Say no to nuclear power (LAT OpEd)

[jpak]

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-nuclear25mar25,0,4761516.story

Californians might have thought the subject of nuclear power was laid to rest in 1976, when the state banned construction of new plants. But 32 years is a long time, and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger can now be counted among a rising number of people who think that the threat of global warming provides a good reason to reconsider our distaste for radioactive waste.

If he's sending up this idea as a trial balloon, we'd like to borrow Schwarzenegger's Harrier jet from "True Lies" to blow it out of the sky.

In a recent speech in Santa Barbara, Schwarzenegger decried environmentalists who use scare tactics to "frighten everyone that we're going to have another blowup and all of those things." He was referring to the Chernobyl and Three Mile Island disasters, which thoroughly soured Americans on the concept of nuclear power. It's true that Chernobyl was an ill-maintained monstrosity, and nuclear safety has improved since the 1979 Three Mile Island meltdown. It's flatly wrong to conclude that this means nuclear plants are safe.

Nuclear waste remains highly toxic not for a few years but for millenniums; if the ancient Egyptians who built the Great Pyramid had also built nuclear plants, the waste would still be deadly. This material is being stored on-site at nuclear plants, including the two in California (San Onofre and Diablo Canyon) because Congress has been unable to agree on the location for a national repository. As these plants age, the chance of a system failure increases.

<more>

[selador]

1. one word: france

it works there. it works other places as well.

and god only knows if you want to compare safety - let's do it.

any idea how dangerous it is to mine coal? drill for oil? etc?

many people here are all lovey dovey for france in so many ways (welfare system, work week protections, public transportation, etc. etc. ) and they do good things we can learn from

but when it comes to nuclear power everybody wants to throw the jackson browne albums on, don the "no nuke" t-shirts and not look objectively at nuclear power

http://www.uic.com.au/nip28.htm

France has 59 nuclear reactors operated by Electricité de France (EdF) with total capacity of over 63 GWe, supplying over 430 billion kWh per year of electricity, 78% of the total generated there. In 2005 French electricity generation was 549 billion kWh net and consumption 482 billion kWh - 7700 kWh per person. Over the last decade France has exported 60-70 billion kWh net each year and EdF expects exports to continue at 65-70 TWh/yr.

The present situation is due to the French government deciding in 1974, just after the first oil shock, to expand rapidly the country's nuclear power capacity. This decision was taken in the context of France having substantial heavy engineering expertise but few indigenous energy resources. Nuclear energy, with the fuel cost being a relatively small part of the overall cost, made good sense in minimising imports and achieving greater energy security.

As a result of the 1974 decision, France now claims a substantial level of energy independence and almost the lowest cost electricity in Europe. It also has an extremely low level of CO2 emissions per capita from electricity generation, since over 90% of its electricity is nuclear or hydro.

Recent energy policy

In 1999 a parliamentary debate reaffirmed three main planks of French energy policy: security of supply (France imports more than half its energy), respect for the environment (especially re greenhouse gases) and proper attention to radioactive waste management. It was noted that natural gas had no economic advantage over nuclear for base-load power, and its prices were very volatile. Despite "intense efforts" there was no way renewables and energy conservation measures could replace nuclear energy in the foreseeable future.

[salvorhardin]

3. Skeptoid did an excellent podcast on this topic last week

The mp3 file of the podcast and the entire transcript can be found at the link but here's a brief excerpt:

How do the dangers of nuclear energy compare to the dangers of fossil fuel energy? A report in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that some 50,000-100,000 Americans die each year from lung cancer caused by particulate air pollution, the biggest cause of which is coal-burning power plants in the midwest and east. Even taking the maximum predicted death toll from Chernobyl, we would need a Chernobyl-sized accident every three weeks to make nuclear power as deadly as coal and oil already is. Shall I repeat that? If the world was filled with Generation I reactors run by feuding coal miners, we would need a worst-case scenario every three weeks just to match the US death toll we've imposed upon ourselves by clinging to our current fossil fuel system. Next time you see a hippie cheering the defeat of nuclear power in the US, realize that a healthy environment and saving lives are clearly not their priorities.

Well, maybe to them it's more about the future of the planet than about saving lives today. Maybe they just don't want to see high-level nuclear waste created that's going to poison the planet for tens of thousands of years. I can see that. But here's the problem with that logic: The plants we're designing now produce less waste than ever. Some on the drawing board produce none at all. We've already created most of the waste that we ever will. It already exists. It's out there. Lobbying against future cleaner plants won't make the existing waste go away. It's out there now in temporary facilities in neighborhoods all across the country, way more vulnerable than it would be in proper permanent storage in Yucca Mountain.

Opponents say that Yucca Mountain is geologically unstable or otherwise too hazardous, so the waste might leak out. Well, trust me: The location of the Yucca Mountain site was one of the most lengthy and expensive decisions the government ever made. What do you think they were doing with all that time and money, picking their noses? Well, it was a government program, so a large part of the time and budget probably was spent on nose mining. Nevertheless, this was one of the most scrutinized decisions ever made. Environmentally speaking it's as good a site as we could hope for. If you're concerned about it, go to a neutral and reliable source and research it personally. From every scrap of reason I can muster, environmentalists should be Yucca Mountain's #1 fans. I can't imagine why they prefer to leave the waste out where it is now, unless they are driven more by ideology than by science. Who would have thought that?

