

 Mark Cooper, Senior Fellow for Economic Analysis, Institute for Energy and the Environment 
 June 06, 2014 

Within the past year, a bevy of independent, financial analysts (Lazard, Citi, Credit Suisse, McKinsey and Company, Sanford Bernstein, Morningstar) have heralded an economic revolution in the electricity sector. A quarter of a century of technological progress has led to the conclusion that over the course of the next decade a combination of efficiency, renewables and gas will meet the need for new resources and more importantly, render the antiquated baseload model largely obsolete.

The academic debate over whether we could get to an electricity system that relies entirely (99 percent) or mostly (80 percent) on renewables late in this century is largely irrelevant compared to the fact that over the next couple of decades we could see a rapid and substantial expansion of renewables (to say 30 percent of 40 percent), if the current economic forces are allowed to ply out and policies to advance the transformation of the electricity system are adopted.   

Political revolutions tend to follow economic revolutions, which is where we stand in the electricity sector today.  The dominant incumbents, particularly nuclear utilities, have recognized that they face an existential threat and they have launched a campaign to eliminate it.  Utilities, who loudly announced the arrival of a “nuclear renaissance” less than a decade ago, are desperate to save their fleet of aging reactors from early retirement and “stay relevant to the game going forward” (as the CEO of Exelon, the nation’s largest nuclear utility put it) because they cannot compete at the margin with renewables or gas.

This nuclear v. renewables debate is not just “déjà vu all over again, a lot more than the fate of nuclear power at stake.  The fundamental approach to delivering electricity in the 21st century, while meeting the challenge of climate change, is on the table.  Nuclear power and the alternatives are so fundamentally different that a strategy of “all of the above” is no longer feasible.  Nuclear power withers in an electricity system that focuses on flexibility because it is totally inflexible, but renewables cannot live up to their full potential without opening up and transforming the physical and institutional infrastructure of the system.     

Nuclear power has failed because it has never been able to compete at the margin with other resources — coal in the 1980s, gas in the 1990s and renewables in the 2000s.  Renewables have become competitive, not only because technological progress lowered the resource costs of supply dramatically, but also because the growth of information and control technologies have made it possible to integrate decentralized generation technologies into a dynamic two way system that achieves reliability by actively managing supply and demand.

The ongoing efforts of Exelon and Entergy to change the rules in the regions of the U.S. that have relied most on market forces epitomizes the political conflict.  Unfazed by the fact that the nuclear industry has been the recipient of ten times as much subsidy as renewables on a life cycle basis and continues to receive massive subsidies in the form of socialized the cost of liability insurances and waste management, underfunded decommissioning, inadequately compensated water use, federal loan guarantee and production tax credits for new reactors, continuing R&D funding for small modular reactor technology, and advanced cost recovery for nuclear investment in a number of states, the nuclear industry launched its campaign for survival with an attack on the production tax credit for wind.

However, the campaign quickly moved beyond that small subsidy to demand much more pervasive changes in regulatory policy. Precisely because the economics of renewables have improved so dramatically, nuclear power needs to prevent the development of the physical and institutional infrastructure that will support the emerging electricity system.

Putting a price on carbon will not solve the fundamental problem because it picks losers (fossil fuels) not winners and that is what nuclear needs because it is at such a huge economic disadvantage.  It will give aging reactors a little breathing room, but it will not make them more competitive with renewables at the margin and it will certainly not address the need for institutional reform.

Economic dispatch, net metering, bidding efficiency as a resource, demand response, all of which are being fought by the utilities, are not about subsidies; they are about economic efficiency.  The regulated physical and institutional infrastructure supported baseload power and retards the growth of the efficiencies of decentralized generation and system management. Nuclear power needs to jerry-rig the dispatch order so that they are guaranteed to run, create capacity markets that guarantee they win some auction, and redefine renewable portfolios to include nuclear.

Ironically the current terrain of resource choice and the attack on renewable reflects the fact that renewables have succeeded in exactly the way nuclear has failed.  Relatively small subsidies unleashed powerful forces of innovation, learning and economies of scale that have caused dramatic reductions in costs, yielding a much higher return on social investment.

Renewable technologies are able to move rapidly along their learning curves because they possess the characteristics that allow for the capture of economies of mass production and stimulate innovation. They involve the production of large numbers of units under conditions of competition. They afford the opportunity for a great deal of real world development and demonstration work before they are deployed on a wide scale. These is the antithesis of how nuclear development has played out in the past, and the push for small modular reactors does not appear to solve the problem, as I showed SMR advocates have proposed.

The challenge now is to build new physical and institutional infrastructure. In fact, the growing literature on climate change makes it clear that the cost of the transition to a low carbon sector will be much lower if institutional change precedes, or at least goes hand in hand with pricing policy.

(some graphics at link):

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2014/06/old-reactors-v-new-renewables-the-first-nuclear-war-of-the-21st-century

My comment:  ;D

 A. G. Gelbert   
 June 7, 2014 

Patrick O'Leary said, " Mr. Cooper is right to point out the details and the devil therein. "

HEAR! HEAR!

However, Patrick, these Nuclear power advocates have been double talking from the get go in the 1950s. They KNEW that the claim "too cheap to meter" was a lie when they pushed it on an unsuspecting public. The trail of accidents, deaths and cancer clusters from radionuclide pollution in the USA have been consistently suppressed for well over half a century. And no Patrick, we did not need all those power plants to make weapons. That is a myth, and a cruel one at that. The "favoring" of the nuclear industry was not justified on the basis of weaponry or energy. That has been documented. The reason they got away with it is because of the government undemocratic secrecy provided to these subsidy queens for their free ride on the taxpayer dollar.

And it's not over, Patrick. We-the-people are the designated sucker to pay for the clean up of decommissioned power plants and baby sitting of used fuel rods for the next few centuries while the "market forces" (all manipulated and totally UNfree) that made nuclear power profitable for a some conscience free investors conveniently disappear when the government is handed a used poison factory. This is not a benign situation or the effect of capitalism "free market" winners and losers; This is corruption, embezzlement, grand larceny and criminal negligence and massive environmental damage rolled into one elite, predatory oligarchic mess. We must strive to get those investors that made so much money off nukes to PAY for the clean up. We-the-people do not owe the nuclear power advocates anything but contempt for their brazen mendacity.

