The World's #1 Renewable Energy Network for News & Information
Sign In or Register
Renewable Energy World Logo
Friday, May 24, 2013
  • Sections
    • Home
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Solar
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Wind
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Geothermal
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Bio
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Hydro
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Careers
    • Companies
      • Company Directory
      • Press Releases
      • Products
      • Events Calendar
      • White Papers
    • Webcasts
      • Upcoming Webcasts
      • Featured Webcasts
      • Archived Webcasts
      • Events Calendar
    • White Papers
    • Magazines
      • Renewable Energy World
      • Wind Technology
      • Large Scale Solar
      • Hydro Review
      • HRW - Hydro Review Worldwide
      • Renewable Energy World (North America Edition)
      • Photovoltaics World
    • Awards
  • Account
    • Sign In
    • Register
  • Search
Don't Miss The Great Solar Debate: Where Does the Global Solar Industry Stand? Click Here to Register! ×

Hollande Victory Signals Shift in France's Renewable Energy Policy

Steve Leone, Associate Editor, RenewableEnergyWorld.com
May 08, 2012  |  132 Comments

A natural disaster sparked the re-emergence of Japan as a ripe renewable energy market. Now, a political shakeup could have similar effects 6,000 miles away in France.

That’s the initial indication as the world works to gauge the fallout from a massive swing in political direction as Socialist François Hollande unseated Conservative Nicolas Sarkozy for the French presidency. The math is pretty simple on this one. Sarkozy has been a staunch supporter of nuclear power, which is reponsible for more than 75 percent of the country’s electricity. He’s also been mostly against expanding government programs to grow the green economy. President-elect Hollande, meanwhile, is an avid backer of renewable energy and he has stated publicly that he wants to reduce France’s dependence on nuclear power to 50 percent by 2025.

The likely shift in national energy strategy comes as many of the country’s neighbors scale back their commitment to renewables as part of deep cuts in spending. The photovoltaic industries in Germany, Italy and the U.K. are still assessing the impacts of recent cuts in their respective Feed-in tariffs.

France’s reconsideration of its renewables future has an awful lot to do with the recent struggles of Japan. The March 2011 earthquake, tsunami and nuclear crisis shifted Japan’s future policy toward solar, wind, biomass and geothermal. It forced the same change in Germany, which like France and Japan, relied heavily on nuclear power. And Italy, which had considered re-committing itself to nuclear energy, shut the door quickly after Fukushima.

Now, France stands alone among leading nations that get a majority of their power from nuclear energy. But there’s a growing chorus of residents who want energy policy to go in a different direction. From a strictly financial perspective, France has built much of its economy on the back of its nuclear base. With 58 reactors and a nuclear capacity of 63 gigawatts (GW), the country is the world’s largest exporter of electricity, mostly to neighboring Italy and Switzerland. It also remains a technological leader in everything from reactor design to the growing use of recycled nuclear fuel.

So, there will be considerable economic interests that will defend the nuclear industry’s standing in France, making a shift to renewables a long and nonlinear process. But if it’s true that France will move to retire its aging nuclear plants rather than extend their lives as Sarkozy promised, then the question is which renewable energy is best poised to fill the gap.

On the surface, 2011 was a year in which France joined the solar elite. The nation represented the world’s fifth largest market with 1.5 GW of new installations, pushing its cumulative capacity to 2.5 GW. But according to the European Photovoltaic Industry Association, the number was somewhat misleading.

“France saw 1.5 GW of new systems connected last year, mainly a result of installations done in 2010. Only less than 10 percent of this capacity was installed during 2011. The new legal framework allows systems of up to 100 kW only to benefit from a remunerative FiT level, while larger projects had to wait until the summer to apply for several types of call-for-tender schemes. The new support framework aims to limit the annual market size to 500 MW.

The extremely long grid connection process in France can take up to 18 months. The important FiT cuts and long grid connection lead times explain why new installations were at a poor level during 2011, while grid connections reached a record high of 1.5 GW in 2011.”

According to the European Wind Energy Association, France scaled back its wind energy investments in 2011. In 2010, the country installed 1,396 MW of wind capacity, but that annual figure dropped to 830 MW in 2011 for a cumulative capacity of 6,800 MW. Even with the recent growth, France’s installed wind power contributes just 2.8 percent of the electricity consumed in the country. The nation remains a nonplayer in the offshore wind industry, which is gaining traction to the north. The country does have one offshore wind farm under construction and several wind farm areas have been proposed, so the potential for growth is there.

While the political situation may still be cloudy in France, it looks like the solar and wind industries could benefit from this shift in government. The question is how can this investment be pulled off in light of the broader move toward smaller government across much of the European Union.

132 Comments

Register To Comment
Dimitar Mirchev
Dimitar Mirchev
May 23, 2012
As prefersolar in comment #64 noted:

Solar is cheaper than nuclear and is PV keeps getting cheaper and cheaper.

Why keep arguing? Economically solar will throw out of the market all base load power plants including nuclear.

With PV cheaper than nuclear soon during the day 100% of the load will come from PV. And than nuclear plants will have to close because they wont make any profit.

Q. E. D.

Focus on economical arguments not safety, proliferation, etc.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
May 23, 2012
Thanks Rhin, I was not alert!
Robert Hall
Robert Hall
May 22, 2012
Apology accepted.
ANONYMOUS
May 22, 2012
'Doctor' Alex,

Spare us. You set the tone by calling people "chimps". Your subsequent attempts to claim the moral high ground only make you appear even more ridiculous.

When you insult people, don't start whining when you receive similar in return. You should have learned that by first grade.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
May 22, 2012
Rhin, I'm sorry, I misread the previous post from our Anonymous 'friend' -- the guy (we think) who claims former CIA status!

Please accept my apology. I was surprised by the msg tone and so should have double checked. I now realize you could never stoop to our Anonymous friend's level.
ANONYMOUS
May 22, 2012
'Doctor' Alex

You swamped this thread with rambling nonsense, you've called people "chimps". Your credibility here is sub-zero.

Nukes are in global decline as renewable grow exponentially. Nukes continue to escalate in cost as renewable fall. The majority of the world's population opposes nuclear energy, and supports renewables.

You don't need to be a genius to work out where this all leads... although I'm guessing you will struggle to join the dots.

P.S. Your thorium fantasies are going nowhere.
Robert Hall
Robert Hall
May 22, 2012
Excuse me? Where'd this rant come from? Check all my posts; not in one have I denigrated your character other than to point out your hypocrisy in the name calling department. You're over the top on this one. I'm hiding behind a phony name? My RHinLA monicker is just that. You want me to change it to Robert Hall in Los Angeles? What is your point? Moreover, I'm pretty sure you won't find that I've been unkind to you, so I'm surprised you lump me in with those you claim are 'ranting' at you. Sounds to me as though you're protesting too much. I belong to a 'cult of my own uninformed bias'? If feels suspiciously as if you are having some highs and lows. If there is medication involved here, you should let us know in the beginning of your posts (Hey, everybody, I'm taking my meds today). I was pretty sure you understood that I wasn't your enemy but as the world turns, sure enough, you act as though you're backed into a corner and feel free to lash out at all those in vicinity. Whether you like it or not, care a whit or not, your credibility just took a big hit. You like to fight. Adios.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
May 22, 2012
Wow again, it's ok for Rhin & Alligator to hide behind phony names and call names, like "blowhard", or in rambles like: "your semi-coherent ranting won't convince anyone that nukes are a good idea, they'll just be concerned about your mental health". But, when facts don't suit them, and they do act like nasty chimps, it's unfair to point that out. Man up.

Comment #5 lists all the countries that now put the lie to your statement: "...no one wants to buy what the nuclear salesmen are selling". Of course, you know much more than anyone else about that, eh GatorBoy? And Rhin, you do make clear you don't understand nuclear physics, or radiology and effects of radiation on humans (or chimps). How about showing all here you can read something that might force you to think honestly, rather than in a "cult" of your own uninformed bias?...
http colonslashslash tinyurl dot com/42wvr9l
http colonslashslash tinyurl dot com/3nwjboz
www dot monbiot dot com/2011/11/22/how-the-greens-were-misled/
http colonslashslash tinyurl dot com/4xqwzjc

And, while at it, consider the emissions cost to the people in the world who don't deserve the effects of our emissions, should folks like you be successful in your ignorant delaying/closing even one nuke for no good reason. Are you two going to put up a bond to cover what CO2 damages will occur per GW-year? Maybe like paying what the Germans will have to pay for their new emissions of over 50 MT?
www dot pointcarbon dot com/aboutus/pressroom/pressreleases/1.1552105

Righteous ignorance remains ignorance. And ignorance acted upon is culpability.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
May 22, 2012
Wow again, it's ok for Rhin & Alligator to hide behind phony names and call names, like "blowhard", or in rambles like: "your semi-coherent ranting won't convince anyone that nukes are a good idea, they'll just be concerned about your mental health". But, when facts don't suit them, and they do act like nasty chimps, it's unfair to point that out. Man up.