There is a safe and clean solution to our energy crisis, gasoline prices, and global warming. It's the latest generation nuclear reactor.
From: http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4092

[selador]

4. yup

and for those that are supposedly for worker safety, worker rights, etc. there is simply NO WAY to make careers like oil drilling, logging, coal mining, etc. "safe". and certainly not without incredible added costs. simply put, they are high risk professions.

nuclear workers are MUCH MUCH more safe, suffer FAR FAR FAR fewer disabling injuries and deaths, live longer (certainly longer than coal miners for example) etc. etc.

there is just an automatic kneejerk reaction to nuclear power that is immensely difficult to overcome because it has been ingrained for decades in our psyche's.

[jpak]

5. Yup - That's why there is something called the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act

http://www.usdoj.gov/civil/torts/const/reca/index.htm

http://www.usdoj.gov/civil/omp/omi/Tre_SysClaimsToDateSum.pdf

27,954 claim filed

$1.2 billion in compensation awarded....and counting...

and the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Act...

http://www.dol.gov/esa/regs/compliance/owcp/eeoicp/law/20010111list.pdf

http://www.dol.gov/dolfaq/go-dol-faq.asp?faqid=410&faqsub=Energy+Employees&faqtop=Workers'+Compensation&topicid=10

http://www.aflcio.org/issues/safety/wc/energycomp.cfm

41,284 claims filed...

$536 million in compensation pending...

[salvorhardin]

13. Umm... I don't see anything related to compensation for unsafe nuclear power plants

Granted, I just scanned the links but both programs seem to be designed to compensate people injured as a part of nuclear testing or working in uranium processing.

The 1990 Act provided fixed payments in the following amounts: $50,000 to individuals residing or working "downwind" of The Nevada Test Site; $75,000 for workers participating in above-ground nuclear weapons tests; and $100,000 for uranium miners <<or millers -- ed.>>
http://www.usdoj.gov/civil/torts/const/reca/about.htm

Compensation of $150,000 and payment of medical expenses from the date a claim is filed is available to:

* Employees of the Department of Energy (DOE), its contractors or subcontractors, and atomic weapons employers with radiation-induced cancer if:

* the employee developed cancer after working at a covered facility of the Department of Energy, its contractors and subcontractors; and
* the employee’s cancer is determined at least as likely as not related to that employment in accordance with guidelines issued by the Department of Health and Human Services, or
* the employee is determined to be a member of the Special Exposure Cohort (employees who worked at least 250 days before February 1, 1992, for the Department of Energy or its contractors or subcontractors at one or more of the three Gaseous Diffusion Plants located at Oak Ridge, TN, Paducah, KY or Portsmouth, OH or who were exposed to radiation related to certain underground nuclear tests at Amchitka, AK) and developed one of certain listed cancers

* Employees of the Department of Energy, its contractors and subcontractors, and designated beryllium vendors who worked at covered facilities where they were exposed to beryllium produced or processed for the Department of Energy who developed Chronic Beryllium Disease; and
* Employees of the Department of Energy or its contractors and subcontractors who worked at least 250 days during the mining of tunnels at underground nuclear weapons tests sites in Nevada or Alaska and who developed chronic silicosis.
http://www.dol.gov/dolfaq/go-dol-faq.asp?faqid=410&faqsub=Energy+Employees&faqtop=Workers\'+Compensation&topicid=10

There are legitimate reasons to be concerned about nuclear power plant safety. That doesn't mean it isn't the best option available right now. And by "right now" I mean the technology is available to us right now. I realize it will take years to build new nuke plants.

[jpak]

14. Ummm...uranium miners and millers and transporters and enrichment plant personnel

provide fuel for all those "safe" nuclear plants - and they have suffered morbidity and mortality due to occupational exposure to beryllium and radiation.

No enriched uranium, no light water reactor fuel.

...and we won't talk about this....

http://www.mindfully.org/Health/Nuclear-Reactor-Closing.htm

http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSL0867723820071208

[salvorhardin]

15. But why should these be a no go for nuclear power?

Why shouldn't we learn from past mistakes and make uranium mining and production safer? That argument is the equivalent of saying people died building the Niagara Falls hydroelectric generating station therefore we should abandon electricity as a power source.

