French EPR Nuclear Reactor Design is 'In Crisis' Globally

[kristopher]

Press Release:

Report Author: EPR Faces Escalating Costs, Unresolved Design Issues, And Construction Problems; Major Implications Seen For Calvert Cliffs-3 and Other Proposed EPR Projects in U.S.

Washington, D.C. & London The "Evolutionary Power Reactor" (EPR) – which the French government-controlled utility,
Electricite de France (EDF), hopes to deliver for the troubled Calvert Cliffs-3 project and other sites in the United States – is "in crisis" due to a host of unresolved problems that likely will to continue to result in further delays and even higher costs, according to a new report to be released on November 4, 2010 by University of Greenwich Professor of Energy Studies Stephen Thomas.

Professor Thomas will outline his findings during a live, phone-based telenews event (with full Q&A) at 11 a.m. EDT/3 p.m. GMT Thursday (November 4, 2010) on a live-phone based news conference.

The EPR was to have been the forerunner of a new generation of nuclear reactors. The Thomas report examines the roots of the EPR design, existing and potential orders for the reactor, the experience to date with construction of the EPR, issues arising from the safety assessment of the design, and the rising costs for delivery of EPR reactors.

In addition to Calvert Cliffs-3 in Maryland, the EPR was selected as the reactor design in the U.S. for Bell Bend in Pennsylvania, Nine Mile Point in New York and Callaway in Missouri (latter two applications currently suspended).

Professor Thomas is the author of "Areva and EDF: Business Prospects and Risks in Nuclear Energy" (March 2009) and the co-author of "The Financial Crisis and Nuclear Power" (February 2009). He has been a researcher in energy policy for more than 25 years. Professor Thomas writes particularly on economics and policy towards nuclear power, liberalization and privatization of the electricity and gas industries and trade policy on network energy industries. He is a member of the editorial boards of: Energy Policy; Utility Policy; Energy and Environment; and International Journal of Regulation and Governance.

http://pr-usa.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=528960&Itemid=29

Audio of news event available at above link.

Far more detail available at Power Magazine blog: http://www.powermag.com/blog/index.php/2010/11/04/epr-reactor-in-crisis/

[Dead_Parrot]

1. Wait a minute...

...I thought anything coming from a tobacco industry PR firm was automatically bollocks? Or does it depend solely on how much we like what they're saying?

[kristopher]

2. Do you have evidence Thomas is working for the PR firm?

Or are you just making a very, very weak attempt to attack the messenger?

For example, we know that Patrick Moore trading on his past association with Greenpeace, literally collects a paycheck from the World Nuclear Association and the Nuclear Energy Institute for going around saying he has "seen the light" about nuclear energy. Do you have any evidence that Thomas is motivated by any such financial considerations?

http://www.ukskeptics.com/article.php?dir=articles&article=Seven_fallacies_of_thought_and_reason.php

[Dead_Parrot]

4. I'm talking about his PR Firm. nt

[kristopher]

18. I know.

[Dead_Parrot]

19. So answer the question

You've been happy enough to lay into Moore for his choice of PR firm. Does the same apply here, or is this another one of your breath-taking double standards?

I await your dismissive non-response and veiled insult with breathless anticipation.

[kristopher]

21. Nuclear Industry pays Moore specifically to exploit his past association with 'GreenPeace'

Even though GreenPeace rejects his stance.

If you have proof or evidence that Thomas does likewise, then post it.

[Dead_Parrot]

22. Sorry, did I use big words? I shall re-phrase.

Both you and bananas have highlighted Hill & Knowlton's ties to the tobacco industry when critising Moore. I am now highlighting the Hastings Group's ties to the tobacco industry.

To make it easy for you, I'll make this multiple choice:

Using a PR firm with ties to the tobacco industry is -
a) Relevant;
b) Irrelevant.

Easy enough? Or would you like more help?