The devil in those details you mentioned doesn't just distort energy policy to favor wasteful parasites like the nuclear power industry, it threatens our very democracy by perpetually claiming they must keep what they do secret for "national security". The nuclear parasites are only concerned about their subsidy security, not national security.

Renewable Energy is the sine qua non energy source required in our finite world in order to have a viable biosphere. Anything else is profit over planet nonsense.

And for Daniel Seddon, who falsely claims to know anything about engineering, I suggest he look up Amory Lovins, Chief Scientist of the Rocky Mountain Institute to learn about the FLAWS taught in present engineering texts in regard to the design of machinery (reynolds number erroneous data on turbulent and laminar flow friction losses in gasses and liquids) have contributed to a bunch of energy wasteful designs that are pushed as the "most efficient" engineering of machinery possible.

Mark Cooper KNOWS of what he speaks. Amory Lovins,a scientist and engineer, backs him up all the way as to the wasteful and polluting folley of nuclear power.

Nuclear Nonsense

AUTHOR: Lovins, Amory

DOCUMENT ID: E09-10

YEAR: 2009

DOCUMENT TYPE: Journal or Magazine Article

Stewart Brand's book, Whole Earth Discipline, features a chapter claiming that new nuclear power plants are essential and desirable, and that a global "nuclear renaissance" is booming. In this book review, Amory Lovins' review finds fatal flaws in the chapter's facts and logic.

Download 63KB


Nuclear Power: Economic Fundamentals and Potential Role in Climate Change Mitigation

AUTHOR: Lovins, Amory

DOCUMENT ID: E05-09

YEAR: 2005

DOCUMENT TYPE: Report or White Paper

In this presentation, Amory Lovins provides evidence that low and no-carbon decentralized sources of energy have eclipsed nuclear power as a climate friendly energy option. He argues that new nuclear power plants are unfinanceable in the private capital market and that resource efficiency provides a cheaper, more environmentally viable option.

Download 2099KB


Four Nuclear Myths: A Commentary on Stewart Brand's Whole Earth Discipline and on Similar Writings


AUTHOR: Lovins, Amory

DOCUMENT ID: E09-09

YEAR: 2009

DOCUMENT TYPE: Journal or Magazine Article

Some nuclear-power advocates claim that wind and solar power can't provide much if any reliable power because they're not "baseload," that they use too much land, that all energy options including new nuclear build are needed to combat climate change, and that nuclear power's economics don't matter because climate change will force governments to dictate energy choices and pay for whatever is necessary. None of these claims can withstand analytic scrutiny.

Download 592KB



Nuclear Power: Climate Fix or Folly?


AUTHORS:

Lovins, Amory

Sheikh, Imran

Markevich, Alex

DOCUMENT ID: E09-01

YEAR: 2009

DOCUMENT TYPE: Report or White Paper

This semi-technical article, summarizing a detailed and documented technical paper (see "The Nuclear Illusion" (2008)), compares the cost, climate protection potential, reliability, financial risk, market success, deployment speed, and energy contribution of new nuclear power with those of its low- or no-carbon competitors.

Download 4867KB



Nuclear Power and Climate Change

AUTHOR: Lovins, Amory

DOCUMENT ID: C07-09

YEAR: 2007

DOCUMENT TYPE: Letter

This 2007 e-mail exchange between Steve Berry (University of Chicago), Peter Bradford (former U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissioner and senior utility regulator), and Amory Lovins illustrates the cases for and against nuclear power in relation to climate and the environment.

Download 658KB


Nuclear Power: Competitive Economics and Climate Protection Potential

AUTHOR: Lovins, Amory

DOCUMENT ID: E06-04

YEAR: 2006

DOCUMENT TYPE: Presentation

In this presentation to the Royal Academy of Engineering, Amory Lovins explains the economic and environmental impacts of nuclear power. By showing that companies and governments have cut energy intensity without the use of nuclear power, Lovins shows that nuclear power is not a necessary step in the fight against climate change.

Download 3742KB

http://www.rmi.org/pid257

http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/nuke-puke/nuclear-power-industry-mendacious-propaganda/msg697/#msg697


NY Times Editorial Board Delivers a ‘Prudent’ Message of Nuclear Abandonment


Harvey Wasserman

http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/nuke-puke/nuclear-power-industry-mendacious-propaganda/msg1054/#msg1054


The Nuclear Lie Machine: Part 1 of 2 Parts

http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/nuke-puke/nuclear-power-industry-mendacious-propaganda/msg484/#msg484


Please Pass it on; the planet you save may be your own.   8)

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: June 06, 2014, 12:19:20 am »

Nuclear Giant Exelon Blasts Wind Energy

 Elliott Negin, Union of Concerned Scientists 
 June 05, 2014 

Corporate executives often tout the benefits of competition in a free-market economic system,  ::) but it's striking just how much large corporations don't like it. In fact, some companies will do all they can to squash it, lobbying for favors and subsidies while working to deny them to their competitors.   

Exelon's Christopher Crane  wants Congress to kill a wind tax break, despite the fact the nuclear industry wouldn't be viable today without decades of federal subsidies.

The squabble over a key federal tax break for the wind industry is a case in point. Called the production tax credit (PTC), it has helped quadruple the wind industry's generation capacity over the last five years, and six states now have enough wind turbines to meet more than 15 percent of their annual demand.

Unlike most coal, nuclear, and oil and gas subsidies, the PTC — which has been around only since the mid-1990s — is not permanent. Congress has to renew it periodically. Last December, Congress let it expire yet again, and lawmakers likely will not restore it until after the November mid-term elections, if at all. The PTC represents roughly $1.2 billion in annual tax savings to the wind industry.

Wind's more-established competitors want the PTC dead.


ExxonMobil, the Koch brothers and their front groups  , for example, want Congress to let it die. Never mind that the oil and gas industry has been receiving an average of $4.86 billion annually in today's dollars in subsidies and tax breaks since 1918. Or the fact that Congress exempted natural gas developers from key provisions of seven major environmental laws, including the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act.

The nuclear power industry doesn't like the wind tax break, either. Its most outspoken critic is Exelon, the nation's largest nuclear plant owner with 23 reactors at 14 plant sites. The Chicago-based utility contends Midwest wind installations are cutting into its profit margins by driving down electricity prices, and it blames the PTC. The company has been lobbying Congress to terminate it, and as I reported earlier this week, it recently launched a front group, Nuclear Matters, to generate public support for keeping all U.S. reactors running.