Comment #5 lists all the countries that now put the lie to your statement: "...no one wants to buy what the nuclear salesmen are selling". Of course, you know much more than anyone else about that, eh GatorBoy? And Rhin, you do make clear you don't understand nuclear physics, or radiology and effects of radiation on humans (or chimps). How about showing all here you can read something that might force you to think honestly, rather than in a "cult" of your own uninformed bias?...
http://tinyurl.com/42wvr9l or http://tinyurl.com/3nwjboz
www.monbiot.com/2011/11/22/how-the-greens-were-misled/
http://tinyurl.com/4xqwzjc

And, while at it, consider the emissions cost to the people in the world who don't deserve the effects of our emissions, should folks like you be successful in your ignorant delaying/closing even one nuke for no good reason.

Righteous ignorance remains ignorance. And ignorance acted upon is culpability.
Allen Gerhardt
Allen Gerhardt
May 22, 2012
Winning the world's biggest blowhard award must be thrilling. It is a shame to have the comment page covered in redundant garbage. The bottom line is that no one wants to buy what the nuclear salesmen are selling. And no one takes advice from used car salesmen or nuclear power salesmen.
ANONYMOUS
May 15, 2012
'Doctor' AlexC

>> "Whom did I call a "chimp"?"

Why do you need someone else to tell you who you were insulting with "the gang of chimps is circling -- Fred & William"?

Why does the nuke cult seem to be filled with this sort of person, who flips between knowingly false claims, insults, indignant bluster, denial, and then outrage when they are called out for it all?

>> "...how many Japanese died from TEPCO's poorly designed reactors?"

This strongly suggests you do not have a clue how radiation poisoning works. It will be years or decades before the radiation takes its toll on the people that were exposed to it, and for epidemiological studies to estimate the cancers and mortality.

You'd have thought a 'doctor' would know such a basic fact.

Also, the design of the reactor was not the main cause. The main cause was greedy, short-sighted humans who decided to build nukes in a very active earthquake / tsunami zone and decided to save some money by not building adequate defences and power backup. The next nuclear catastrophe will be for a different reason.

>> "How many thousands of Japanese died [because of the tsunami?]"

Standard nuke propaganda distraction: think of a different cause of mortality that is worse than nukes.

You might as well try and distract with something as totally unrelated as 'medical mistakes in hospitals'. Oh, you already did. Pathetic.

Here's the thing: only radiation from nuclear fission can make huge areas of land uninhabitable for centuries or millennia. Tsunami and medical errors cannot.

I'm sure your semi-coherent ranting won't convince anyone that nukes are a good idea, they'll just be concerned about your mental health.

P.S. Out in the real world: France's new political landscape is effecting the UK as well, as the new proposed new nuke at Hinkley Point is delayed for at least a year. I'd say there's a good chance it will be cancelled. :-)
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
May 15, 2012
Thanks for the psychological advice Rhin. Whom did I call a "chimp"? Wasn't it clear I was referring to the messages' tone & content?

Reading all the above suggests I'm well short on the usage of derogatory terms directed at individuals.

I'm glad you found the links interesting. That's my only concern.
Robert Hall
Robert Hall
May 15, 2012
So, you chastise Fred for calling you a name but you routinely refer to people as "chimps"? That kind of hypocrisy endangers your arguments if for no other reason than many here have to try to understand your logic rather than attempt to prove your claims of fact, and hypocrisy reeks of intended factual misrepresentation. Moreover, your anger shouldn't be a part of this forum; I had no trouble understanding the early DUI analogy even if it wasn't as precise as you would have liked it, yet you seemed to truly enjoy making an issue of such a triviality. Maybe you rightfully aren't worried about making friends, but you probably shouldn't actively try to make enemies. If your excuse is that you don't have time or energy to be nice, and being nice would certainly make your message more palatable, maybe you really don't care about the message. Too bad, since once I can divorce myself from your rants, your links and lead-ins to them are interesting and informative. Just saying.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
May 15, 2012
Wow, we're to take mouthings like "You're simply vomiting up a Gish Gallop..." from someone who hasn't the gumption to use a real name?
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
May 15, 2012
(continued...)
or http colon slashslash tinyurl dot com/42wvr9l

So do you expect others to put weight on an opinion that's based on fact avoidance?

Maybe you'f d like to see more people dead in Japan from radiation. The evacuations there did kill hundreds of elderly who were led to panic.

Or, do you discount the thousands of US deaths per year caused by coal emissions? Would you like us in Calif to match our wind-power deaths (2 last year) with nuke deaths (0 forever).

The IAEA is about weapons production & control -- you want them to "shut down"?

Do you not realize that what you write demonstrates that you've no regard for facts and so your words carry no weight? Indeed, Rafael, "you should know better".

But remember, what you think isn't my concern. I only care to counter mis-information that others might take away.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
May 15, 2012
(continued...)
or http://tinyurl.com/42wvr9l

So do you expect others to put weight on an opinion that's based on fact avoidance?

Maybe you'f d like to see more people dead in Japan from radiation. The evacuations there did kill hundreds of elderly who were led to panic.

Or, do you discount the thousands of US deaths per year caused by coal emissions? Would you like us in Calif to match our wind-power deaths (2 last year) with nuke deaths (0 forever).

The IAEA is about weapons production & control -- you want them to "shut down"?

Do you not realize that what you write demonstrates that you've no regard for facts and so your words carry no weight? Indeed, Rafael, "you should know better".

But remember, what you think isn't my concern. I only care to counter mis-information that others might take away.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
May 15, 2012
Rafael, again, how many Japanese died from TEPCO's poorly designed reactors?

How many thousands of Japanese died, or have yet to be found, because their government allowed them to live & work in a known tsunami plain?

And, again, how many folks around the world have died from civilian reactor accidents in the West? You don't believe the Swiss, WHO & other reports that compare power systems? You want to blame an entire technology you seem ignorant of for the sins of others' mismanagement, like Chernobyl? So you don't go to any doctor or hospital because doctors & hospitals have made mistakes -- >100,000 Americans die each year that way. You expect others to consider your bias rational?

Are facts such a problem for you, when they conflict with your bias? http://tinyurl.com/3nwjboz (continued...)
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
May 15, 2012
Rafael, again, how many Japanese died from TEPCO's poorly designed reactors?

How many thousands of Japanese died, or have yet to be found, because their government allowed them to live & work in a known tsunami plain?

And, again, how many folks around the world have died from civilian reactor accidents? You don't believe the Swiss, WHO & other reports that compare power systems? Are facts such a problem for you, when they conflict with your bias?

http://tinyurl.com/3nwjboz or http://tinyurl.com/42wvr9l

So do you expect others to put weight on an opinion that's based on fact avoidance?

Maybe you'f d like to see more people dead in Japan from radiation. The evacuations there did kill hundreds of elderly who were led to panic.

Or, do you discount the thousands of US deaths per year caused by coal emissions? Would you like us in Calif to natch our wind-power deaths (2 last year) with nuke deaths (0 forever).

The IAEA is about weapons production & control -- you want them to "shut down"?

Do you not realize that what you write demonstrates that you've no regard for facts and so your words carry no weight? Indeed, Rafael, "you should know better".

But remember, what you think isn't my concern. I only care to counter mis-information that others might take away.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
May 15, 2012
Rafael, again, how many Japanese died from TEPCO's poorly designed reactors?

How many thousands of Japanese died, or have yet to be found, because their government allowed them to live & work on a known tsunami plain?