As for the two links you provide:
http://www.mindfully.org/Health/Nuclear-Reactor-Closing.htm
http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSL0867723820071208

Those are two copies of the exact same brief wire service article. Without seeing the actual study I can't tell if it's valid or just bullshit. Even if the study is valid, we're talking about an increase from an average of 17 children developing leukemia to 37 children. That seems like a huge number but what is the absolute risk? Again, without having access to the actual study we don't know. And last, but not least, assuming that there is an increased risk for children developing leukemia who live near nuclear plants, then I think we need to find out why and fix it. Shutting down nuclear power plants based on this sole statistic is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Finally, Germany shutting down its' nuke plants is neither here nor there when it comes to this discussion because we don't know exactly why Germany is shutting down its nuclear power plants. Perhaps Germany's plants are all old school designs and being a small country they forsee being able to generate all of their power from other sources. Perhaps the German government is just moronic and is caving into pressure groups.

[Dead_Parrot]

24. So, if there was a Particulate Exposure Compensation Act...

...which ran at $42,928 per claim, how bankrupt would the US be, exactly? assuming 2,000,000 per year every year for 50 years, naturally.

Mind you, a Global Warming Exposure Compensation Act covering the 50,000 dead in 2003 would still be a bit of a pisser.

Happily, of course, no one gives a shit.

So that's all right.

[kestrel91316]

30. What is your brilliant plan to secure the radioactive waste for what

amounts to near-eternity??

You see, it's not just about US in the present day. It's about future generations. But that concept escapes the pro-nuke fundies.

[madokie]

6. France and nuclear waste

http://energypriorities.com/entries/2005/03/france_nuke_was.php

France gets the majority of its power from nuclear plants. Parliament issued a report in March, 2005, on the problem of France's radioactive waste. Its recommendations confirm the status quo: waste storage and decontamination research.

Denis Du Bois
March 19, 2005
France gets the majority of its power from nuclear reactors. In the mid 1950s, over feeble public dissent, the country's leadership made that commitment.

Today, France is dealing with the legacy of its nuclear programs. Waste is stored in large facilities, while scientists search for ways to make it less deadly.

Parliament issued a report in March, 2005, on the issue of France's nuclear waste. Its recommendations confirm the status quo: waste storage and decontamination research.

The cost of waste disposal -- hundreds of billions of euros -- is being passed along to ratepayers. High rates aren't the only legacy of 50 years of nuclear power. Citizens and scientists alike are concerned about security, groundwater contamination, and storage.
JE SUIS RADIOACTIF MATERIAL LIFE
Cobalt 60 years
Plutonium 24,000 years
Uranium 238 4 billion years

Storage problems
Highly radioactive materials, such as spent fuel rods, are stored in The Hague and at the Marcoule nuclear facility, on the Rhone River near the southern city of Orange.

The director of the Commissariat a l’Energie Atomique (CEA) at the Marcoule facility, Loic Martin-Deidier, recalls the enthusiasm for quickly launching civil and military nuclear programs. At the time, he says, "they weren't thinking 40 years ahead."

Half a century later, nuclear waste continues to grow. Rods from atomic reactors aren't the only waste France has to deal with.

Nuclear reactors and laboratories built during the nuclear boom times are being dismantled. Everything from contaminated parts to rubber gloves must be disposed of. Workers meticulously examine each item using remote-controlled cameras. Color-coded images reveal spots of radioactive contamination on items such as bolts, tools, conveyor belts, clothing, and medical equipment.

Some items can be cleaned. Robots stuff the rest into special barrels for eternal storage.

Every day, about ten shipping containers arrive on trucks at the Soulaines-Dhuys storage facility outside Troyes, in the province of Ardennes, 180 kilometers east of Paris. On board are barrels of waste that isn't radioactive enough to be stored at Marcoule. Every year, 15,000 cubic meters of waste contaminated with uranium, plutonium and tritium arrive here.

The 350-acre site is like an above-ground Yucca Mountain. Construction cranes hover above a hundred bunker-like cement blocks already filled with barrels encased in concrete. In 60 years, the cranes' job will be done, the 400-bunker facility will be full, and the entire facility will be covered with a concrete lid. What then?

The Soulaines-Dhuys site will enter a 300-year surveillance phase. After that, the plan is to observe the site until the stored waste loses its radioactivity.

The initial 300 years is just the beginning. Even moderately radioactive plutonium retains hazardous for 24,000 years. Skeptics wonder if future generations will follow the plan -- or even remember where the site is located.

Underground storage facilities
Researchers seeking better ways to store waste are looking 450 meters underground. They believe a certain kind of clay is capable of preventing leaks from stored containers.

A laboratory near Bure, in the province of Meuse, has been working on it. When its tests conclude in 2006, the lab is likely to become a storage site for long-lived and highly radioactive waste.

Residents of the quiet little town, located between Paris and Nancy in the northeast corner of France, are not enthusiastic about that idea. They fear the potential for contaminating the surface aquifers found during the lab's construction.

Dependent on nuclear power
In the end, locals may have little say in the matter. In 2002, France stored 978,000 cubic meters of waste. In 2020, the annual amount is expected to be 1.9 million cubic meters.

The country is far behind most of its European neighbors in renewable energy development. It has meager fossil fuel resources, such as coal or gas. The country is, for the foreseeable future, dependent on nuclear power.