"If the government believes that they're improving the environment by subsidizing wind, they are wrong," Exelon CEO Christopher Crane told the Chicago Tribune in late April. "It is going to shut nuclear plants down." Around the same time, Exelon Senior Executive Vice President William Von Hoene Jr.  clarified the company's position. Exelon is not "anti-wind," he told trade reporters, "but anti-subsidy."

Anti-subsidy?! The nuclear industry is awash in subsidies. In fact, the industry wouldn't be economically viable without subsidies underwriting every stage of the nuclear fuel cycle, according to a 2011 report by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). Altogether, those subsidies have often exceeded the average market price of the power produced.  >:(

What makes Exelon's opposition to the PTC complicated is it is much more than a nuclear power company. The largest supplier of wholesale power in the country, it gets 55 percent of its electric generation capacity from nuclear, 28 percent from natural gas, 6 percent from hydro, 4 percent from coal, and 3 percent from oil. The remaining 4 percent comes from landfill gas, solar and ... wind.

Although wind represents a tiny percentage of Exelon's capacity, it's the 12th largest wind farm owner in the country. It was even on the board of the American Wind Energy Association — until it got kicked off two years ago for slamming the PTC. No matter. Given that nuclear power and natural gas represent more than 80 percent of its generating capacity, Exelon is against subsidies — but only for wind and other renewables. Exelon officials don't mention the fact that natural gas is heavily subsidized, and they actually claim with a straight face that nuclear power is not subsidized at all.


Read the rest of this excellent, hard hitting article here:

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2014/06/nuclear-giant-exelon-blasts-wind-energy
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: June 04, 2014, 08:07:39 pm »

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: May 04, 2014, 05:07:27 pm »

NY Times Editorial Board Delivers a ‘Prudent’ Message of Nuclear Abandonment

Harvey Wasserman | May 4, 2014 10:47 am

In support  of the dying nuclear power industry, the New York Times Editorial Board has penned an inadvertent epitaph.    ;D

Appearing in the May 2 edition, The Right Lessons from Chernobyl twists and stumbles around the paper’s own reporting. Though unintended, it finally delivers a “prudent” message of essential abandonment.

The Times does concede that “The world must do what it can to increase energy efficiency and harness sun, wind, ocean currents and other renewable sources to meet our ever-expanding needs for energy.”

The edit drew 288 entries into its comment section before it was capped.  I’ve posted one of them at NukeFree.org. Overall they’re widely varied and worth reading.

Because the Times is still the journal of record, the edit is a definitive statement on an industry in dangerous decline.

Let’s dissect:

The edit begins by citing the “New Safe Confinement” shield being built over the seething remains of Chernobyl Unit 4. Already “almost a decade behind schedule,” its completion is “a race against time” due to the “decrepit state of the sarcophagus” meant to contain the radiation there.

That we still must fear Chernobyl more than 28 years after it melted and exploded underscores the “nightmarish side of nuclear power.”

That the “vast steel shield” may not be done in time, or may not even end the problem, is downright terrifying, especially in light of the “near-bankruptcy of Ukraine,” not to mention a political instability that evokes horrific images of two hot wars and the cold one.

Amidst rising tensions between Ukraine, Russia and the west, the corporate media studiously avoids Chernobyl. But Belarus and Ukraine long ago estimated its cost to their countries at $250 billion each. One major study puts the global death toll at more than a million human beings.


The Times says Chernobyl’s terror is “more powerful than Three Mile Island before it or Fukushima after it.” 


Three Mile Island suffered an explosion and melt-down in 1979. Exactly how much radiation escaped and who it harmed are still unknown. The industry vehemently denies  that anyone was killed, just as it denied there was a melt-down until a robotic camera proved otherwise.


At Fukushima, there is no end in sight.
Bad as it was, Chernobyl was one core melt and explosion in a single Soviet reactor in a relatively unpopulated area. Fukushima is three core melts and four explosions in American-designed General Electric reactors, of which there are some two dozen exact replicas now operating in the U.S., along with still more very similar siblings.

Spent fuel is still perched dangerously in damaged pools high in the Fukushima air. Thousands of rods are strewn around the site. The exact location of the three melted cores is still unknown. At least 300 tons of highly radioactive liquid pour daily into the Pacific, with the first of their isotopes now arriving on our west coast. Huge storage tanks constantly leak still more radiation. The labor force at the site is poorly trained and heavily infiltrated by organized crime.

The Times itself has reported that a desperate, terrified population is being forced back into heavily contaminated areas:P  >:(  Children are being exposed en masse to significant radiation doses. Given the horrific health impacts on youngsters downwind from Chernobyl, there is every reason to fear even worse around Fukushima.

But the Times Editorial Board  follows with this: “Yet it is also noteworthy that these civilian nuclear disasters did not and have not overcome the allure of nuclear power    as a source of clean and abundant energy.”


“Allure” to whom?  ;) Certainly the corporations with huge investments in atomic energy are still on board. The fossil fuel industry is thoroughly cross-invested. And extraordinary corporate media access has been granted to pushing the odd belief that nuclear power can help mitigate global warming.

But the vast bulk of the global environmental movement remains firmly anti-nuclear. Grassroots opposition to re-opening any Japanese reactors is vehement to say the least. Amidst an extremely popular revolution in green technologies, U.S. opinion demands that nuclear subsidies be cut, which means death to an industry that can’t live without them.

It’s here the edit falls entirely overboard:     “Only Germany succumbed to panic after the Fukushima disaster and began to phase out all nuclear power in favor of huge investments in renewable sources like wind and sun.”   

Germany’s green transition has been debated for decades, stepped up long ago by Chernobyl. With strong popular backing, the German nuclear phase-out, as in Sweden, Italy and numerous other European nations (Denmark never built any reactors) has long been on the table. The center-right Merkel government finally embraced it not only because of Fukushima, but because the German corporate establishment decided that going green would be good for business. As energy economist Charles Komanoff has shown, they’ve been proven right.

Despite the predictable carping from a few fossil/nuke holdouts, Germany will shut its reactors, as will, eventually, all other nations. The edit says there may be “an increase in greenhouse emissions,” but it will be “temporary.”

END OF PAGE 1

go here for page 2:

http://ecowatch.com/2014/05/04/ny-times-editorial-board-nuclear-abandonment/2/

Selected quotes from page 2:

Quote
Wall Street has thoroughly rejected atomic energy and is pouring billions into renewables, especially photovoltaics (PV) which convert solar energy to electricity.