Edit: I've made it easier - only two choices now. :)

[kristopher]

24. Is this the reference you are talking about - the bio from sourcewatch?

"Patrick Moore is a former Greenpeace activist who has been a corporate consultant since at least 1991. He began working for the Nuclear Energy Institute front group, the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition, in 2006. The Coalition was organised and funded by the Nuclear Energy Institute, with help from the public relations firm, Hill and Knowlton that has a $8 million account with the nuclear industry.<1> In October 2008, Greenpeace issued a statement distancing itself from Moore, saying he "exploits long gone ties with Greenpeace to sell himself as a speaker and pro-corporate spokesperson, usually taking positions that Greenpeace opposes.

According to Environment News Services: "Nuclear power advocates are hoping that Moore and Whitman can sell the American public on the benefits of nuclear power and help spark the resurgence of an industry that has not constructed a new plant in some 30 years".<3>

An editorial in the Colombia Journalism Review noted the benefit to the nuclear industry of having Moore and Whitman front their PR exercise, as in subsequent media articles Moore was often quoted as a "founder of Greenpeace" or an "environmentalist," but not as a paid consultant to the nuclear industry: "Life is complicated. So are front people for industry causes — or any cause, in a world of increasingly sophisticated p.r. We have no position on nuclear power. We just find it maddening that Hill & Knowlton ... should have such an easy time working the press".<1> (See Patrick Moore: Media coverage that doesn't disclose Moore's nuclear consultancy work for details of media not disclosing Moore's nuclear consultancy work).

In an article together, Moore and Whitman argued the coalition will "help raise awareness of the benefits of clean and safe nuclear energy and continue to build support for nuclear energy as a component of a comprehensive plan to meet America's future electricity needs".<4>

The name of the coalition is no co-incidence, nor was the language used in the article, such as clean, cheap and safe. It reflects a world-wide public relations push by the nuclear industry to portray itself as "clean" and "safe".

Because of Moore’s earlier connections with Greenpeace, despite the fact that he left the organisation some twenty years ago, the new coalition was seen by some as a sign of the growing acceptance of nuclear power by the green movement. The New York Times called it "the latest sign that nuclear power is getting a more welcome reception from some environmentalists". To back-up their argument, The Times also quoted well-known nuclear supporter James Lovelock, whom Moore calls his hero. What The Times failed to point out is that Lovelock has been a supporter of nuclear power for twenty years..." <2>

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Patrick_Moore_on_nuclear_power



Nuclear industry hired H&K; H&K hired Moore for greenwashing.

Thomas hired the Hastings Group to manage a press release.

There is no equivalency.

[Dead_Parrot]

26. I'm talking about the PR companies' ties to the tobacco industry.

Are they relevant, or not relevant?

Seriously, I can't make this any fucking simpler.

If you still don't understand the question, may I suggest a return to third grade?

[joshcryer]

27. The poster you're responding to is not particularly interested in the integrity of his sources.

See the time he was throwing out right wing sources and citing crap that said coal wasn't subsidized.

[Dead_Parrot]

31. Interestingly....

...I'm not interested as integrity as much as hypocrisy. I'm saving the integrity question for a rainy day. :)

[kristopher]

41. Would you care to try and support that false allegation with specific quotes?

You linked to a post about what the Cato Institute thinks about subsidies below, but it does not support your false allegation against me.

Please support your assertion or apologize.

[joshcryer]

28. Ahh, here it is, quoting Cato Institute:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x240421

[kristopher]

33. You mean the thread where you *again* make provably false statements?

[kristopher]

29. What you are doing is trying your very best not to talk about the OP.

And your attempt is a total fail.

I'm sure you think you are the most clever person you know, but your attempts to divert the topic are always cloddish and obvious; they do, however, serve to keep the topic current.

[Dead_Parrot]

30. I'll take that....

...as "Oh, Yes, I am a screaming hypocrite. Damn, I was hoping nobody had noticed".

Thanks for playing. Until next time?

:hi:

[kristopher]

32. Of course you will, that was a foregone conclusion when you started.

Do you have evidence Thomas is working for the PR firm?

Or are you just making a very, very weak attempt to attack the messenger?