Meanwhile, keeping the lights on means the waste keeps coming.
---------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1228-04.htm

Countries Undecided on How to Store Nuclear Waste
by Anna Peltola

STOCKHOLM - Since the start of the nuclear era, highly radioactive waste has been crossing continents and oceans in search of a secure and final resting place.

Nearly all countries produce nuclear waste, some types of which can remain radioactive for thousands of years, but they cannot agree on the best way to store it.

At present highly radioactive waste is put into interim storage where it has to sit for 30-40 years for its radioactivity and heat production to decline. It is still hazardous and should be stored somewhere permanently.

[jpak]

7. France exploited the uranium resources of its former African colonies - and left them nothing

but environmental hazards from un-reclaimed uranium mines.

French uranium mining companies are governments unto themselves in former French Africa and not above supporting violence against their opponents...

[madokie]

8. but I've read here that nuclear has never killed a soul or some such shit like that

I would bet that these people here would have some of the same complaints as our Navajos do. a wham bam and not even a thank you mam.
I've been against nuclear energy since I first studied a little about it in the Navy some forty years ago.

[selador]

9. it MAY

be true that in the US, nobody has ever died as the result of a nuclear plant accident.

i have no idea. certainly, worldwide people have died (chernobyl).

but it is undeniable that the relative risk is MUCH MUCH less with nuclear energy vs, other energy sources, at least for the labor involved in running plants, extracting fuel, etc.

there are all kinds of stats (some already posted) easily available to confirm that.

coal mining and wildcatting are both relatively dangerous professions, for instance

[madokie]

11. true that about the dangers of the professions

thats not so much an issue with me as is the radiation that loves to keep on giving for years to come that I can't get past. Oh and thanks for not calling me names and such because of how I feel about nuclear energy like some here has/do. Nothing more would I love than to have an energy source that was safe and sustainable. As it stands now only the renewable offer hope so that is where I think we should be heading not to something that even after all these years we still don't have a viable way to dispose of or deal with the waste, none as of yet. I keep hoping maybe that will change but I think if it was it would have been done by now. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power

I feel if the efforts to find a safe depository for nuclear waste was or had been put forth toward a renewable energy source the problems we have today with global warming would not be here. We are wasting time on nuclear and time is getting precious, yes getting more precious to me with each of my passing days as I no longer have the comfort in knowing I have a lot of time left.

let me add, the risk I take in mining coal for instance is for the most part only involving me and the now, whereas the radiation that takes millions of years to only reach its half life, for crying out loud, is a whole different ball game. Maybe in our next lives we will be immune to radiation who knows, huh. So it begs the question, do ghosts suffer from radiation sickness like life in this dimension does? ;-)

I understand that what we are doing today is killing us but the world can and will bounce back from this misguided direction much easier than it can after a vast radiation contamination. It has been shown to be a bit more complex that just using nuclear energy to make electricity, that part we have down its the other part that needs work before its considered the way to go. And no amount of blowing smoke will change any part of this either.

[losthills]

19. "Nuclear is a whole different ballgame."

Well said.

This genie can do so much more damage than any other genie we have released. And the nuclear genie will not go back in the bottle. Ever.

[jpak]

10. Here's some dish on AREVA's recent "activities" in Niger...

http://www.mineweb.net/mineweb/view/mineweb/en/page38?oid=24735&sn=Detail

<snip>

Weeks earlier, it had deported a former French army colonel, who was acting as Areva's security adviser after accusing him of aiding a 90s Tuareg uprising for autonomy in the desert north and linking him to the new revolt.

Since February, the nomadic Tuareg-led Niger Movement for Justice (MNJ) has launched a series of attacks against military and mining concerns in Niger targeting the mineral-rich desert north.

Over 40 government soldiers have been killed, as the MNJ pushed forward its demands for greater control of the country's resources by local people.

While the government blames Areva for the uprising, the rebels point fingers to Chinese companies - also exploiting the country's uranium resources - which they accuse of funding Niger's army in exchange for mining concessions.

<more>

but that's OK , AREVA does that cute little "Funky Town" commercial...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3B__ovj2jU

[NNadir]

17. The Navajos - and I recognize that anti-nuke fundies couldn't care less - operate the Kayenta mines.

You don't know what the Kayenta mines produce?

You don't know what the Kayenta mines slurried to power plants for decades using Colorado River water?

Why am I in no fucking way surprised?

The anti-nuke fundie cult is famous for selective attention.

The fact is that the anti-nuke cult couldn't care less about how many human beings die every day in coal operations, but it has a bizarre, and frankly scientifically and moral obsession with Navajo uranium miners.

Tonight, while the anti-nuke cult was insisting that only nuclear energy needs to be risk free, and that any other form of energy can kill indiscriminately with zero attention from the scientifically illiterate anti-nuke cult, I was looking at 3D Maldi-TOF MS images of lung tumors, which is cutting edge and far beyond the ken of the deliberately scientifically illiterate.

In fact bub, you couldn't care less if the benzopyrenes in that tumor came out of the Kayenta mine, because your criteria is arbitrary..