Quote
Will the Grey Lady now provide the radioactive disaster insurance missing since 1957?

Quote
The edit does spare us more hype about the “nuclear renaissance.” After a decade of being pushed to buy a whole new fleet, we’re now begged to be “prudent” about shutting the old tugboats.  ::)

 
Quote
Above all, we’re not to be “spooked” into mistrusting an industry that for decades said reactors could not explode, but has now blown up five and melted five.
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: February 15, 2014, 04:50:29 pm »

Why the Obama Administration Will Not Admit that Fukushima Radiation is Poisoning Americans
http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/forum/index.php/topic,785.msg44278.html#msg44278
Surly,
YEP. :(

And this is the money, money and MORE MONEY quote.

“If nuclear power is as safe as the industry always claims, then why do they insist on liability limits and exemptions?” asked Shawn-Patrick Stensil, a nuclear analyst with Greenpeace Canada.


“If nuclear power is as safe as the industry always claims, then why do they insist on liability limits and exemptions?”


“If nuclear power is as safe as the industry always claims, then why do they insist on liability limits and exemptions?”
Bingo.

Nuclear poison is the beloved baby of the MIC. It gave them power and the ability to finance every project of dubious ethical value and enormous cost to the taxpayer in total secrecy and totally free of all liability for damages of any sort under the false rubric of national security. Controlling energy is only part of the scam. These people were willing to wage nuclear war with losses of up to 40 million in the USA as a "win". No one can seriously entertain the thought that these goons give a **** about childhood cancer clusters around nuclear power plants and genetic defects for the last half a century or so. 


 That is PEANUTS to them. It's WORTH IT for a "few" American children to get cancer and die so they can keep they secret parasitical connection to the tacxpayer intact per secula seculorum. 

To the MIC, nuclear power is like a rifle to a die hard Second Amendment Prepper. I.E. the MIC will let go of nuclear power when it is pried away from their cold dead hands and not a moment sooner. They NEED that excuse for secrecy and 24/7 government manipulation of energy policy for the benefit of a few oligarchs. 


They won, Surly.  But thank you for continuing to expose how we have been taken and continue to be taken to the "cleaners" (see Orwell) in both money and health until the end.   

DATELINE: July 4, 2036 - satire or prophecy  ???
The Journal of New England Nuclear Medicine applauds the new free radiation therapy/spa located conveniently within 25 miles of every major US city providing increased health benefits to the populace by helping them avoid obesity.

The new, slim trim appearance, particularly highlighting facial structure and handsome cranial features, is also a hit with Hollywood as all the new films use actors that have obtained these free facial and body health improvements complements of the ubiquitous and life saving presence of nuclear power plants, the holy grail of renewable energy.


The new Hollywood Diet. Just think, all these benefits without having to go through painful plastic surgery! Your taxpayer dollars at work! Celebrate our great and glorious energy independence and health with your family today with a fireworks celebration being held next to your local nuclear power fuel rod reservoir/therapy spa pool. Don't forget to bring the kids. 

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: January 13, 2014, 11:20:24 pm »


Nuclear Nonsense

AUTHOR: Lovins, Amory

DOCUMENT ID: E09-10

YEAR: 2009

DOCUMENT TYPE: Journal or Magazine Article

Stewart Brand's book, Whole Earth Discipline, features a chapter claiming that new nuclear power plants are essential and desirable, and that a global "nuclear renaissance" is booming. In this book review, Amory Lovins' review finds fatal flaws in the chapter's facts and logic.


Download 63KB

Nuclear Power: Economic Fundamentals and Potential Role in Climate Change Mitigation

AUTHOR: Lovins, Amory

DOCUMENT ID: E05-09

YEAR: 2005

DOCUMENT TYPE: Report or White Paper

In this presentation, Amory Lovins provides evidence that low and no-carbon decentralized sources of energy have eclipsed nuclear power as a climate friendly energy option. He argues that new nuclear power plants are unfinanceable in the private capital market and that resource efficiency provides a cheaper, more environmentally viable option.


Download 2099KB



Four Nuclear Myths: A Commentary on Stewart Brand's Whole Earth Discipline and on Similar Writings


AUTHOR: Lovins, Amory

DOCUMENT ID: E09-09

YEAR: 2009

DOCUMENT TYPE: Journal or Magazine Article

Some nuclear-power advocates claim that wind and solar power can't provide much if any reliable power because they're not "baseload," that they use too much land, that all energy options including new nuclear build are needed to combat climate change, and that nuclear power's economics don't matter because climate change will force governments to dictate energy choices and pay for whatever is necessary. None of these claims can withstand analytic scrutiny.


Download 592KB


Nuclear Power: Climate Fix or Folly?


AUTHORS:
Lovins, Amory
Sheikh, Imran
Markevich, Alex


DOCUMENT ID: E09-01

YEAR: 2009

DOCUMENT TYPE: Report or White Paper

This semi-technical article, summarizing a detailed and documented technical paper (see "The Nuclear Illusion" (2008)), compares the cost, climate protection potential, reliability, financial risk, market success, deployment speed, and energy contribution of new nuclear power with those of its low- or no-carbon competitors.


Download 4867KB


Nuclear Power and Climate Change

AUTHOR: Lovins, Amory

DOCUMENT ID: C07-09

YEAR: 2007

DOCUMENT TYPE: Letter

This 2007 e-mail exchange between Steve Berry (University of Chicago), Peter Bradford (former U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissioner and senior utility regulator), and Amory Lovins illustrates the cases for and against nuclear power in relation to climate and the environment.


Download 658KB


Nuclear Power: Competitive Economics and Climate Protection Potential

AUTHOR: Lovins, Amory

DOCUMENT ID: E06-04

YEAR: 2006

DOCUMENT TYPE: Presentation

In this presentation to the Royal Academy of Engineering, Amory Lovins explains the economic and environmental impacts of nuclear power. By showing that companies and governments have cut energy intensity without the use of nuclear power, Lovins shows that nuclear power is not a necessary step in the fight against climate change.


Download 3742KB




http://www.rmi.org/pid257
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: December 12, 2013, 07:32:07 pm »


Cool graphic of a giant radioactive poison pill called a Small Modular Reactor. ;)
= Nuke Puke Wet Dreams


Small Modular Reactors: First the HYPE!