And, again, how many folks around the world have died from civilian reactor accidents? You don't believe the Swiss, WHO & other reports that compare power systems? Are facts such a problem for you, when they conflict with your bias?

http://tinyurl.com/3nwjboz or
http://manhaz.cyf.gov.pl/manhaz/szkola/materials/S3/psi_materials/ENSAD9...

So do you expect others to put weight on an opinion that's based on fact avoidance?

Maybe you'f d like to see more people dead in Japan from radiation. The evacuations there did kill hundreds of elderly who were led to panic.

Or, do you discount the thousands of US deaths per year caused by coal emissions? Would you like us in Calif to natch our wind-power deaths (2 last year) with nuke deaths (0 forever).

The IAEA is about weapons production & control -- you want them to "shut down"?

Do you not realize that what you write demonstrates that you've no regard for facts and so your words carry no weight? Indeed, Rafael, "you should know better".
ANONYMOUS
May 15, 2012
DrAlexC

>> "Aha, the gang of chimps is circling......"

Skimming the comments, you look more like a "chimp" than anyone else. You're simply vomiting up a Gish Gallop of nuke lobby talking points and lies that have been debunked thousands of times before. Not persuasive.

Even if you do manage to confuse a few gullible people on the internet, out in the Real World nuclear energy is crumbling as the economic reality is currently crashing down on it.

In particular, the combination of decommissioning and cost of new build for nuclear today is making corporations and countries jump ship in preference for renewable energy.
RAFAEL ROBILLARD
RAFAEL ROBILLARD
May 15, 2012
Also sure, is that today 1200 workers are still cleaning up the mess, and that a 1,5 Bn € EU-financed sarcophagus will be built (mostly by french firms ...) on the site over the next 3 years to try to bury the remaining radioactive mess.

For me the conclusion are clear:

- Civil Nuclear power is dangerous;
- Civil Nuclear power is dangerous beyond borders;
- Civil nuclear power must be phased out asap
and replaced by safe and clean sources of energy, if the benefit of mankind is worth anything,
- The IAEA and the WHO should be examined by the The Hague international tribunal, and then shut down.
- And you, Dr A, should know better.
RAFAEL ROBILLARD
RAFAEL ROBILLARD
May 15, 2012
My views on this; with concentrated solar we can reach 4000°C temperatures; that's enough for many industrial applications and where it weren't well, it can be completmented with some (solar) electricity. Solar irradiation is mostly avalable in deserts; 'waste' areas where real estate is cheap.
For nuclear powerplants some locations are certainly safer than others, but given their huge requirements in cooling water they are restricted to areas near waterflows/oceans, with the corollary that in case of an accident, they contaminate the waters in addition to the air and the soils- While contaminating soils may be considered a National prerogative, contaminating water and specially air is something that concerns us all ... Fukushima threat to the 25M population of Tokyo did not materialize; in part owing to the thousands of liquidators hasily hired and sacrified to go and extinguish the fire. Tschernobyl -which was not built on a particularly risky area- illustrates better the risks involved. These include scandalous broadcasting of mis-information to the affected population that continues to this day. The result of this information intoxication is, a) exposure of tens of millions of ill-informed people to irradiation (notably in France where the nuclear lobby controles the Government, [hey, don't let this cloud affect our business]), and b), the impossibility today to determine the number of human casualties, which oscillate between 50 dead and 4000 tyroid cancers by the very shameful report of AIEA/WHO, (these two agencies are a public risk and must be shut down) to 40000 dead and several hundred thousand cancers. What is sure, is that the Soviet Union mobilized all of its resources; evacuated 120 000 people, exposed at least 240 000 liquidators (some sources say 600 000) to control the damned fire, spending about 21 Bn € which contributed to the posterior disintegration of the SU.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
May 15, 2012
So Fred, you really think that calling someone names helps your argument, even if it's a vapid argument?
Fred Linn
Fred Linn
May 15, 2012
I think we are caught in a 1950s drive in movie that just keeps repeating itself over and over, "The Troll With The Atomic Brain".........................................I'm going to the snack bar for some popcorn................
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
May 14, 2012
Free Windy -- solar panels vs nukes. No one suggests that, because it doesn't work quite that way.

As for dangerous nukes & "when nuclear goes bad, it has the potential of going bad in a really big way" -- remind us of such an event in any Western country with decent regulator, please.

Right, zip. Of the several hundred reactors that have been running for decades under proper regulation, no accident has gone "bad in a really big way".

So, you're obviously unwilling to read what differs from your opinion, or willing to fib to others about facts -- take your pick Mr. windy! But do read the Swiss rpt.

Fred, for example, likes natural gas. Come on over to San Bruno Calif., both of you, to see what actually does happen "in a big way" when poor regulation & management rule. PG&E burned 8 of us to death about 2 years ago, remember? More are alive with burn results. 32 homes were destroyed. Any US nuke done that?

In contrast, our San Onofre nuke shut down awhile ago immediately on discovering some steam leaks. The NRC does its job a bit better than does our own CPUC.

As to "dangerous" sites, floods, quakes, etc. -- maybe construction engineering is an unknown to Fred & Windy? Remember the record quake last year back East? The North Anna plant in VA is 12 miles from the epicenter of that quake. Damage? Things happened in a "bad way"? The plant shut down properly and is back up. The NRC checks found problems with "maintenance of the plant's emergency diesel generators", so more NRC supervision will occur.

The Nebraska plant that was flooded by the Missouri had previously been warned to improve its flood protection. It did. The record floods caused nothing to happen "in a bad way".

But, indeed shutting off nukes & burning Fred's gas or the coal to make the steel for Windy's 700-ton/MW windmills will help cause more bad weather, floods, etc.

FSO is exactly right -- "don't put x, or y, or z in a disaster area". x = hospital, dam...
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
May 14, 2012
Fred, you're quite right, you can fool yourself all of the time.
;]

By the way, Fred, klook up the chemistry of methane, and what's in biogas too. OMG, burning them emist over 50% as much CO2 as coal!

And, the inevitable leaking of them causes tens of times worse global warming than CO2.

Brilliant thinking for the combustion industry, Fred. You're one of their buddies.
Bob "The Clean Energy Guy" Mitchell
Bob "The Clean Energy Guy" Mitchell
May 14, 2012
FSC: You're right that if we simply stopped producing power with nuclear cold turkey, we'd be in for a world of hurt. That's how come I changed my position on nuclear; we simply can't ramp renewables up fast enough to replace nuclear.

That said,we should start the process as quickly as possible because when nuclear goes bad, it has the potential of going bad in a really big way!

Nuclear plants, such as the ones that Fred mentioned, that are built in dangerous places, particularly The Indian Point power plant that is only about 30 miles from NYC, should be shut down immediately. With the current glut of solar panels on the market, it's output could easily be replaced in a relatively short period of time.

Bob 'The Clean Energy Guy' Mitchell
Fred Linn
Fred Linn
May 14, 2012
-----" People are reading Fukoshima wrong. The Fukoshima lesson is: DO NOT PUT NUCLEAR IN NATURAL DISASTER AREAS. Do not put it near faults. Do not put it near the ocean. Do not put it where it floods."---------

It has already been done. San Onofri in on a fault and RIGHT on the ocean. And in a high population density area.

Calhoun reactor in Nebraska in on the Missouri River, and came within inches of being flooded last summer.

There are a number of reactors are located in the midcontinental plate----around the site of the New Madrid earthquake---the largest ever seen in North America.

And that isn't even counting equipment failures.

Germany is replacing nuclear power with wind, solar and natural gas and biomethane.
F SC
F SC
May 14, 2012
If they replace the nuclear with coal or even gas, we are screwed.
Fukoshima was the perfect CNN story. It was new, it was immediate, and could be told in two minutes. Yet tar sands are by far a bigger threat, but CNN will not make money over a slow evolving disaster that will take decades. Out of TV, out of mind.
People tend to overreact to sudden threats, even unlikely ones, but under react to slow moving certainties. It makes no logical sense to worry about nuclear disasters, and continue with fossil fuels. Modern nuclear plants have a near flawless record, and when things happen, investigations are made, rules are updated, and prevention is increased. The same methodology got us to ultra-safe air travel. Today nuclear is probably the safest energy there is.
People are reading Fukoshima wrong. The Fukoshima lesson is: DO NOT PUT NUCLEAR IN NATURAL DISASTER AREAS. Do not put it near faults. Do not put it near the ocean. Do not put it where it floods.
I believe that renewables is the way to go, but fossil fuels should be phased out first, nuclear last.
Bob "The Clean Energy Guy" Mitchell
Bob "The Clean Energy Guy" Mitchell
May 14, 2012
DrAlex: Do you purposefully sit there and try and confuse issues or does it simply come natural to you?