For example, we know that Patrick Moore trading on his past association with Greenpeace, literally collects a paycheck from the World Nuclear Association and the Nuclear Energy Institute for going around saying he has "seen the light" about nuclear energy. Do you have any evidence that Thomas is motivated by any such financial considerations?

[Dead_Parrot]

34. Not actually the point....

...although since you mention it, I'm curious as to why the report carries no accreditation and is hosted by the PR firm's server, rather than a normal publication: Also why they reference the server via the IP address (216.250.243.12) rather than using the domain name (hastingsgroup.com), which is the internet equivalent of putting on a false moustache and hoping nobody recognises you.

[Nihil]

36. Drat! Foiled again!

> Also why they reference the server via the IP address (216.250.243.12) rather
> than using the domain name (hastingsgroup.com), which is the internet equivalent
> of putting on a false moustache and hoping nobody recognises you.

[kristopher]

37. And yet Areva's EPR design is still another of nuclear's economic failures

EPR: Reactor in Crisis

By Kennedy Maize

Washington, D.C., Nov. 4, 2010 — Here’s another major blow to the increasingly problematic nuclear renaissance: France’s “European Pressurized Water” (EPR) reactor design is “in crisis,” according to a new analysis by a British economist and nuclear energy policy analyst. The problems with the “Generation III+” reactor are so serious that they threaten its future deployment, according to the report by Stephen Thomas, University of Greenwich professor of energy studies.

In his report — The EPR in Crisis — Thomas says the Areva design, begun in 1995 to add more passive safety factors to the basic Electricity de France Generation III PWR, has not been able to deliver on promises of a new, safer reactor that is dramatically less capital-intensive than past machines. In 2001, French nuclear officials claimed the EPR could be built for $1320/KW, but the costs of the two EPR units now under construction in Finland and France are well behind schedule and running more than triple the cost estimate, at $4800/KW in 2009 for the Finnish reactor. In his report, Thomas says, “It seems unlikely that all the problems that have contributed to the delays and cost-overruns have been solved; the final cost could be significantly higher.”

TVO, the Finnish utility that will own and operate the plant at Olkiluoto, is suing Areva to recover some of the costs, which could sink the utility. Says Thomas, “It is far from clean that TVO could survive financially if it had to shoulder a significant proportion of these costs.” He notes that despite being controlled by the French government, Areva has seen its credit ratings fall to BBB+, partly as a result of the EPA problems “and it would hardly be good for business if its customer was put out of business by the purchase an EPR.”

The story in France has been much the same, reports Thomas. EDF, after years of delaying, ordered an EPR for Flamanville in January 2007. Construction began on the 1630-MW unit that December, at a cost estimate of about $2590/KW, not including the first fuel load or financing costs. In May 2008, French safety regulators halted construction temporarily because of quality assurance issues related to the base mat for the plant. Delays led Areva to put the completion date back a year to 2013, with a new cost estimate of $3,265/KW. Last July, French union officials said the plant is at least two years behind schedule, and the costs are running some 1.7 billion Euros over the original 3.3 billion Euros budget. Last month, Le Figaro reported another year’s delay, which EdF has denied....

[jpak]

3. Some Renaissance

:D

[NNadir]

5. No doubt the Chinese Government will read a blog post by an anti-nuke citing another

anti-nuke and cancel the two EPR reactors at Taishan now under construction.

Or maybe they'll just run the reactors, each of which will produce in a small building twice as much energy as the small failed planned obsolescence scheme - the wind turbine "lipstick on the oil and gas pig" scheme - operating in that offshore oil and gas hellhole Denmark.

[bananas]

6. What are the odds somebody unrecced this the same time I recced it?

I just recced this and it stayed at o recs.
This has happened many times.
Does the DU software have a vote-counting bug?
Was it written by flunkies from Diebold?

[joshcryer]

7. Certain posters automatically garner an unrec.

I take the time to read the post before reccing or unreccing (usually I do neither unless I really like or really dislike a post), but what can you do.