Nuclear energy doesn't need to be perfect to be better than everything else, including the illiterate fantasies of the "renewables will save us" crowd. It merely needs to be better than everything else, and it is.

[losthills]

18. You've already been fact checked on that BS:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x139240#139650

Please think of some new BS. You're old BS is getting old, and it's starting to smell....

[diane in sf]

21. Marvin is not here to contribute information, he's attempting to hijack and kill

any discussions of anything but nukes. He's been attempting this for years in this forum.

[Kolesar]

35. Marvin

I am sure there is a story there.

[steven88]

2. Not sure I agree

I am a Californian and I am not yet ready to rule out nuclear power. Technology and experience has advanced. What to do with retired plants may have a workable solution if we can resolve the NIMBY issues. Lets evaluate the alternative and then decide.

[diane in sf]

12. We have one big nuclear reactor out in space and that's as close as it

should be if one has to deal with waste that lasts thousands of years.

[losthills]

16. Schwarznegger is a Republican....

[diane in sf]

22. The Repugs love centralized, top down, organizations. It's why they have to steal

elections and write laws to subsidize their bad choices like coal, oil and nukes. Gov. Schwartz got his start making secret deals to drop the lawsuit against Enron by the state of California.

[NNadir]

28. You mean Governor Hydrogen Hummer didn't put through a dopey "brazillion solar roofs" bill

and get declared an "environmentalist?"

Since you are in San Francisco, maybe you can tell us all about your solar roof.

Nuclear energy is now, and has been for more than 3 decades, the world's largest source of climate change gas free energy.

You're against it.

You made this world, with its collapsing atmosphere.

[jpak]

38. "collapsing atmosphere" is a stupid 5th-grade dropout phrase

The atmosphere is not "collapsing" - anthropogenic greenhouse gases are altering the Earth's radiative balance and will increase the mean temperature of the troposphere (and cool the stratosphere).

The sky is not "falling" or "collapsing" - any assertions to the contrary are ignorant "made up" fairy tales.

[kristopher]

20. The most significant logical fallacy of the nuclear proponents is the false choice.

They limit the comparison to nuclear against fossil. That is a false choice since wind and solar are better options in terms of both sustainability and total costs when including all environmental externalities.

Every energy system has drawbacks but in terms of building a new energy infrastructure, going nuclear is like jumping from the frying pan into the fire.

I reserve the right to reevaluate if climate change is shown to be more urgent than it is now understood to be.

[Nihil]

23. The real "false choice" is given in your first paragraph

> They limit the comparison to nuclear against fossil. That is a false choice
> since wind and solar are better options in terms of both sustainability and
> total costs when including all environmental externalities.

Your argument is perfectly right when considering a power supply for a house
or even for a community: solar and wind are *much* better options for just
about every reason than nuclear when you are working at that scale.

The real "false choice" is introducing solar & wind as a viable alternative
to nuclear and/or fossil at a city level (never mind state or national level).

The answer isn't fossil OR nuclear OR wind OR solar OR geothermal OR ...,
it is using the *best* option for each different application and this will
necessitate a blend of supplies (yes, even fossil fuel in the short term)
in order to produce a solution.

There is NO single strategy that will work as EVERY ONE has deficiencies.

[kristopher]

25. Agree with you last two paragraphs but you're wrong about wind and solar as baseload

Yes, totally, completely and irrevocably wrong. In other words, you are perpetuating the SAME MISTAKE I originally was pointing to. What you are implying is that wind and or solar cannot provide base load power. That ASSUMPTION has gone the way of the dodo. Google Archer and Jacobson for examples in the scientific literature, and closer to home, look at this case of putting that theoretical work into practice.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=140165&mesg_id=140165

[Nihil]

26. Get back to me when baseload stations are decommissioned ...

... and replaced *PURELY* by wind and solar.

I have no difficulty accepting the theoretical work that has been done,
nor the occasional "proof of concept" mini-plants nor that - given enough
conservation effort, time & money - it is *possible* to do it big-time.
I do not mean to imply otherwise.

What I am not implying but stating outright is that here and now it simply
is NOT happening and, furthermore, is NOT about to happen anywhere on any
bigger scale than "village" or "community".

I am not decrying that such individual and community-level operations are
good (hell, they are brilliant and a great step forwards), simply that they
are nowhere near the scale required to replace nuclear or fossil-fuel
power stations.

Yes, *maybe* in ten years, *maybe* by 2050 or whatever number the politicos
pull out of their collective arses but *not* yet.

FWIW, I read the link earlier and it still talks about "could", "should"
and "capable of" not "is doing" so it certainly isn't a "case" of "putting
theoretical work into practice" nor does it support your previous argument
that wind and/or solar can replace baseload nuclear and/or coal.

So ...
> Yes, totally, completely and irrevocably wrong.
... actually turns out to be "totally, completely and irrevocably correct"
for the frame of reference in which it was stated.