My analogy of drunk drivers being an unavoidable percentage of the driving public relates very well to the fact that, for the most part, the nuclear industry has had a "good" safety record. Just as MOST drivers don't have accidents while driving drunk.

That said, on a practical basis, it's impossible to keep drunk drivers off of the road, just as it's "impossible" to make uranium based nuclear energy 100% safe! That horse is out of the barn due to the fact that there have already been 99 serious nuclear accidents world wide with 56 of those accidents happening here in the US.

Now, considering how much power is generated via nuclear that kind of "failure rate" might be acceptable. EXCEPT, for the potential for CATASTROPHIC results of a nuclear accident!

Does this not make sense to you?

There's a reason that nuclear power plants are exempt total liability that they could face in the event of a major accident. That's because if the industry had to pay for the true liability risks, we wouldn't even be having this conversation because nobody would be considering building one!

As has been pointed out in the comments above, it's probably futile to attempt to get you to consider any line of reasoning that doesn't already exist in your head, but I'll try one more time!

Let's take your position that nuclear hasn't cost anybody their life except for the accident at Chernobyl. Is that a fair representation of your position?

Well, it's simply not true! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accidents#cite_note-20). Are these people any less dead? What about the thousands who will die because of the release of radiation after these accidents?

If you can't accept that you're plan axs wrong on that, it really isn't worth continuing to converse with you!

Bob "The Clean Energy Guy" Mitchell
Fred Linn
Fred Linn
May 13, 2012
In the early 1950s, there was a lot of talk about the bright promise of nuclear power. It was supposed to be clean, safe, and so abundant that it would be too cheap to meter.

It was supposed to wipe out poverty and hunger worldwide within a generation.

We are now moving into the third generation since then---and none of the bright promises are reality.

------" You can fool some of the people, some of the time, and you can fool part of the people, part of the time---but you can't fool all of the people all of the time."----Abraham Lincoln

But apparently, you CAN fool some of the people ALL of the time.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
May 13, 2012
Just fro those interested in the absurd cost of the absurd politics in Germany' idea of shutting nukes, here's what the environmental & economic costs will likely be...

(put www. in front of each...)
pointcarbon dot com/aboutus/pressroom/pressreleases/1.1552105 (extra emissions)

reuters dot com/article/2012/01/17/us-siemens-energy-idUSTRE80G10920120117

world-nuclear-news.org/NP_Eye_watering_cost_of_renewable_revolution_2301121.html?utm_so

(put http colon slash slash in front of...)
spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/energy/nuclear/siemens-says-germany-nuclear-phase-out-to-cost-trillions/?utm_source=techalert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=011912

rt.com/news/germany-reactors-cold-weather-927/comments/?d=1?

So if we want to claim noble concern for ocean fisheries, Bangladeshis losing lands, etc., then remind us why we'd applaud Germany (or any other country responsible for most of the world's per-capita emissions) shutting down their safest power source simply because of wimpy politics & no science?

Note that if the French were to do the same, emissions would increase even more drastically, because the Swiss use French nuke power and save some at night in reservoirs, which they use the next day to sell hydro power to the Italians.

Apart from our descendents looking back at us, the most poor & vulnerable around the world today have every right to be digusted with ignorant, anti-nuclear politics.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
May 13, 2012
Fred/William -- Why again didn't 9/11 bums or any others target nukes? Some inconvenient truth there? Maybe like: http colon slash slash tinyurl dot com/42wvr9l or NRC's structural specs?

And Trisha, you might want to read about 'renewables' from more than just their vendors, which include the combustion industry. Many honest appraisals of their realities exist, like MacKay's "Sustainable Energy Without the Hot Air" (avert your eyes Fred/William).

The API, Clean Coal & others just love keeping as many of us environmental folks scared of nukes as they can -- been doing it for decades. So we're often shills -- righteously ignorant, but shills nonetheless.

Our descendents are looking back at us from the future. What are they thinking & saying about us?
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
May 13, 2012
Fred/William -- Why again didn't 9/11 bums or any others target nukes? Some inconvenient truth there? Maybe like: http://tinyurl.com/42wvr9l or NRC's structural specs?

And Trisha, you might want to read about 'renewables' from more than just their vendors, which include the combustion industry. Many honest appraisals of their realities exist, like MacKay's "Sustainable Energy Without the Hot Air" (avert your eyes Fred/William).
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
May 13, 2012
Fred/William -- Why again didn't 9/11 bums or any others target nukes? Some inconvenient truth there? Maybe like: http://tinyurl.com/42wvr9l or NRC's structural specs?

And Trisha, you might want to read about 'renewables' from more than just their vendors, which include the combustion industry. Many honest appraisals of their realities exist, like MacKay's "Sustainable Energy Without the Hot Air" (avert your eyes Fred/William).

The API, Clean Coal & others just love keeping as many of us environmental folks scared of nukes as they can -- been doing it for decades. So we're often shills -- righteously ignorant, but shills nonetheless.

Our descendents are looking back at us from the future. What are they thinking & saying about us?
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
May 13, 2012
Fred/William -- Why again didn't 9/11 bums or any others target nukes? Some inconvenient truth there? Maybe like: http://tinyurl.com/42wvr9l or NRC's structural specs?

And Trisha, you might want to read about 'renewables' from more than just their vendors, which include the combustion industry. Many honest appraisals of their realities exist, like MacKay's "Sustainable Energy Without the Hot Air" (avert your eyes Fred/William).

The API, Clean Coal & others just love keeping as many of us environmental folks scared of nukes as they can -- been doing it for decades. So we're often shills -- righteously ignorant, but shills nonetheless.

Our descendents are looking back at us from the future. What are they thinking & saying about us?
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
May 13, 2012
Fortunately, the Chinese, Czechs, Norwegians, Aussies, Brits, French, Canadians Indians & more who understand the reality that nuclear power is safer than any other mass generation, including hydro, are pursuing newer designs and being responsible world citizens, just as JFK hoped would happen a bit earlier: http://tinyurl.com/6xgpkfa

Aw, but what did JFK & a few Nobel winners know, eh Fred/William? You know much more, right?
;]
(continued...)
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
May 13, 2012
(continued...)
Fortunately, the Chinese, Czechs, Norwegians, Aussies, Brits, French, Canadians Indians & more who understand the reality that nuclear power is safer than any other mass generation, including hydro, are pursuing newer designs and being responsible world citizens, just as JFK hoped would happen a bit earlier: http://tinyurl.com/6xgpkfa

Aw, but what did JFK & a few Nobel winners know, eh Fred/William? You know much more, right?
;]
Why again didn't 9/11 bums or any others target nukes? Some inconvenient truth there? Like: http://tinyurl.com/42wvr9l
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
May 13, 2012
So, in fact, if someone, like Trisha is rightly concerned with existing nuclear waste, as wise folks are, then modern nuclear power designs can destroy it all. It would take about 100 years to consume spent fuel, and longer for DU.

But both are resources that eliminate fossil-fuel emissions and can help address climate/ocean problems faster than 'renewables' can. Fred & William don't like to read, but there are plenty of environmental writers out there who've warned that naive fear of nuclear is as bad as being a 'clean coal' advocate.
(continued...)
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
May 13, 2012
So, in fact, if someone, like Trisha is rightly concerned with existing nuclear waste, as wise folks are, then modern nuclear power designs can destroy it all. It would take about 100 years to consume spent fuel, and longer for DU.

But both are resources that eliminate fossil-fuel emissions and can help address climate/ocean problems faster than 'renewables' can. Fred & William don't like to read, but there are plenty of environmental writers out there who've warned that naive fear of nuclear is as bad as being a 'clean coal' advocate.

ortunately, the Chinese, Czechs, Norwegians, Aussies, Brits, French, Canadians Indians & more who understand the reality that nuclear power is safer than any other mass generation, including hydro, are pursuing newer designs and being responsible world citizens, just as JFK hoped would happen a bit earlier: http://tinyurl.com/6xgpkfa

Aw, but what did JFK & a few Nobel winners know, eh Fred/William? You know much more, right?
;]
Why again didn't 9/11 bums or any others target nukes? Some inconvenient truth there? Like: http://tinyurl.com/42wvr9l
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
May 13, 2012
So, in fact, if someone, like Trisha is rightly concerned with existing nuclear waste, as wise folks are, then modern nuclear power designs can destroy it all. It would take about 100 years to consume spent fuel, and longer for DU.