Advancing Small Modular Reactors: How We're Supporting Next-Gen Nuclear Energy Technology 


December 12, 2013 - 4:00pm

Nuclear energy continues to be an important  part of America’s diverse energy portfolio, and the Energy Department is committed to supporting a domestic nuclear industry.   ;)

While we are supporting the deployment of passively safe large nuclear reactors, both in the United States and around the world, we are also looking to the next generation of nuclear energy technologies.

Today, the Department announced a new award that supports first-of-its-kind engineering, design certification and licensing for an innovative small modular reactor (SMR) design. Supporting this innovative technology will help advance low-carbon nuclear energy deployment in the United States. 

What is a Small Modular Reactor?  

Small modular reactors are approximately one-third the size of current nuclear power plants or about 300 megawatts -- enough to power almost 230,000 homes each year. These reactors feature simplified, compact designs that are expected to be cost-effective    and incredibly safe

Agelbert NOTE: I'm surprised they used the expression "cost-effective" instead of "too cheap to meter!" 

And  why the laughing hard emoticon? ANSWER: See the adjective "incredibly" for the hidden truth in the propaganda mendacity. Clever fellows, aren't they?

And now, let use return to the rest of the PROPAGANDA:


For example, small modular reactors could be manufactured in factories and transported to sites where they would be ready for installation upon arrival, reducing both capital costs and construction times. SMR designs also have built-in passive safety systems that use the natural circulation of air, water and steam to maintain the right conditions for operation.

At the commercial scale, SMRs could expand the options for nuclear power in the U.S. and around the world. The smaller size also makes these reactors ideal for small electric grids and for locations that cannot support large reactors, in addition to offering utilities the flexibility to scale production as demand changes.

The investment made today builds upon the Department’s broader efforts to promote a sustainable nuclear industry in the U.S., including cultivating the next generation of scientists and engineers and solving common challenges across the industry. Check out more on these efforts at www.energy.gov/nuclear.

http://energy.gov/articles/advancing-small-modular-reactors-how-were-supporting-next-gen-nuclear-energy-technology
For the nuke puke true believers, you will find a slick infographic on SMRs at the above link created with mendacious TLC to have soft colors, look peppy, safe, clean, modern, safe, forward looking, high tech, inexpensive, and did I mention safe? ;) ;D


NOW, THE TRUTH!

Small Modular Reactors: Safety, Security and Cost Concerns

Small isn't always beautiful

According to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and some members of the nuclear industry, the next big thing in nuclear energy will be a small thing: the “small modular reactor” (SMR).

SMRs—“small” because they generate a maximum of about 30 percent as much power as typical current reactors, and “modular” because they can be assembled in factories and shipped to power plant sites—have been getting a lot of positive attention recently, as the nuclear power industry has struggled to remain economically viable in an era of flat demand and increasing competition from natural gas and other energy alternatives.

SMRs have been touted as both safer and more cost-effective than older, larger nuclear reactor designs. Proponents have even suggested that SMRs are so safe that some current NRC regulations can be relaxed for them, arguing that they need fewer operators and safety officers, less robust containment structures, and less elaborate evacuation plans. Are these claims justified?
Economies of Scale and Catch-22s

SMR-based power plants can be built with a smaller capital investment than plants based on larger reactors. Proponents suggest that this will remove financial barriers that have slowed the growth of nuclear power in recent years.

However, there's a catch: “affordable” doesn’t necessarily mean “cost-effective.” Economies of scale dictate that, all other things being equal, larger reactors will generate cheaper power. SMR proponents suggest that mass production of modular reactors could offset economies of scale, but a 2011 study concluded that SMRs would still be more expensive than current reactors.

Even if SMRs could eventually be more cost-effective than larger reactors due to mass production, this advantage will only come into play when many SMRs are in operation. But utilities are unlikely to invest in SMRs until they can produce competitively priced electric power. This Catch-22 has led some observers to conclude that the technology will require significant government financial help to get off the ground.

Are SMRs Safer?

One of the chief selling points for SMRs is that they are supposed to be safer than current reactor designs. However, their safety advantages are not as straightforward as some proponents suggest.SMRs use passive cooling systems that do not depend on the availability of electric power. This would be a genuine advantage under many accident scenarios, but not all. Passive systems are not infallible, and credible designs should include reliable active backup cooling systems. But this would add to cost.

SMRs feature smaller, less robust containment systems than current reactors. This can have negative safety consequences, including a greater probability of damage from hydrogen explosions. SMR designs include measures to prevent hydrogen from reaching explosive concentrations, but they are not as reliable as a more robust containment—which, again, would add to cost.

Some proponents have suggested siting SMRs underground as a safety measure. However, underground siting is a double-edged sword—it reduces risk in some situations (such as earthquake) and increases it in others (such as flooding). It can also make emergency intervention more difficult. And it too increases cost.

Proponents also point out that smaller reactors are inherently less dangerous than larger ones. While this is true, it is misleading, because small reactors generate less power than large ones, and therefore more of them are required to meet the same energy needs. Multiple SMRs may actually present a higher risk than a single large reactor, especially if plant owners try to cut costs by reducing support staff or safety equipment per reactor.


Relaxing Security Standards

The April 2013 bombings at the Boston Marathon remind us that terrorism is an ongoing threat. Yet the nuclear industry is proposing weaker security standards for SMRs. Industry representatives have suggested potential security force reductions of as much as 70 to 80 percent, which seem likely to leave plants inadequately defended.

Some industry representatives have suggested that underground siting could make SMRs less vulnerable to attack, but this is true only in some possible attack scenarios—in others, underground siting could work in the attackers' favor. No matter what safeguards are added to a plant's design, a robust and flexible security force will be needed.

Shrinking Evacuation Zones

Because of SMRs' alleged safety advantages, proponents have called for shrinking the size of the emergency planning zone (EPZ) surrounding an SMR plant from the current standard of 10 miles to as little as 1000 feet, making it easier to site the plants near population centers and in convenient locations such as former coal plants and military bases.

However, the lessons of Fukushima, in which radiation levels high enough to trigger evacuation or long-term settlement were measured at as much as 20 to 30 miles from the accident, suggest that these proposals, which are based on assumptions and models that have yet to be tested in practice, may be overoptimistic.

Conclusions

Unless a number of optimistic assumptions are realized, SMRs are not likely to be a viable solution to the economic and safety problems faced by nuclear power.