[bananas]

8. DU has at least one javascript bug,this may be another bug

The thread was started yesterday, it's unlikely someone unrecced it within the short time I took to rec it. It never counted my vote, when I clicked on rec, it still showed zero total votes.

[joshcryer]

9. Oh OK I gotcha.

I haven't noticed anything like that (use Opera 10.63 here).

[bananas]

10. I've seen it on a variety of browsers and platforms

[Codeine]

12. Unrecs that outnumber recs do not show but still generate a negative total.

Your rec moved the number up, but not into positive number territory.

[bananas]

13. They don't show negative totals anymore?

When did that start?
Lol - it's not a bug, it's a feature!

[bananas]

14. They don't show negative totals anymore?

When did that start?
Lol - it's not a bug, it's a feature!

[bananas]

15. Oops -now the infamous double-post bug shows up!

:rofl:

[joshcryer]

17. Weird, I never saw negative totals. Ever.

Was that a contributor (star) thing?

[muriel_volestrangler]

20. Several months ago

Around March: http://demopedia.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7903418

[bananas]

25. Thanks. nt

[kristopher]

11. The report makes interesting reading.

Marketing of the EPR
Continued delays to EDF’s order led Areva NP to switch to Finland as the focus for its marketing. In
May 2002, the Finnish Parliament approved the construction of a fifth nuclear unit in Finland. Three
designs were short-listed from a list of seven for an order to be placed by the Finnish utility,
Teollisuuden Voima Oy (TVO). The Finnish safety regulator, STUK, had already stated that it saw no
difficulties in principle in licensing any of the seven initial candidates.11 The three short-listed
reactors were the EPR, a Russian design and a Boiling Water Reactor design also offered by Areva
NP. TVO was widely reported to be looking for a ‘turnkey’ (fixed price) contract. Westinghouse
chose not to bid overtly on the grounds that a turnkey offer would not be profitable.12 However, there
were also claims by Areva that Westinghouse’s AP1000 would not have met the requirements on
aircraft protection because its containment was not strong enough.13 The AP1000 does not have a
core-catcher and the head of STUK, Jukka Laaksonen has stated that on these grounds, the AP1000
would not have been acceptable in Finland.14

In December 2003, TVO signed a turnkey deal with Areva NP for a 1600MW EPR at a cost,
including interest during construction and two fuel charges of €3bn. The Finnish regulator was by
then in close contact with the French regulator, DGSNR, which was expecting that an order for
France would be placed in 2004. STUK expected to complete its review of the design within a year of
the placing of the order.

By December, STUK and DGSNR had agreed to opt for different approaches so that construction in
Finland did not have to wait until demonstrations of safety features that were expected to reduce costs
had been carried out.15 In January 2005, STUK approved construction of Olkiluoto 3.16
In September 2004, DGSNR completed its review of the EPR and in October, the French government
issued design approval for it, claimed to be equivalent to NRC design certification.

This is one of the best looks at the business of nuclear power I've yet read, it is highly recommended.
Download here: http://216.250.243.12/The%20EPR%20in%20crisis%203-11-10.pdf

[bananas]

16. Downloaded, thanks. nt

[kristopher]

23. More details of Constellation's decision to abandon EDF deal in Thomas paper

The CEO of Constellation stated: ‘market signals to build a baseload plant of any kind, let alone nuclear, have suffered significantly since we started the project four years ago.’ He said Constellation will abandon the project if it does not receive a conditional loan guarantee for the project. The poor market signals included low natural gas prices and the short- and long-term power price outlooks. In 2009, the US Department of Energy short-listed four projects for loan guarantees, including Calvert Cliffs. The first loan guarantee was offered to another project in February 2010 and an offer to Calvert Cliffs was widely expected to follow soon after. However, by August 2010, no commitment had been made and Constellation began to cut back drastically on expenditure on the Calvert Cliffs project. How far this was due to the delays in granting loan guarantees and how far it was due to deterioration in the economics of the new reactor is not clear.