But both are resources that eliminate fossil-fuel emissions and can help address climate/ocean problems faster than 'renewables' can. Fred & William don't like to read, but there are plenty of environmental writers out there who've warned that naive fear of nuclear is as bad as being a "clean coal" advocate.

Fortunately, the Chinese, Czechs, Norwegians, Aussies, Brits, French, Canadians Indians & more who understand the reality that nuclear power is safer than any other mass generation, including hydro, are pursuing newer designs and being responsible world citizens, just as JFK hoped would happen a bit earlier: http://tinyurl.com/6xgpkfa

Aw, but what did JFK & a few Nobel winners know, eh Fred/William? You know much more, right?
;]
Why again didn't 9/11 bums or any others target nukes? Some inconvenient truth there? Like: http://tinyurl.com/42wvr9l
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
May 13, 2012
So, in fact, if someone, like Trisha is rightly concerned with existing nuclear waste, as wise folks are, then modern nuclear power designs can destroy it all. It would take about 100 years to consume spent fuel, and longer for DU.

But both are resources that eliminate fossil-fuel emissions and can help address climate/ocean problems faster than 'renewables' can. Fred & William don't like to read, but there are plenty of environmental writers out there who've warned that naive fear of nuclear is as bad as being a "clean coal" advocate.

Fortunately, the Chinese, Czechs, Norwegians, Aussies, Brits, French, Canadians Indians & more who understand the reality that nuclear power is safer than any other mass generation, including hydro, are pursuing newer designs and being responsible world citizens, just as JFK hoped would happen a bit earlier: http://tinyurl.com/6xgpkfa

Aw, but what did JFK & a few Nobel winners know, eh Fred/William? You know much more, right?
;]
Why again didn't 9/11 bums or any others target nukes? Some inconvenient truth there? Like: http://tinyurl.com/42wvr9l
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
May 13, 2012
(continued...)

So, in fact, if someone, like Trisha is rightly concerned with existing nuclear waste, as wise folks are, then modern nuclear power designs can destroy it all. It would take about 100 years to consume spent fuel, and longer for DU.

But both are resources that eliminate fossil-fuel emissions and can help address climate/ocean problems faster than 'renewables' can. Fred & William don't like to read, but there are plenty of environmental writers out there who've warned that naive fear of nuclear is as bad as being a "clean coal" advocate.

Fortunately, the Chinese, Czechs, Norwegians, Aussies, Brits, French, Canadians Indians & more who understand the reality that nuclear power is safer than any other mass generation, including hydro, are pursuing newer designs and being responsible world citizens, just as JFK hoped would happen a bit earlier: http://tinyurl.com/6xgpkfa

Aw, but what did JFK & a few Nobel winners know, eh Fred/William? You know much more, right?
;]
Why again didn't 9/11 bums or any others target nukes? Some inconvenient truth there? Like: http://tinyurl.com/42wvr9l

Trisha, you might want to study the real effects of the German & apparent Japanese decisions on the real environmental issues, like emissions, and even read folks like MacKay's "Sustainable Energy Without the Hot Air".
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
May 13, 2012
Aha, the gang of chimps is circling -- Fred & William. You don't seem to get that what you think is of no concern to me -- I've no interest in convincing you of anything. My only goal is to lay facts out so others might not be trapped in your own bias.

So Fred's excited about depleted Uranium because he says it's a "nuclear weapon". Why aren't terrorists? You didn't answer why 9/11 had no nukes targetted.

And William corrects by saying Tungsten could also be used. Both comments are irrelevant to nuclear power, except that DU could indeed be consumed in newer designs, as can spent fuel.

We'll all wait while Fred tries to make a "nuclear weapon" out of some of all the many thousands of canisters of depleted UF6 lying around outside in Kentucky, etc. Again, why no terrorists lining up outside the fences?
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
May 13, 2012
Aha, the gang of chimps is circling -- Fred & William. You don't seem to get that what you think is of no concern to me -- I've no interest in convincing you of anything. My only goal is to lay facts out so others might not be trapped in your own bias.

So Fred's excited about depleted Uranium because he says it's a "nuclear weapon". Why aren't terrorists? You didn't answer why 9/11 had no nukes targetted.

And William corrects by saying Tungsten could also be used. Both comments are irrelevant to nuclear power, except that DU could indeed be consumed in newer designs, as can spent fuel.

We'll all wait while Fred tries to make a "nuclear weapon" out of some of all the many thousands of canisters of depleted UF6 lying around outside in Kentucky, etc. Again, why no terrorists lining up outside the fences?

So, in fact, if someone, like Trisha is rightly concerned with existing nuclear waste, as wise folks are, then modern nuclear power designs can destroy it all. It would take about 100 years to consume spent fuel, and longer for DU.

But both are resources that eliminate fossil-fuel emissions and can help address climate/ocean problems faster than 'renewables' can. Fred & William don't like to read, but there are plenty of environmental writers out there who've warned that naive fear of nuclear is as bad as being a "clean coal" advocate.

Fortunately, the Chinese, Czechs, Norwegians, Aussies, Brits, French, Canadians Indians & more who understand the reality that nuclear power is safer than any other mass generation, including hydro, are pursuing newer designs and being responsible world citizens, just as JFK hoped would happen a bit earlier: http://tinyurl.com/6xgpkfa

Aw, but what did JFK & a few Nobel winners know, eh Fred/William? You know much more, right?
;]
Why again didn't 9/11 bums or any others target nukes? Some inconvenient truth there? Like: http://tinyurl.com/42wvr9l
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
May 13, 2012
Aha, the gang of chimps is circling -- Fred & William. You don't seem to get that what you think is of no concern to me -- I've no interest in convincing you of anything. My only goal is to lay facts out so others might not be trapped in your own bias.

So Fred's excited about depleted Uranium because he says it's a "nuclear weapon". Why aren't terrorists? You didn't answer why 9/11 had no nukes targetted.

And William corrects by saying Tungsten could also be used. Both comments are irrelevant to nuclear power, except that DU could indeed be consumed in newer designs, as can spent fuel.

We'll all wait while Fred tries to make a "nuclear weapon" out of some of all the many thousands of canisters of depleted UF6 lying around outside in Kentucky, etc. Again, why no terrorists lining up outside the fences?

So, in fact, if someone, like Trisha is rightly concerned with existing nuclear waste, as wise folks are, then modern nuclear power designs can destroy it all. It would take about 100 years to consume spent fuel, and longer for DU.

But both are resources that eliminate fossil-fuel emissions and can help address climate/ocean problems faster than 'renewables' can. Fred & William don't like to read, but there are plenty of environmental writers out there who've warned that naive fear of nuclear is as bad as being a "clean coal" advocate.

Fortunately, the Chinese, Czechs, Norwegians, Aussies, Brits, French, Canadians Indians & more who understand the reality that nuclear power is safer than any other mass generation, including hydro, are pursuing newer designs and being responsible world citizens, just as JFK hoped would happen a bit earlier: http://tinyurl.com/6xgpkfa

Aw, but what did JFK & a few Nobel winners know, eh Fred/William? You know much more, right?
;]
Why again didn't 9/11 bums or any others target nukes? Some inconvenient truth there? Like: http://tinyurl.com/42wvr9l
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
May 13, 2012
Aha, the gang of chimps is circling -- Fred & William. You don't seem to get that what you think is of no concern to me -- I've no interest in convincing you of anything. My only goal is to lay facts out so others might not be trapped in your own bias.

So Fred's excited about depleted Uranium because he says it's a "nuclear weapon". Why aren't terrorists? You didn't answer why 9/11 had no nukes targetted.

And William corrects by saying Tungsten could also be used. Both comments are irrelevant to nuclear power, except that DU could indeed be consumed in newer designs, as can spent fuel.

We'll all wait while Fred tries to make a "nuclear weapon" out of some of all the many thousands of canisters of depleted UF6 lying around outside in Kentucky, etc. Again, why no terrorists lining up outside the fences?