(Still, I'm glad we agree on at least a few paragraphs! :hi: )

[kristopher]

27. So your "proof" is that it hasn't happened yet, so it isn't viable to plan for it to happen?

You are employing the same argument that Marvin does. This theoretical work is less than 13 years old from it's earliest incarnation, and we are now less than 5 years from when it started going mainstream. If you want to remain with your head buried in the sand no one can stop you. However, let's be clear what we are discussing and that is CHANGING THE ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE FOR HUMANITY. When you PLAN for that you always use words like could, should and capable of because we are talking in the future tense about what is the best course of action to pursue.

What Kempton is referring to concretely is a deal where a local power distribution company was ordered by state regulators to contract new power generation that is to be located in the state of Delaware. There were three bids, a coal gasification plant, a natural gas plant, and an offshore wind facility. The offshore wind facility won the bid although it is still facing strong opposition from entrenched fossil fuel interests in the local legislature. Since the alternative was either coal or natural gas, then I point you at this case as one in which fossil fuels are unquestionably being displaced by wind.

In the meantime, solid proposals by strong companies for development of offshore wind in the midAtlantic region are becoming a reality of the marketplace. You don't have to believe me or Kempton or Archer & Jacobson; just look to Wall Street and see where the money for energy development is flowing to - it ain't nuclear and it ain't coal.

In short, you are not only totally, completely and irrevocably wrong; you are also arguing from lack of awareness about the reality on the ground. I can understand that since events are moving at a very rapid pace, but I don't understand your insistance on bashing something you apparently know little about.

[Nihil]

29. Oh the "plans" have been there for all to see for decades ...

... it's just that the reality has taken a l-o-n-g time to get to the point
where any rational person can now claim "it's in the 'near' future".

> ... a local power distribution company was ordered by state regulators to
> contract new power generation that is to be located in the state of
> Delaware. There were three bids, a coal gasification plant, a natural gas
> plant, and an offshore wind facility. The offshore wind facility won the bid
> ...
> Since the alternative was either coal or natural gas, then I point you at
> this case as one in which fossil fuels are unquestionably being displaced
> by wind.

On the contrary, this is NOT pointing at my requested case: namely that
current fossil fuel (or nuclear) baseload generation plants are being
displaced by wind (or whatever).

This case is suggesting that *FUTURE* generation plants *MAY* be replaced
by wind. That is NOT what I was asking for (as I suspect you know full well).

I would desperately hope that future (like +20 years) baseload plants _will_
be replaced by wind/solar/tidal/whatever ... I am just seeing no evidence
at the current time that such an event will occur.

> Let's be clear what we are discussing and that is CHANGING THE ENERGY
> INFRASTRUCTURE FOR HUMANITY.

That's a nice goal and one I am totally on board in supporting.
This is NOT said cynically or sarcastically or in any negative way.
I *really* want my children (yes I have them) to grow up in a world that
they have a chance in, not in one where their only option is a Mad-Max
dog-eat-dog nightmare.

As I said before: If you are *for* applying alternative technologies on
an individual, a community or a village basis then I am 100% behind you.

However I am also pointing out to those ostriches around me that there is
no way that the current environment supports such a goal and that the aim
(however worthy) of doing so in the immediate future is totally unreasonable.

> When you PLAN for that you always use words like could, should and capable
> of because we are talking in the future tense about what is the best
> course of action to pursue.

Wearing my "cynical bastard" hat I would say that when one talks about
"alternative energy" then one is *ALWAYS* talking in the future tense as
one can never balance the constantly growing demand for energy with the
limited, time-variant and non-expandable supply possible from those
theoretical "plans", "shoulds" and "coulds".

The real world is full of crap. It demands things NOW not in some suitably
scheduled time in the future. The lesson of the last decade or so should
have taught that to most of the West: If you can't provide it NOW for $x
then someone else will. Unfortunately, that "someone else" will be fuelling
their production from coal, from unregulated pollution and from obscene
slave labour. Even more unfortunately, that unregulated pollution will
negatively impact the environment, climate and future for everyone else.

> In the meantime, solid proposals by strong companies for development of offshore
> wind in the midAtlantic region are becoming a reality of the marketplace.

Do you *really* mean "mid-Atlantic"? If so, I've missed some press releases.
If you mean "mid-little-bit-of-continental-shelf-Atlantic-next-to-elite-America"
then maybe you're about to find a little (operative word) goldmine as yes,
that will work and is also affordable (in the scope of the purse-holders that
we currently observe).

> You don't have to believe me or Kempton or Archer & Jacobson; just look to
> Wall Street and see where the money for energy development is flowing to
> - it ain't nuclear and it ain't coal.

Well that's a blessing anyway ... the gamblers (with other people's money)
are not betting on the obvious but on the speculative ... uh ... wait a mo ...

FWIW, my argument isn't from "insurance" or any other crap excuse you wish
to imply: it is from observation, from historical knowledge and from a very
sad understanding of human nature that you may or may not acquire in time.
I honestly don't know whether it is better for me to wish that you *do*
acquire it or that you *don't* ...