EDF, in its report for the first half of 2010 published in July 2010, made a provision of €1.06bn (about US$1.45bn) related to financing delays on nuclear projects in the United States. By September, signs of strain between EDF and Constellation were clear. A particular issue was that under the terms of the purchase of the stake in Constellation’s nuclear assets, Constellation could require EDF to US$2bn worth of Constellation’s natural gas, coal and hydropower plants by end 2010.

There was speculation in September 2010 that these problems could lead to EDF selling its stake in the nuclear assets and dissolving the UniStar joint venture.48 In October 2010, Constellation unilaterally withdrew from negotiations with the US Department of Energy for loan guarantees for the Calvert Cliffs project. It was reported that the fee to provide loan guarantees for 80 per cent of the forecast cost of the plant (US$9.6bn) was initially proposed at US$880m, or 11.6 per cent of the amount borrowed.

Subsequently Constellation sold its 50 per cent stake in UniStar to EDF for US$140m. In addition, Constellation transferred to UniStar potential new nuclear sites at Nine Mile Point and R.E. Ginna in When Constellation rejected that offer, DOE proposed a 5 per cent fee, but with conditions including that Constellation fully guarantee construction and commit to sell 75 per cent of the power through a Purchase Power Agreement (PPA), presumably through its subsidiary Baltimore Gas & Electric. The Maryland Public Service Commission (PSC) would have had to approve a PPA...

[Nederland]

35. True, the EPR design has been struggling

However, this is only one design among many.

Among Gen III+ reactor designs, the AP1000 seems to be having more success at this point in time. That might change of course, given more time to work out the issues that have come up with the EPR. That's why the Chinese approach is working out so well for them. They didn't placed all their eggs in one basket but decided to build several different types of designs to see what worked best.

[kristopher]

38. Swapping EPR safety for AP1000s lower cost makes sense to you, eh.

Somehow that doesn't surprise me, but it does illustrate the 4 problem circle-jerk that characterizes nuclear fission design as they try but fail to find a solution to 1) high costs, 2) safety, 3) wastes and 4) proliferation. You have to solve them all in one package and there is not even a hint that such an achievement is anywhere in the cards.


From post 11:

"The three short-listed reactors were the EPR, a Russian design and a Boiling Water Reactor design also offered by Areva NP. TVO was widely reported to be looking for a ‘turnkey’ (fixed price) contract. Westinghouse chose not to bid overtly on the grounds that a turnkey offer would not be profitable.12 However, there were also claims by Areva that Westinghouse’s AP1000 would not have met the requirements on aircraft protection because its containment was not strong enough.13 The AP1000 does not have a core-catcher and the head of STUK, Jukka Laaksonen has stated that on these grounds, the AP1000 would not have been acceptable in Finland.14"

[Nederland]

39. They are both orders of magnitude safer than existing designs

Existing Gen II and Gen III designs usually have theoretical maximum core damage frequencies of around 5 × 10−5 per plant per year.

The EPR has a theoretical maximum core damage frequency of 6.1 × 10−7 per plant per year.

The AP1000 has a theoretical maximum core damage frequency of 2.41 × 10−7 per plant per year.

So yes, the EPR is safer than the AP1000 in theory. In reality, the real numbers are only known after a few decades of operation to see if all the assumptions about materials, plant components, etc. were correct or not.

[madokie]

40. Reading the replies

some are ready to say the present reactors are unsafe first for one reason then the other then go on to defend the new gen 3 as safer on assumptions that only time will tell if they pan out our not. What the fuck is this anyway. We've been saying they are unsafe for years so why are we still throwing money at this big money hole called nuclear energy. Its kinda like watching a friend throw money at a harley motor davidson cycle when they pay an exorbitant amount for a part that should only cost a few dollars. A case in point I was with a friend one day when he went to the harley shop to buy a starter solenoid and he paid upwards of 50 bucks for it and you can go down to the parts store and buy the very same one for a few bucks for a car. I'm not talking about a special part just because the ole harley would shake like a dog shitting peach seeds mind you but because it came in a box with harley motor davidson cycle on it. I asked for the old one that he removed and took it home and took it apart and took one of the ones from a ford apart and they were the same thing. My point is the nuclear industries proponents are just like that harley purchaser. Throwing good money after bad, its stupid. I do understand that Harley has upped their quality tremendously since then but the price the riders pay is still outrageous. Nuclear, not so on quality but so on price.