So, in fact, if someone, like Trisha is rightly concerned with existing nuclear waste, as wise folks are, then modern nuclear power designs can destroy it all. It would take about 100 years to consume spent fuel, and longer for DU.

But both are resources that eliminate fossil-fuel emissions and can help address climate/ocean problems faster than 'renewables' can. Fred & William don't like to read, but there are plenty of environmental writers out there who've warned that naive fear of nuclear is as bad as being a "clean coal" advocate.

Fortunately, the Chinese, Czechs, Norwegians, Aussies, Brits, French, Canadians Indians & more who understand the reality that nuclear power is safer than any other mass generation, including hydro, are pursuing newer designs and being responsible world citizens, just as JFK hoped would happen a bit earlier: http://tinyurl.com/6xgpkfa

Aw, but what did JFK & a few Nobel winners know, eh Fred/William? You know so much more, right?
;]
Why again didn't 9/11 bums or any others target nukes? Some inconvenient truth there? Like: http://tinyurl.com/42wvr9l
trisha larken
trisha larken
May 13, 2012
That is great news for France and neighboring cites like London or countries like United Kingdom. This will help increase awareness and research on renewable and sustainable energy. Nuclear Energy is just a temporary solution but we need to find a much safer recyclable and cleaner energy.We must remove the rubbish clearance nuclear energy. Even Japan cannot stop the Nuclear meltdown.
Fred Linn
Fred Linn
May 12, 2012
LMAO----you are right of coarse, Bill, but it is just SO much fun messin' with him...............

I know I have "Dr. Strangelove" in my video collection somewhere----I'll have to pull it out and watch it again tonight.

"HEY! A feller could have a right nice weekend in Las Vegas with this stuff........"----Major Kong, doing survival gear inventory.
William Fitch
William Fitch
May 12, 2012
Hi: Fred, what are you doing over here??? I thought you would know better by now. Arguing with the DR is like trying to convince a stone not to be a stone. You get the same old, same old. Like the DU stuff.
'It's used for tank rounds, etc. because it's one of the densest materials on earth, so can whack heck out of whatever it hits. Its small radioactivity has no effect.'
Half truths as usual. They use DU because as long as it is stockpiled it has to be kept according to EPA guidelines which involves special storage, associated rules, etc, etc.. in short, expensive. Once they take it and use it as munitions all the 'EPA STUFF' goes away. So it is far cheaper for them to use DU instead of Tungsten which is just as effective though, etc. etc.....
You should put your typing to better use Fred then on the good DR...

.....Bill
Fred Linn
Fred Linn
May 12, 2012
DrAlexC---did you change your name? I'd swear I'm talking to Dr. Strangelove.................

You go out and find the 11 US nuclear devices that are armed and active----some of them lost since the 1950s, disarm them, and then come back here and tell us how wonderful nuclear power is.

How about starting with the 4 Megaton thermonuclear device that is armed and active----and lost somewhere in the sand sediments or marsh flats on the outskirts of Savannah, Georgia, in the Tybee Island vicinity since 1958.

The longer it sits in contact with corrosive sea water, the greater the likelihood the container vessel can corrode thru and set off the trigger mechanism. Or, that the explosives in the trigger mechanism can self detonate due to age and instability breakdown.

When you find it and retrieve it, handle it carefully. It weighs almost 4 tons. Keep your toes out of the way, and try not to jar it or roll it around too much....................
Fred Linn
Fred Linn
May 12, 2012
--------" Fred, oops, I missed this gem: "should tell you something about the role nuclear reactors in producing nuclear weapons."

So now you've shown everyone here you don't understand how nuclear weapons are made and why civilian reactors are irrelvant to that.

And, your conflation of "use" with "make" for such weapons just shows your arguing to be desperate."--------

Nuclear devices use plutonium. Plutonium comes from nuclear reactors. If you can't make them, you can't use them.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
May 12, 2012
The Chinese, Czechs... & folks like Moore understand what safe power is: http://tinyurl.com/42wvr9l

Why didn't the 9/11 goons dive into a nuke? Think.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
May 12, 2012
The Chinese, Czechs... & folks like Moore understand what safe power is: http://tinyurl.com/42wvr9l

Why didn't the 9/11 goons dive into a nuke? Think.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
May 12, 2012
The Chinese, Czechs... & folks like Moore understand what safe power is: http://tinyurl.com/42wvr9l

Why didn't the 9/11 goons dive into a nuke? Think.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
May 12, 2012
The Chinese, Czechs... & folks like Moore understand what safe power is: http://tinyurl.com/42wvr9l

Why didn't the 9/11 goons dive into a nuke? Think.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
May 12, 2012
The safest, most immediate measure is to follow the advice that would have eliminated most climate issues by 2000:
http://tinyurl.com/6xgpkfa

The Chinese, Czechs... & folks like Moore understand what safe power is: http://tinyurl.com/42wvr9l

Why didn't the 9/11 goons dive into a nuke? Think.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
May 12, 2012
The safest, most immediate measure is to follow the advice that would have eliminated most climate issues by 2000:
http://tinyurl.com/6xgpkfa

The Chinese, Czechs... & folks like Moore understand what safe power is: http://tinyurl.com/42wvr9l

Why didn't the 9/11 goons dive into a nuke? Think.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
May 12, 2012
The problems facing the poorest in the world over the next 20 years can't be addressed by solar or any 'renewable'. Moore & many wise folks (McKibben, Hansen, MacKay...) know this, because not climate change, nor sea rise, nor crop losses will be the 1st Dark Lord -- ocean acidification already is.

Billions of people around the world, who had little to do with our combustion excesses, will pay with lives as the seas lose their food chains: http://tinyurl.com/6mtd8db
(continued...)
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
May 12, 2012
The problems facing the poorest in the world over the next 20 years can't be addressed by solar or any 'renewable'. Moore & many wise folks (McKibben, Hansen, MacKay...) know this, because not climate change, nor sea rise, nor crop losses will be the 1st Dark Lord -- ocean acidification already is.

Billions of people around the world, who had little to do with our combustion excesses, will pay with lives as the seas lose their food chains: http://tinyurl.com/6mtd8db

The safest, most immediate measure is to follow the advice that would have eliminated most climate issues by 2000:
http://tinyurl.com/6xgpkfa

The Chinese, Czechs... & folks like Moore understand what safe power is: http://tinyurl.com/42wvr9l

Why didn't the 9/11 goons dive into a nuke? Think.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
May 12, 2012
Rhin -- Read my response above about solar, storage & nukes.

Think about the reality that >12,000 Americans are killed each year via just coal-plant emissions. Think about the number of miners, gas/oil-extraction deaths. Think about plain old gas-transmission deaths each year -- most people never hear or care about farmers accidentally piercing a high-pressure gas line in Texas, etc. Think about the huge LPG tankers that cruise into Boston harbor to replenish its huge storage tanks right across the water from downtown -- the harbor is closed when these ships enter & leave. Terrorists watching?

Now think about how many of the 400+ commercial and 100+ naval nukes have had any fatalities. Despite being irrelevant technology, you can throw in Chernobyl too. What's the casualty count, for 500+ sites over 55 years?

0, not counting the irrelevant Soviet RBMK.

And here's a thinking environmentalist speaking -- Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace, Chairman and Chief Scientist, Greenspirit Strategies: "There are over 400 reactors operating producing 15 percent of the world's electricity. Triple that to 1500 plants and we can produce 60 percent."
(continued...)
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
May 12, 2012
Rhin -- Read my response above about solar, storage & nukes.

Think about the reality that >12,000 Americans are killed each year via just coal-plant emissions. Think about the number of miners, gas/oil-extraction deaths. Think about plain old gas-transmission deaths each year -- most people never hear or care about farmers accidentally piercing a high-pressure gas line in Texas, etc. Think about the huge LPG tankers that cruise into Boston harbor to replenish its huge storage tanks right across the water from downtown -- the harbor is closed when these ships enter & leave. Terrorists watching?

Now think about how many of the 400+ commercial and 100+ naval nukes have had any fatalities. Despite being irrelevant technology, you can throw in Chernobyl too. What's the casualty count, for 500+ sites over 55 years?

0, not counting the irrelevant Soviet RBMK.