While some SMR proponents are worried that the United States is lagging in the creation of an SMR export market, cutting corners on safety is a shortsighted strategy.

Since safety and security improvements are critical to establishing the viability of nuclear power as an energy source for the future, the nuclear industry and the DOE should focus on developing safer reactor designs rather than weakening regulations.

Congress should direct the DOE to spend taxpayer money only on support of technologies that have the potential to provide significantly greater levels of safety and security than currently operating reactors.

The DOE should not be promoting the idea that SMRs do not require 10-mile emergency planning—nor should it be encouraging the NRC to weaken its other requirements just to facilitate SMR licensing and deployment.


Last Revised: 09/10/13

http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_power/nuclear_power_technology/small-modular-reactors.html

SMALL MODULAR REACTORS = for YOU AND ME and  for the NUKE PUKES!

Please PASS IT ON.  THE PLANET YOU SAVE MAY BE YOUR OWN...
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: December 02, 2013, 08:43:44 pm »

Dear readers and fellow "blockheads" (we write for FREE!  ),
Have you ever heard of the
Association of Women in ENERGY (AWE)?.

NOTICE the title says NOTHING about NUCLEAR energy, just that thermonucleardynamic process we all hold dear along with our SUVs.

You will NEVER GUESS WHO THE DIRECTOR IS.
 Remember that NUKE SHILL wife of another NUKE SHILL that tried to run for congress back in 2004?

The Nuke Pukes take care of their own. And they don't ADVERTIZE the fact that they SHILL for nukes.
Quote
Posted by AWE on Jul 20, 2011 in

Rebecca A. Klein Director, Board Of Directors

Rebecca A. Klein is Principal of Klein Energy, LLC, a regulatory and business consulting company in Austin, Texas. Over the last twenty years she has worked in Washington, DC and in Texas in the energy, telecommunications and national security arenas. She provides business, regulatory and government affairs consulting for international and domestic clients focused in the energy, communications and national security industries. - See more at:

http://www.associationofwomeninenergy.com/board-of-directors/2011/07/klein/#sthash.fGY9BuHh.dpuf

The above covers BOILER PLATE Credentials for an "energy Expert" .    Sneaky Reptiles, aren't they?   
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: December 02, 2013, 08:11:59 pm »

The Nuclear Lie Machine Part 2 of 2 parts


University policy appears similarly unforgiving. Under UT guidelines, governing "all research conducted at the university," any allegation of "scientific misconduct" – defined as "fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism" – would be referred to the associate vice-president for research, Sharon Brown. As for the university's "working definition" of plagiarism, Brown referred me to the federal Office of Research Integrity, which "considers plagiarism to include both the theft or misappropriation of intellectual property and the substantial unattributed textual copying of another's work." The ORI defines "unattributed textual copying of another's work" as "the unattributed verbatim or nearly verbatim copying of sentences and paragraphs which materially mislead the ordinary reader regarding the contributions of the author."


For at least 25 years, an Oak Ridge employee named Theodore M. Besmann has had published nuclear love songs in newspapers across the country, under his own or others' names.


If an allegation of scientific misconduct is made, Brown said, she and university ethics officer Lee Smith, an attorney in the legal affairs office, would conduct an initial inquiry to determine "whether there is enough evidence to warrant a full investigation."


Trust Them, They're Experts 



Professor Landsberger is hardly Big Nuke's lone academic conduit for conducting stealth PR campaigns. His March 4 testimonial to Yucca Mountain in the Statesman apparently rolled off the same assembly line as a piece three months earlier in The State of Columbia, S.C. That column, "Time to move ahead on nuclear waste disposal," appeared Dec. 9, 2003, under the byline of Abdel E. Bayoumi, chairman of the mechanical engineering department at the University of South Carolina.

Landsberger's column is at times a replication of Bayoumi's. And when it's not identical, it can be downright fraternal. Take the beginning of Landsberger's last paragraph: "The record demonstrates that since the advent of nuclear electricity more than 40 years ago, scientific organizations across the world have examined the issue of radioactive-waste management." Compare Bayoumi's words: "The record shows that since the advent of nuclear electricity more than 40 years ago, scientific organizations around the world have examined the issue of radioactive waste management." 


Landsberger's column concludes by quoting a line from a 14-year-old study supporting burial underground as the "best, safest long-term option for dealing with high-level waste." Bayoumi quotes the same, "best, safest long-term option" line from the same study, but ends his column with a flourish: "The government should get on with it."   


Landsberger and Bayoumi each told me he was unaware of the other's column.    And while Landsberger now acknowledges his duplicity, Bayoumi insists the language in his column is his alone. How, then, to explain that three paragraphs of Bayoumi's column – as well as his grand "The government should get on with it" finale – appeared in an op-ed piece by a University of Pittsburgh professor in The Buffalo (N.Y.) News on July 26, 1993, a full 10 years earlier? Or that the Buffalo News columnist also used the industry's time-honored refrain: "The record shows that since the advent of nuclear energy more than 30 years ago" – note the earlier time-frame – "scientific organizations around the world ..."    

"I have nothing really to say," Bayoumi replied when asked to explain his verbatim language. "I have no knowledge of that [Buffalo News] column. I have no idea who did what 10 years ago." Bayoumi did allow that some of his "numbers" came from "fact sheets" posted on the Web site of the American Nuclear Society, a professional organization based near Chicago. "But all the writing is my own," he insists, adding, "I didn't consent to let anyone else use it." 


Opinions 'R' Us

But Bayoumi apparently allowed himself to be used. And there he is not alone. Like Landsberger, Bayoumi deceived his hometown newspaper by submitting and representing as his own work what apparently originated as an industry-generated and -funded column. Could these two professors of engineering, one at Texas, the other at South Carolina, be the only beneficiaries of the Nuclear Energy Institute's ghostwriter-in-residence program?

Further investigation has uncovered what might be called Big Nuke's vast op-ed conspiracy: a decades-long, centrally orchestrated plan to defraud the nation's newspaper readers by misrepresenting the propaganda of one hired atomic gun as the learned musings of disparate academics and other nuclear-industry "experts."

The conspiracy stretches from Washington, D.C., home to the NEI and to the inexhaustible pen of Peter Bernstein. Bernstein, a vice-president of the lobby's PR firm, Potomac Communications Group, is the man whose prose stylings have been cloned by nuclear scientists and engineers from Oregon to Florida. (Over the course of two weeks, Bernstein declined to respond to three phone messages and an e-mail requesting an interview.)