[Nederland]

42. Automobile accidents kill over one million people every year

Statistics on global automobile deaths: http://www.safecarguide.com/exp/statistics/statistics.htm

Reading the little story in your post I can see that you have no problem getting into a car and driving to the store. Why? Why do insist on going on and on about how risky nuclear power is when you are perfectly willing to take risks that are 4 or 5 orders of magnitude greater than those due to nuclear power?

Automobiles are "unsafe". Airplanes are "unsafe". Hell, kitchen knives are "unsafe". Saying that nuclear reactors are "unsafe" is a completely meaningless statement unless you provide some sort of context. You are willing to accept the risk of getting into a car because you've done sort of calculus that says that the benefits of driving outweigh the risks. The same is true of nuclear power. Even if you use the inflated numbers produced by the anti-nukes for deaths due to Chernobyl accident, nuclear power has caused very few deaths (risk) relative to the amount of power (benefit) it has delivered.

[kristopher]

43. Auto & plane accidents can't take out a major city for decades and collapse the national economy

Most nuclear power plants are located in close proximity to heavily populated areas and a Chernobyl scale failure could literally destroy the nation economically - not to mention putting millions of people at a risk they NEVER agreed to take.

Your love your false equivalencies don't you? Hell, you love false logic in general; I don't think I've once seen you actually make a legitimate and valid argument.

[madokie]

45. Some won't see it, some can't see it

and some just plain and simple have their heads up their wazoo, Nothing can be done for any one of the three groups.
peace

[Nederland]

47. Sure they could

Let me respond in the style of an anti-nuke:

Auto & plane accidents can't take out a major city for decades and collapse the national economy

Sure, that's what you keep telling everyone. You conveniently ignore the fact that just a few years back hijackers rammed some airplanes into buildings and plunged NYC and the rest of the nation into recession. Now imagine what would happen if they hijacked every airplane in the sky instead of just four. The result would be complete and total devastation of our entire country. Don't tell me it can't happen. Don't bother computing the mathematical probabilities involved in hijacking every airplane in the sky simultaneously. The bottom line is you can't deny that it could happen, and because it could happen means that eventually it will happen.

Automobiles are even worse because there are a lot more of them. Millions of them in fact, each one carrying a tank full of a highly explosive liquid. Even worse, automobiles require hundred of thousands of filling stations, each with enormous tanks containing tens of thousands of gallons of this highly explosive liquid. These filling stations are located right inside our cities and towns, right next to schools and hospitals for Christ sake. There is nothing to prevent those tanks from exploding. Nothing. Exception lack of oxygen and the laws of physics, as if I understand any of those things. Every single one of those things is a bomb just waiting to go off, and we simply can't take the risk that they all might go off at the same time. I know the odds of them all going off at the same time are something like a gazillion to one, but what you don't realize is that it all of them don't have to go off at once to ruin our country. If even just half of them went off simultaneously we'd be screwed.

And don't get me started on bicycles. Last week my daughter fell off one and skinned her knee. Think about it. Millions of kids, millions of bicycles. That translates into millions of skinned knees and an overwhelmed healthcare system in no time. Fucking things should be banned. Now.

[madokie]

44. Not one automobile has the potential to render a huge section of America uninhabitable

every one of the nuke plants on the other hand does.
You'd rather I use the numbers of the pro nuke crowd I take it, Ha Ha. Now that is funny :rofl:

[Nederland]

48. Let me get this straight

You think nuclear power, which might kill millions of people, is more risky than automobiles, which actually do kill millions of people? And you think this because the people that actually die from automobile accidents are dying in small numbers every minute of every day in places all over the globe, but the people that might die from a nuclear accident would die in huge numbers all at once and in one place.