And here's a thinking environmentalist speaking -- Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace, Chairman and Chief Scientist, Greenspirit Strategies: "There are over 400 reactors operating producing 15 percent of the world's electricity. Triple that to 1500 plants and we can produce 60 percent."

The problems facing the poorest in the world over the next 20 years can't be addressed by solar or any 'renewable'. Moore & many wise folks (McKibben, Hansen, MacKay...) know this, because not climate change, nor sea rise, nor crop losses will be the 1st Dark Lord -- ocean acidification already is.

Billions of people around the world, who had little to do with our combustion excesses, will pay with lives as the seas lose their food chains: http://tinyurl.com/6mtd8db

The safest, most immediate measure is to follow the advice that would have eliminated most climate issues by 2000:
http://tinyurl.com/6xgpkfa

The Chinese, Czechs... & folks like Moore understand what safe power is: http://tinyurl.com/42wvr9l

Why didn't the 9/11 goons dive into a nuke? Think.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
May 12, 2012
Rhin -- Read my response above about solar, storage & nukes.

Think about the reality that >12,000 Americans are killed each year via just coal-plant emissions. Think about the number of miners, gas/oil-extraction deaths. Think about plain old gas-transmission deaths each year -- most people never hear or care about farmers accidentally piercing a high-pressure gas line in Texas, etc. Think about the huge LPG tankers that cruise into Boston harbor to replenish its huge storage tanks right across the water from downtown -- the harbor is closed when these ships enter & leave. Terrorists watching?

Now think about how many of the 400+ commercial and 100+ naval nukes have had any fatalities. Despite being irrelevant technology, you can throw in Chernobyl too. What's the casualty count, for 500+ sites over 55 years?

0, not counting the irrelevant Soviet RBMK.

And here's a thinking environmentalist speaking -- Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace, Chairman and Chief Scientist, Greenspirit Strategies: "There are over 400 reactors operating producing 15 percent of the world's electricity. Triple that to 1500 plants and we can produce 60 percent."

The problems facing the poorest in the world over the next 20 years can't be addressed by solar or any 'renewable'. Moore & many wise folks (McKibben, Hansen, MacKay...) know this, because not climate change, nor sea rise, nor crop losses will be the 1st Dark Lord -- ocean acidification already is.

Billions of people around the world, who had little to do with our combustion excesses, will pay with lives as the seas lose their food chains: http://tinyurl.com/6mtd8db

The safest, most immediate measure is to follow the advice that would have eliminated most climate issues by 2000:
http://tinyurl.com/6xgpkfa

The Chinese, Czechs... & folks like Moore understand what safe power is: http://tinyurl.com/42wvr9l

Why didn't the 9/11 goons dive into a nuke? Think.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
May 12, 2012
Rafael, since you're now in irrelevant realms to try to make points, consider your words: "Depleted Uranium is regularly used as ammunition".

Do you actually know what "depleted uranium is"? It's what's left over after natural Uranium has been processed very expensively to "enrich" its % of the fissile isotope 235U from less than 1% to about 5% for power reactor fuel. That means "depleted U" is less radioactive than the U in your fireplace rocks, granite counter tops, or the stones in your foundation & driveway.

It's used for tank rounds, etc. because it's one of the densest materials on earth, so can whack heck out of whatever it hits. Its small radioactivity has no effect.

Your talking about the French Phenix fast-neutron reactors is irrelevant to how commercial reactors now work, or the way Thorium reactors work, whether solid or liquid-salt fuelled.

I agree, as do many engineers, that flammable liquid metals, like sodium, are not the best idea for any industrial systems. Here are some contrasts among first, how salt from a reactor behaves, then how steam & sodium behave:

Molten salt -- not very exciting...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6d2ro4zFaos

Steam pressurized plumbing failure...
www.youtube.com/watch?v=SImhkapRuIs
www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFOAQMRM-zg
www.thoriumremix.com/2011

And then there's liquid sodium -- run!...
www.youtube.com/watch?v=sieb6l2WRFk

So, if we're environmentalists, engineers or scientists, we've obligations to use our brains for more than knee-jerk bias. The many scientists & engineers who worked for decades developing alternative nuclear power did so with safety paramount. This may not have served the military & political interests of the Cold War, but it has left us with even safer designs than we already use. China & others are now moving ahead with this knowledge and addressing the need for emissions reductions that JFK hoped to have been made by 2000.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
May 12, 2012
Fred, oops, I missed this gem: "should tell you something about the role nuclear reactors in producing nuclear weapons."

So now you've shown everyone here you don't understand how nuclear weapons are made and why civilian reactors are irrelvant to that.

And, your conflation of "use" with "make" for such weapons just shows your arguing to be desperate.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
May 12, 2012
Fred, what's your point? My family has always supported vets. We have vets. What's your point have to do with nuclear power?

Look up how many of our soldiers have been killed simply in transportation accidents. Maybe you can direct efforts to improvements there?
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
May 12, 2012
So PreferS -- 'Without reading all of the stuff...' means someone should listen to what you write?

You clearly haven't read my stuff, since my statements have always included local solar, efficiency, storage & nuclear. Solar not only can't supply sunless hours, it can't supply process heat, medical isotopes, desalination, nor can it destroy present nuclear-waste inventories, as some Gen-IV reactors can.

So why, again, are we listening to you say: 'Without reading all of the stuff...'? Maybe you should read?
Lloyd Schell
Lloyd Schell
May 12, 2012
Without reading all of the stuff that our regular nuclear advocate has written, the obvious fact that the cat has been let out of the bag with solar, that it has become cheaper than nuclear and that it carries very little risk; and, that the cost of solar is only going down, completely trumps any argument for building new nuclear capacity. The game is over, why keep arguing with him/her?
Fred Linn
Fred Linn
May 12, 2012
_______"

RADIATED VETERANS OF AMERICA (RVA) NEEDS YOUR HELP!

More than 300,000 American Military Veterans were exposed to ionizing radiation as a result of the atmospheric nuclear bombs exploded by the United States between 1945 and 1963. The vast majority of these Veterans were involuntarily exposed, and were advised by officials that the radiation would not effect them.

These Veterans have been dying at a rate exceeding that of their age groups, and because of punitive secrecy oaths many have died without revealing, even if they knew, how or why they suffered from a federally recognized radiogenic disease.

Those Veterans still living, like the Japanese survivors (many in the same age group) of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki 1945 bombings, are suffering, without compensation, from delayed effects of ionizing radiation.

A little more than 20 forms of cancer has been recognized by Congress as caused by radiation. These named cancers have been termed "presumptive" and a Veteran or survivor may be compensated. Only a few have been, and those with "non-presumptive" cancers (such as skin cancer, prostate cancer) and other radiogenic diseases recognized by Congress, may only be compensated following an arduous path of Dose Reconstruction -- and even fewer individuals have been able to get through this complicated and expensive system.

RVA strongly contends that "all radiogenic diseases" suffered by recognized "Atomic Veterans" should be classed as "presumptive". To this end RVA, recognized by the Internal Revenue Service as a 501(c)(19) Veterans Service Organization, with the authority to influence legislation, is working to have Congress bring all radiogenic diseases under the same definition, so that Veterans (and/or survivors) may be treated equally."--------

http://www.radvets.org/
Fred Linn
Fred Linn
May 12, 2012
Nuclear weapons and the United States

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_the_United_States
Robert Hall
Robert Hall
May 12, 2012
Well, Dr. A, you sound like the scientist you obviously are. You are willing to stick with the statistical approach that indicates nuclear power as "pretty safe" (boy, there's a layman for you, eh?). And, you're convincing. Still, as the aforementioned layman, I guess I am unable to get around the comparisons of solar to nuclear with respect to the damage either can cause in the hands of loonies (to further use technical terms). I'm in my second read of The Fate of The Earth trying to convince myself that it is impossible for anyone to see that using nuclear devices in a war is suicidal as well as homicidal. The FEEL of the solution is that placing faith in human nature - surely nobody would be foolish enough to use nuclear weapons - is to ignore human nature. Now, if you can make a case for terrorists (of whatever group size) using solar power similarly, ....
RAFAEL ROBILLARD
RAFAEL ROBILLARD
May 12, 2012
Depleted Uranium is regularly used as ammunition; and the French have had a try at supergenerators working with a mix of Uranium and Plutonium (in an attempt to get rid of some of the nuclear waste). THis reactor called superphenix was supposed to create more fuel than it consumed. It used melted sodium as primary and secondry fluids. While not radiactive (well, at least before it was put in the reactor), Sodium has the nasty property of inflaming when in contact with air, and exploding when in contact with water. The plant experienced several incidents including sodium leakages and fortunately it is now closed (and unfortunately it will take 2,5 Bn € as well as 17 years to dismantle it - however leaving all the rubbish on site.)