In Oregon, for instance, state climatologist and Oregon State University professor George H. Taylor publishes under his name columns written entirely or in part by Bernstein. Says Taylor: "There have been people who have sent me things and said, 'We just want you to say that you wrote this.' And I'm uncomfortable doing that; I'd prefer just to write things myself."  ;)

But an examination of Taylor's collected works reveals he doesn't always get around to dashing off his own words. Asked about his op-ed that appeared in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer on April 9, 2002, Taylor recalled that he worked from an outline Bernstein sent him and that he "basically did the writing myself and sent it back to them." Somehow, however, between the time Taylor returned his piece to Bernstein and its publication, it came to echo a handful of other op-eds published previously.

Statesman, March 4, 2004
Statesman, March 4, 2004

Each of those other columns, published under similar headlines ("Nuclear Power Provides a Cheaper, Cleaner, Safer Alternative"
is representative) and different bylines in The San Diego Union-Tribune, The Detroit News, The Beaumont Enterprise, Richmond Times-Dispatch (and after Taylor's, in Florida Today, Melbourne, Fla.), used at least one stock sentence: "Far from being an atoms-for-peace relic heading for extinction, nuclear power now sets the competitive bench mark for electricity generation." (Occasionally a minor word was changed – "today" substituted for "now," for example.) And there were a multitude of interchangeable paragraphs or sentences that appeared to be cut-and-pasted from one to another.


Don't Waste Your Words

Before you dismiss this argument as little more than an exercise in LexisNexis-fueled pedantry, consider yet another serial instance of nuclear collusion – a chorus of received and parroted ideas likely to induce cynicism in even the staunchest believer. Here it may help to note that no matter how indefatigably Bernstein yanks his puppets' strings to argue that nuclear power is, well, a "cheaper, cleaner, safer alternative," the industry's Achilles' heel is still the waste question: how to safely manage nuclear waste remains unresolved.

Meanwhile, the radioactive waste piles high. And not just the high-level spent fuel rods, but so-called low-level waste generated in medicine and manufacturing. In the early 1990s, the industry launched a PR campaign to site commercial low-level nuclear waste dumps in various states: Nebraska, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Texas.

Writing in the Omaha World-Herald of the proposed Boyd County, Neb., dumpsite, Dr. Samuel H. Mehr, the director of nuclear medicine at an Omaha hospital, proclaimed in November 1990 that "the best scientists and engineers available ... believe that the ... facility will be among the safest and best-engineered waste facilities of any type in the country." 


Two years later, a nuclear engineering professor at Penn State, Anthony Baratta, took to the pages of Harrisburg, Pa.'s Patriot to champion a dump in Pennsylvania as, yup, "among the safest and best-engineered waste facilities of any type in the country."

Not to be outdone, Charles M. Harman, a Duke University professor of mechanical engineering, struck a blow in the News & Record of Greensboro, N.C., for a planned facility in Wake County, N.C. "The design of the ... facility," Harman wrote in April 1994, "is such that it would be" all together now – "among the safest and best engineered of any waste disposal facility."  (Professor Harman also included other language not his own. Here is the last line from Mehr's 1990 Omaha column: "It is past time to move on to real and present problems that lack solutions." Here is Harman's: "It is past time to move on to real and present problems and to available solutions.")

It is also past time to conclude these ruminations, so let us return to the engineering department on the campus that spawned them: the University of Texas. In the June 29, 1996, edition of the Statesman, Dale E. Klein, then associate dean for research and administration of the College of Engineering, published a letter to the editor in support of building the proposed nuclear dump in Sierra Blanca, in far West Texas. (In November 2001, Klein moved from the Forty Acres to the Pentagon. He is presently assistant to the secretary of defense for nuclear and chemical and biological defense programs. His wife, Rebecca Armendariz Klein,  is the Republican 
 candidate for U.S. Congress in CD 25
.)

Klein wrote in response to coverage of an Austin rally to protest the dump. He declared that to leave the waste "at multiple sites – many in populous areas of the state – is a monitoring nightmare and brings into question the motives of the most strident opponents of the facility."

After insulting those who might wonder why nuclear waste is safe for rural residents but not for city folk, he suggests that an effort be made to tell those many families who trooped to Austin from Hudspeth and surrounding counties that "the food they eat and the water they drink will not be radioactive."

Why's that, Dr. Klein?

Because, he wrote, the Sierra Blanca facility "will be among the safest and best-engineered waste facilities in the country."  :icon_mrgreen:

But of course. end story 


http://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2004-04-16/206880/
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: December 02, 2013, 08:10:10 pm »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bsZUiYgPKjs&feature=player_embedded

Did you know that rats eat the wires in the pumps used to control the heat at Fukushima?

And we are supposed to trust TEPCO? Arnie Gundersen blasts all the lies, obfuscations and open disregard for all regulations and ethics by the nuclear "industry" criminals and their bought and paid for shills. Arnie claims we are told there are WATCH DOGS taking care of nuclear risks but  they watch dogs are actually LAP DOGS! He suggests googling "Will Shill for Nukes" to see what these "so-called" "watch dogs" are REALLY ALL ABOUT.

I did. Here it is for your reading "pleasure":
Will Shill for Nukes

Decommissioning the nuclear lobby's phony op-ed campaign


By William M. Adler, Fri., April 16, 2004



Will Shill for Nukes
Illustration By Jason Stout



Will Shill for Nukes


At UT and elsewhere, academic scientists are only too happy to lend their names and reputations to the nuclear power industry

BY WILLIAM M. ADLER


From the Desk of ... Big Nuke

Tracing the daisy chain of nuclear PR recycling



On March 4, the Austin American-Statesman published an op-ed article by Sheldon Landsberger, professor of nuclear engineering at UT. Headlined "Funds for nuclear waste storage should be used for just that," the column argues that the government is fleecing electric-utility ratepayers, who contribute mandatory per-kilowatt-hour fees toward the development of the proposed national nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. Landsberger charges that a portion of the fees earmarked for the federal Nuclear Waste Fund are diverted to the general U.S. Treasury. "This is stealing money from taxpayers who were required to support the waste management project," Landsberger writes. 


Strong words.

But they're not Landsberger's. Nor are the other 633 words that appeared in the Statesman that morning under Landsberger's byline. "It was something which was written for me," Landsberger told me later on the phone. "I agreed with it, I went over it, read it a couple of times, took all of 15, 20 minutes."