Good luck to you anyway. :toast:

[kristopher]

31. I'll give it one more try...

You don't know what you are talking about. It would be easier to accept your cynicism and pessimism if the facts you occasionally reference were, in fact, factual.
Take for example, your subject line: "Oh, the "plans" have been there for all to see for decades".

That is demonstrably false statement. In the 1970s when the oil embargoes prompted a wave of enthusiasm for renewables, we looked around us with an eye toward creating an inventory of resources, renewable and otherwise, that might replace oil. One concrete result was the shift of a large segment our electric generating from oil to coal.
We also estimated our solar and wind resources. We found lots of solar potential, but only very marginal wind resources. Concrete result, huge push to create solar industry.
But with the basic forces of supply and demand at work, the energy prices leveled out and soon dropped back to a level similar to where it had been before.
In that time of renewable push we had, however, made a significant and very fundamental error. When the wind resource of the country was assessed, it was done with existing recorded wind data. The resource, as I said, was found to be marginal. That meant that all the R&D was focused on the resource with the potential to be meaningful, solar. (I'm leaving our flirtation with nuclear for another time.) Tax incentives, rebates, feed in tariffs, R&D grants - all that effort and they were never able to get the price down to where it could be competitive, they could never make a really meaningful increase in efficiency.
Meanwhile, as the failure with solar was becoming clear, as fears of high priced energy receded with the price of gasoline, someone realized too late that when we had assessed our wind resource, the assessment was based on existing wind data; the problem was that the data was gathered from airports.
This meant that a sampling error had occurred since airports are specifically sited in locations chosen to avoid windiness.
By the mid80s, we had a basic reassessment done that demonstrated a very large wind resource. However, the window of opportunity had closed for developing renewable energy. Another such policy window wouldn't emerge until climate change brought the cost of carbon into the economic picture.
This first manifest itself as a force in the EU as a response to active engagement on Kyoto. They pushed development of wind hard. The technology has improved exponentially, and the installed capacity has increased steadily for the past 10 years at a year on year growth rate of between 25-50%.
Until 2003 the wind resource maps of this country ended at the shoreline. As I said, it is only very recently, provoked by Jim Gordon tapping into the remarkable wind resource in Nantucket Sound, that we've come to realize the size and significance of the offshore resource. This realization came just barely more quickly to the Europeans.
So you can think what you will. You can be as cynical and jaded as you wish, but the change is going on with or without you. And since I've shown that you clearly speak wrongly when you opine that "Oh, the "plans" have been there for all to see for decades", perhaps you might take the opportunity to reassess the mental model you have formed regarding the current energy landscape. Since that model incorporates decades of nonexistent plans, it is clearly in need of adjustment.

[Nihil]

32. You too need to check some facts (or maybe re-read?)

> You don't know what you are talking about.

I seem to know more than you do ... so where does that leave you?

> Take for example, your subject line: "Oh, the "plans" have been there
> for all to see for decades".
>
> That is demonstrably false statement.

Nope. I was *working* with the (UK) Wind Energy Group back in the early 80s
(i.e., over two and a half decades ago). I'll allow that I don't know what
the US status was at that time but I can speak with first-hand knowledge of
the UK (and most of Europe as it was then). I was processing the data that
was being returned from the largest wind turbines they had at that time
and eagerly devouring all of their reports, projections and assessments
for the future.

I agree with you with regard to the timescale of available subsidies and
other "resources" and also with the fact that they could not bring the
price per unit generated down to anything like a competitive level.

In addition, I am actually *happy* about the rising cost of energy as it
will serve to focus the minds of a larger segment of the population, meaning
that it will no longer be the domain of the "tree-huggers", the "eco-freaks"
and whatever other derogatory terms are thrown at people who monitor their
resource usage and attempt to control/limit/reduce it.

> So you can think what you will. You can be as cynical and jaded as
> you wish, but the change is going on with or without you.

Again, you haven't read (or taken in) my optimism for wind, solar,
GSHL, etc., at the individual/community level. I *know* that this
"change" is going ahead and I'm fully supportive of it.

I am watching the progress of a domestic wind turbine at a friend's house
(it's not been up a year yet so we're interested in the seasonal variation).
I have trimmed my trees back so I can get a realistic measurement of solar
availability on my roof while still benefiting from the shade at lower
levels. I look forward to the day when most houses have their own solar
thermal arrays (whether or not they have local electrical generation
facilities). At this level (as in any community around the world) both
wind and solar WORK. I am not in the least "cynical and jaded" about this.

I have visited wind farms in a few places in the UK (as well as visiting
pumped storage hydro and several nuclear plants) and I know the reality
of their capabilities. I am very pleased that the UK _will be_ deploying
significant off-shore wind generating resources but I am under no illusion
as to their capability with respect to that of the corresponding baseload
generation (coal and nuclear).

In one case there is a nuclear plant within sight of a wind farm.
The nuclear plant takes up less space than the wind farm (fenced area,
not just building area) yet generates more energy in a single day than
the wind farm puts out in over a year.

*This* is the difference in scale that I keep going back to when people
suggest that wind farms will replace baseload coal & nuclear power stations
in a useful timescale.

