+- +-

+-User

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

+-Stats ezBlock

Members
Total Members: 41
Latest: GWarnock
New This Month: 1
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Stats
Total Posts: 8270
Total Topics: 226
Most Online Today: 1
Most Online Ever: 48
(June 03, 2014, 03:09:30 am)
Users Online
Members: 0
Guests: 0
Total: 0

Author Topic: Nuclear Power Industry Mendacious Propaganda  (Read 3091 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8075
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
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
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8075
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences

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

Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8075
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
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
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8075
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences

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
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8075
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Nuclear Power Industry Mendacious Propaganda
« Reply #19 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

Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8075
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
"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
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8075
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
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
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8075
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
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/
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8075
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
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

 
« Last Edit: June 09, 2015, 02:41:04 pm by AGelbert »
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8075
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Nuclear Power Industry Mendacious Propaganda
« Reply #24 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.  ::)

Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8075
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Nuclear Power Industry Mendacious Propaganda
« Reply #25 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/
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8075
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Nuclear Power Industry Mendacious Propaganda
« Reply #26 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/

Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8075
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Nuclear Power Industry Mendacious Propaganda
« Reply #27 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
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8075
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Nuclear Power Industry Mendacious Propaganda
« Reply #28 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.
« Last Edit: March 15, 2016, 06:39:16 pm by AGelbert »
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8075
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Nuclear Power Industry Mendacious Propaganda
« Reply #29 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/
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
15 Replies
613 Views
Last post August 02, 2017, 03:01:17 pm
by AGelbert
7 Replies
1462 Views
Last post December 12, 2013, 07:46:06 pm
by AGelbert
67 Replies
1994 Views
Last post November 22, 2017, 01:47:19 pm
by AGelbert
0 Replies
117 Views
Last post February 14, 2014, 02:10:45 am
by AGelbert
4 Replies
535 Views
Last post September 04, 2014, 02:54:38 pm
by AGelbert

+-Recent Topics

Global Warming is WITH US by AGelbert
November 22, 2017, 08:31:05 pm

Batteries by AGelbert
November 22, 2017, 07:50:19 pm

Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery by AGelbert
November 22, 2017, 07:19:27 pm

Pollution by AGelbert
November 22, 2017, 07:07:56 pm

Future Earth by AGelbert
November 22, 2017, 06:21:54 pm

Resisting Brainwashing Propaganda by AGelbert
November 22, 2017, 01:47:19 pm

Ocean Species Habits and Ocean Conservancy by AGelbert
November 22, 2017, 01:32:45 pm

Non-routine News by AGelbert
November 21, 2017, 09:26:25 pm

Historical Documentaries by AGelbert
November 21, 2017, 06:50:36 pm

Corruption in Government by AGelbert
November 21, 2017, 02:58:11 pm

Free Web Hit Counter By CSS HTML Tutorial