The op-ed was ginned up, assembly-line style, by a Washington, D.C., public relations firm that the nuclear power lobby retains to tilt public opinion in favor of the stalled Yucca Mountain project. (Unmentioned in Landsberger's plea for official rectitude are the myriad of unresolved scientific, technical, and legal questions about the viability of burying high-level waste in Nevada.) Besides reading and approving the column, all Landsberger did to take credit for authorship was insert his name and position at UT, and forward it via e-mail to the Statesman – even that address provided by the PR firm. (He also sent the column to several other Texas newspapers, none of which printed it.)

On Tuesday, the Statesman published a letter from Landsberger apologizing for his misrepresentation.

Landsberger says he doesn't know who actually wrote his column. He received it, via e-mail, from an employee at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee. (Landsberger emphasized that he believed the employee, whom he wouldn't name, sent him the column as a private citizen, rather than on behalf of the national lab.) Nor was this the first time; when it comes to deceiving newspaper readers on behalf of a stealth nuclear lobbying campaign, Landsberger is an acknowledged recidivist. "I've been doing this four or five years," he says. "They [op-ed columns] come from Oak Ridge maybe two or three times a year, particularly when there's a hot-button issue."

Landsberger's accomplice is Theodore M. Besmann, an Oak Ridge employee since 1985. Besmann is a prolific correspondent. Beginning at least as far back as 1978, he has had published under his own or others' names dozens of nuclear love songs in newspapers across the country, from The New York Times to the San Francisco Chronicle to The Washington Post to the Houston Chronicle to The Christian Science Monitor ("Nuclear: The Environment's Friend," appeared in the Monitor in 1994).

None but a blockhead, Samuel Johnson said, writes for free.   :evil4:  Ted Besmann is no blockhead. He moonlights as a paid consultant to Potomac Communications Group, the Washington PR firm that works for the Nuclear Energy Institute, the nuclear industry's stentorian voice and lobby. The NEI's current primary concern – besides beating the congressional bushes for tax breaks and subsidies for nuclear power – is opening the atomic garbage dump at Yucca Mountain. Many of the nation's 103 reactors are running out of on-site storage space for their spent fuel rods, the NEI says, and may have to close if the Energy Department doesn't soon open the Yucca Mountain facility.

To spread its message, the electric utility-funded NEI relies on generous campaign contributions to key members of Congress, virtually unbridled access to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and academic "experts" who prostitute their reputations and those of their universities.


Everybody Does It


Enter Sheldon Landsberger, Ph.D. He directs the Nuclear Engineering Teaching Lab at UT and coordinates the Nuclear and Radiation Engineering Program. He's a busy guy. So when Ted Besmann forwarded him the op-ed on Yucca Mountain, Landsberger read it, "signed off" on it, and passed it on to the Statesman as his own, just as he'd done with the Statesman and other papers, once or twice a year for at least five years. Is that such an outrage?

Well, yes, says Jonathan Knight, an ethics specialist for the American Association of University Professors. "If I see an article by Jack Spratt, then I assume that Jack Spratt has indeed developed the ideas that are in his document," says Knight, who directs the AAUP's program on academic freedom and tenure. "If I learn that in fact Jack Spratt has only lent his name to that, I've got a problem in terms of being seriously misled."

Unsurprisingly, the perpetrators of this "public affairs campaign"  ;) see it differently. :evil4: It matters not who writes the piece, says Bill Perkins, founding partner of Potomac Communications, but what the piece says. "Whether the words are largely theirs, or largely not theirs, the views are. Nobody would submit an article if they didn't totally agree with it."   


Besides, Perkins says, everyone does it.   
"I doubt that there is a public affairs campaign by any advocacy group in the country that doesn't have some version of this. The op-ed pages are one of the ways people express their views in these debates."

But Landsberger did not exactly express his views; he appropriated those of the nuclear lobby, in their words. The distinction is crucial. Otherwise, says Knight of the AAUP, he is "foisting an illusion upon us: that he really has come up with those ideas himself."

Landsberger acknowledges an offense – but claims it was he who was victimized. He says that a "few months ago" he had a "sneaking suspicion" that Ted Besmann was forwarding him the same op-ed columns other professors were receiving. "When I started doing this, I was under the impression that rightfully or wrongfully I was the only guy." He said he has since told Besmann he will no longer participate.

Besmann says Landsberger is mistaken about his place in the PR machine. "I do help with letters to the editor," he says. "It's always original material, unique to that person." But Besmann says he only occasionally ghostwrites op-eds, that more often he merely passes them on from the ghostwriters of Potomac Communications Group.

Was Landsberger saying that it's ethical to slap your name on writing that's not yours as long as no one else claims it, too? "I had no problems with them coming to me," Landsberger says, "but then going on to someone else and having them do the same thing, I felt betrayed, duped, whatever the word is."   


No Credit

Suppose, the professor was asked, a student of his submitted a paper he didn't write as his own. Wouldn't he and the university consider that cheating, and how is that different from what he, Landsberger, did?

There was a long, long pause.  "I don't put them both in the same light," Landsberger finally said. "There was no monetary value in here, number one, and number two, there was no credit to be given."

Knight, the ethics expert with AAUP, disagrees: "Whether it's an op-ed in a local newspaper or an article in a learned journal, we're talking about the same phenomenon, which is plagiarism: presenting the ideas as if they were one's own."

Continued in Part 2

+-Recent Topics

Electric Vehicles by AGelbert
October 21, 2017, 11:37:03 pm

Future Earth by AGelbert
October 21, 2017, 09:01:37 pm

Money by AGelbert
October 21, 2017, 08:54:52 pm

Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery by AGelbert
October 21, 2017, 08:41:51 pm

Global Warming is WITH US by AGelbert
October 21, 2017, 03:50:52 pm

Mechanisms of Prejudice: Hidden and Not Hidden by AGelbert
October 21, 2017, 03:10:33 pm

Pollution by AGelbert
October 21, 2017, 01:50:25 pm

Corruption in Government by AGelbert
October 20, 2017, 08:00:13 pm

Homebody Handy Hints by AGelbert
October 20, 2017, 06:57:09 pm

Photvoltaics (PV) by AGelbert
October 20, 2017, 04:23:32 pm

Free Web Hit Counter By CSS HTML Tutorial