*This* is the factual evidence available here and now: not "projected",
not "expected", not "theoretical in a few (more) decades time" but real.

> And since I've shown that you clearly speak wrongly ...

Only by "speaking wrongly" yourself.

[kristopher]

33. You are still off target

I really can't give credit for an outlook shaped by and frozen in a politico/economic environment 30 years out of date. You said explicitly you'd seen the plans I was referring to decades ago. That is a flat out lie since the plans I'm referring to didn't exist until 7 or 8 years ago. Didn't exist. Period. Not here, not in the UK, nowhere. They didn't exist. So I don't care what you were doing, you didn't see them.

You say that distributed generation is the only way for solar and wind to work, that's bullshit and is exactly the opposite of the facts on the ground. Distributed small scale generation works somewhat for solar, when avoided utility costs are used to subsidize homeowner installation, however it generally isn't an economically productive way to produce electricity. Wind is viable in your scenario only when grid electricity is so far away that the cost of connecting to the grid is more than the very high costs of a single home installation.

What has brought the price down to where it is a competitive resource is economy of scale and increased effectiveness in the location and exploitation of high quality wind resources. Tying this type of industrial scale generation into the grid as a gradually increasing percentage of market penetration is what is happening now. If you don't think that turns off baseload plants on an hour by hour basis through selection of generation source by the grid operators, then you don't understand the system used to market and distribute energy.


And while a wind farm is spread out over a large area, they generally have a footprint of less than 5% of the area they are spread over. In almost all cases, the original land use the area was subject to continues with little change once a wind farm is installed. To compare wind and nuclear production on that metric alone is a meaningless measure; do we really need to trot out the negatives of nuclear? I don't care whether you think they are exaggerated or not, the negative externalities and poor EROI performance of nuclear make it a last ditch choice suitable only for drastic emergency action related to CO2.


I you want to keep arguing that I'm wrong, feel free. I've provided you with the latest, most up to date information from the front lines of the fight to prevent climate change, and you fail to recognize the validity or significance of what you see in favor of a calcified world view formed in a totally different technological/political/economic era. That's fine.
It just means you are wrong, that's all. No big deal.

[Nihil]

34. And you are still pulling strawmen out of somewhere

I point you back to the title of your .27:
> So your "proof" is that it hasn't happened yet, so it isn't
> viable to plan for it to happen?

and hence the title & first line of my reply (.29) to that post:
> Oh the "plans" have been there for all to see for decades
> it's just that the reality has taken a l-o-n-g time to get to the point
> where any rational person can now claim "it's in the 'near' future".

I thought it was obvious that my "plans" referred to your "... viable to
plan for it to happen". My reference to "plans" has been to the vast amount
of paperwork, hot air, promises and vapourware generated by the wind energy
companies over the last 25+ years, not just the most recent specific example
of such a plan. My experience (that you doggedly deny) has shown that it is
only in the last few years that there has been a genuine growth in real,
viable operations - the sort of things that were being promised so long ago.

Then you go pulling a complete fabrication (strawman) out of some orifice:

> You said explicitly you'd seen the plans I was referring to decades ago.

Don't go blaming your lack of reading skills on my writing ...

> That is a flat out lie since the plans I'm referring to didn't exist until
> 7 or 8 years ago. Didn't exist. Period. Not here, not in the UK, nowhere.
> They didn't exist. So I don't care what you were doing, you didn't see them.

Nothing like a bit of unreasoning foot-stamping dogma to reinforce your
mistake (or should I say "your lies" seeing as "lie" is a word that you
love to throw around?).

> I've provided you with the latest, most up to date information from the
> front lines of the fight to prevent climate change, and you fail to
> recognize the validity or significance of what you see ...

No, I usually get my up to date information from other posters on E/E
(and am grateful for it). What you are repeatedly providing are plans,
strategies, projections and desires.

Like I said back in .26:
> Get back to me when baseload stations are decommissioned
> and replaced *PURELY* by wind and solar.

I don't mean "turns off baseload plants on an hour by hour basis" I mean
"decommissioned", "replaced", "rendered obsolete".

That's when I'll believe that the real world has caught up with the hype.

[kristopher]

36. Frankly, I don't care what you mean.

You are wrong in the specifics of what you claim, and you are clearly uninformed on the current market situation involving renewables. For reasons known only to yourself, you prefer throw out obstructionist nonsense that is obviously false rather than talk about what is actually happening in the world.
There were no plans such as now exist to transition to a renewable energy infrastructure decades ago.
The idea of distributed generation as the proper "niche" for wind and solar is 10 years out ofdate.
The idea that wind and solar are not suitable for baseload power is 15 years out of date.
That you want to set up some sort of shifting goalposts about what I'm supposed to show you in order to earn your acceptance on these points is your problem, not mine. The data and situation is clear for anyone with an open mind. (You don't qualify).

In short, you are still wrong about the claims you continue to make.

Horse to water and all that crap...

[Nihil]

37. That would explain why you haven't got a clue. (n/t)