That makes absolutely no sense. Dead is dead. It doesn't matter if a person dies from some freak accident at the same time as lots of other people, or if they die from some common tragedy all by themselves. Either way, they are dead. Assuming the goal of government is to prevent people from dying, logic demands that it view the things that actually kill millions of people as more dangerous than the things that might kill millions of people.

The problem is that governments are run by politicians, and politicians, like you, do not make decisions based upon logic. They make decisions based upon a shred political calculus that recognizes that a single event that kills half a million people will be in the news for weeks, but one million individual events that kill one person each won't. The fact that the latter is actual worse is irrelevant. All that matters is the fear that the former creates and how that fear affects voters.

And that is it in a nutshell. Anti-nukes don't work by spreading the facts, they work by spreading fear. It's all they've got.

[kristopher]

49. Again? (Yawn....)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=264062&mesg_id=264655

[madokie]

50. I'm sorry

I really don't care to read your failed logic so I go now.
have a great day anyway, I plan too

[Nederland]

51. Hope you have a great day day too

Since dying would kinda ruin the whole "great day" thing, I'll add that I hope you don't die in a car accident or a nuclear accident--not that the chances of those two things are remotely similar...

[kristopher]

52. Speaking of "chances"

You forgot to address the question:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x264651#264689
Even though I was very clear about what specific category of risk analysis I was referring to you attempted to misrepresent the facts so let's get this cleared up right now.

Are you saying that there *is not* an area of high consequence/low probability risk assessment where statistical analysis is inadequate?

If you deny that sector exists I will point you back to the writings on Black Swan events and expect you to defend your assertion.

If you accept it, then it is required of you that you explain how risk assessment for the nuclear power industry takes that sector of risk which is blind to statistics into consideration during the planning process.

[Nederland]

53. Sorry Kristopher

I'm not going to bother to answer. If I do, you'll just move the goalposts again. Sorry, not going to play that game.

[kristopher]

54. That leaves you batting 1000 for avoiding actually supporting your hyperbole.

Remember when you went on and on and on about how you were going to show everyone how wonderfully superior your logic was? Whatever happened to that?

You routinely smear and then run from providing substance to support your smears.

[Nederland]

55. .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusional_disorder

[Nihil]

56. I suppose he could always cut & paste three or four pages of unrelated crap instead.

:hi:

[kristopher]

57. You hate being confronted by peer reviewed science, don't you?

You know, instead of harassment directed against the person you could always actually engage in a fact based discussion.

Oh wait, no you cant; it is so damned hard to argue against real *honest* science when you are wrong that I have to say I don't blame you.

[Nihil]

58. Not really, it happens so rarely these days ...

... as opposed to the standard multi-screen cut & pastes of someone's fanzine
that is usually presented as some kind of argument.

I'm sorry that you view my comments as "harassment" as when you post genuine
information it is usually interesting.

> Oh wait, no you cant; it is so damned hard to argue against real *honest* science
> when you are wrong that I have to say I don't blame you.

I find your frequent use of the same cut & paste screeds is purely a tactic to
shut down debate on any subject where the direction of the discussion is showing
your point to be weak (even if still valid). I'm not sure whether to view your
labelling them as "real *honest* science" as laughable or merely sad.

:shrug:

[kristopher]

59. I'd argue that is sour grapes...

What you refer to as "debate" is nothing more than demonstrably false claims that have been proven wrong by competent scientists. It is no more "shutting down debate" by posting Jacobson's analysis when someone says that renewable energy is trivial than it is to "shut down debate" with a climate denier by posting the summary of the IPCC report.

The only difference is that you don't like the results that show nuclear power as a poor choice. You can't dispute it, but you certainly don't LIKE it, therefore you attack and harass ME for posting it.

The question I have for you is that if you are so intent on promoting discussion, why are you not harassing and attacking those posting the false information that REQUIRES Jacobson, or MIT or Holdren et al to be posted as rebuttal?

IT seems to me that your hostility would be more productive if you aimed it at those who are seeking to mislead.

[bananas]

46. I just listened to the audio - wow!

It's worse than I thought.
I haven't had time to read the report yet.