The truth is, that while nuclear technolgies may appear exciting to scientists and engineers who want to prove their skills, they bring much more sorrow than benefits. Given the enourmous amount of untapped solar power falling safely every day from the sky, nations would be better advised to put these scientists to work on the development of (clean) energy storage rather than continue to contaminate the earth with strange man-made lethal elements and isotopes that do not belong in this ecosystem.
Fred Linn
Fred Linn
May 12, 2012
------' Not that it's relevant to nuclear power, but are you honestly saying we've used nuclear weapons in our wars after Japan?'-----

Deploying carrier task forces to Iran and North Korean waters in an effort to stop the development of nuclear reactors should tell you something about the role nuclear reactors in producing nuclear weapons.

It isn't because they are safe.

Name one drug or treatment that can reverse the damage caused by radiation exposure.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
May 12, 2012
By the way, the safer, molten-salt reactor was first designed to go into a plane -- a B36. You would have enjoyed flying it, for months at a time! www.thoriumremix.com/2011.

And, stay away from bananas -- each one contains enough 40Potassium to irradiate you from inside by more than any atomic power plant. Of course, coal plants can irradiate you far more -- check out the combustion industry's well-lobbied NORM exemptions.
;]
Here, scare yourself about bananas or living in Colorado: www.xkcd.com/radiation/
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
May 12, 2012
(continued...)
The facts on civilian nuclear power are simple -- none of the 400+ plants or 100+ naval reactors have killed anyone in the Western world. Why? Because of serious regulations, training and operation. Just as USAF guys learn which gauge says what and what the stick does.

If you can show otherwise, go argue with the Swiss, WANO, IAEA, WHO, INPO and the many others who keep track of power-plant injuries: http://tinyurl.com/42wvr9l or http://tinyurl.com/3nwjboz
(continued...)
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
May 12, 2012
(continued...)
The facts on civilian nuclear power are simple -- none of the 400+ plants or 100+ naval reactors have killed anyone in the Western world. Why? Because of serious regulations, training and operation. Just as USAF guys learn which gauge says what and what the stick does.

If you can show otherwise, go argue with the Swiss, WANO, IAEA, WHO, INPO and the many others who keep track of power-plant injuries: http://tinyurl.com/42wvr9l or http://tinyurl.com/3nwjboz

By the way, the safer, molten-salt reactor was first designed to go into a plane -- a B36. You would have enjoyed flying it, for months at a time! www.thoriumremix.com/2011.

And, stay away from bananas -- each one contains enough 40Potassium to irradiate you from inside by more than any atomic power plant. Of course, coal plants can irradiate you far more -- check out the combustion industry's well-lobbied NORM exemptions.
;]
Here, scare yourself about bananas or living in Colorado: www.xkcd.com/radiation/
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
May 12, 2012
So Fred, as a USAF guy, where does hysteria come into the training? I never got that memo myself. nor have my Marine friends & relatives.

Not that it's relevant to nuclear power, but are you honestly saying we've used nuclear weapons in our wars after Japan?

KYAGB works for mortar and RPG and IED attacks too, right?

Not sure I get your nonsequitur here. (continued...)
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
May 12, 2012
So Fred, as a USAF guy, where does hysteria come into the training? I never got that memo myself. nor have my Marine friends & relatives.

Not that it's relevant to nuclear power, but are you honestly saying we've used nuclear weapons in our wars after Japan?

KYAGB works for mortar and RPG and IED attacks too, right?

Not sure I get your nonsequitur here.

The facts on civilian nuclear power are simple -- none of the 400+ plants or 100+ naval reactors have killed anyone in the Western world. Why? Because of serious regulations, training and operation. Just as USAF guys learn which gauge says what and what the stick does.

If you can show otherwise, go argue with the Swiss, WANO, IAEA, WHO, INPO and the many others who keep track of power-plant injuries: http://tinyurl.com/42wvr9l or http://tinyurl.com/3nwjboz

By the way, the safer, molten-salt reactor was first designed to go into a plane -- a B36. You would have enjoyed flying it, for months at a time! www.thoriumremix.com/2011.

And, stay away from bananas -- each one contains enough 40Potassium to irradiate you from inside by more than any atomic power plant. Of course, coal plants can irradiate you far more -- check out the combustion industry's well-lobbied NORM exemptions.
;]
Here, scare yourself about bananas or living in Colorado: www.xkcd.com/radiation/
Fred Linn
Fred Linn
May 12, 2012
BTW---as a USAF veteran, who worked in the medical field and medivac----I trained for nuclear emergency contingencies. I can tell you for a fact, the main medical treatment plan for nuclear emergencies boils down to one simple acronym-----what we called KYAG(Kiss Your A$$ Goodbye).
Fred Linn
Fred Linn
May 12, 2012
Dr. AlexC--------" Even with Chernobyl, Fukushima & all the other commercial nuke accidents included, nuke power remains safest of all."-------

Iraq(x2) and Afghanistan have already been the cause of the death of over 6,000 Americans. WMDs, of which nuclear weapons are a primary example were a major cause. And we are currently deploying carrier task forces to Iran on the same premise---the threat of nuclear weapons.

You can't have nuclear weapons without nuclear reactors to produce plutonium. That is why we have nuclear reactors now. And huge tracks of radioactive land. Hanford Nuclear Processing Facility for one and the Rocky Mountain Arsenal for another. And various similar sites spread throughout the former Soviet Union.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
May 11, 2012
Free Windy, your argument must appear desperate even to you --

"Consider this to be a "failure rate" in utilizing driving technology. i.e. for every so many miles driven by all people, there are going to be a certain amount of deaths as the result of drunk drivers."

What is "driving technology"? How do all vehicular forms have the same "failure rate"? How do drivers of cars who don't ever drink get lumped into the same "failure rate"?

Even insurers don't do that, because they recognize different technologies & operators have different "failure rates" You understand this, so please don't waste folks' time with games.

If you were to be logically honest about "failure rates", you'd make distinctions, which is a mark of wisdom, science and wise risk taking (insurance).

This is priceless though: "it doesn't matter where you get your uranium, if you use it to fuel a nuclear power plant, over time you're going to have so many deaths!"

Really? So despite various Nobel scientists and engineers designing all manner of nuclear-power systems, and even the most ancient and Rube Goldberg versions of them (the >500 Light-water reactors we mostly use) having killed no one in their 55 years of use, you're confident they'll catch up with escalators or windmills as causes of civilian deaths, eh? Really?

Go back and read the safety reports, such as the 1998 Swiss report above. Then maybe reassess your indiscriminate, unscientific "failure rate", so your remarks seem less foolish & manipulative.

Or, call your insurer and ask that your rates be set the same as their DUIs'.
;]
Bob "The Clean Energy Guy" Mitchell
Bob "The Clean Energy Guy" Mitchell
May 11, 2012
DrAlex: I've never had a DUI or anything similar and have never had an accident while driving under the influence of any drug. That out of the way...

Your statement, "But does that mean if we hadn't that it would count for those of us who don't drink or drive? Do we all get sent to prison when you get convicted?" is illogical.

Of course you couldn't be sentenced for a crime that I did. However, the FACTS of the matter are that at any given time there are people driving drunk and a certain percentage of those drunks are going to have accidents. Consider this to be a "failure rate" in utilizing driving technology. i.e. for every so many miles driven by all people, there are going to be a certain amount of deaths as the result of drunk drivers.

The same thing is true for nuclear power. While thorium appears to be a safer design and not prone to meltdowns, uranium being used as a fuel does have a documented failure rate. Now, while that rate is small, the negative RESULTS of a failure can be catastrophic. As in people who live 200 miles away from a disaster experiencing illness and premature death as a result of exposure to radiation from that disaster.

So, it doesn't matter where you get your uranium, if you use it to fuel a nuclear power plant, over time you're going to have so many deaths!

Is it worse than coal? I don't think so, but when you capitalize all of the costs involved with nuclear, such as the loss of an area 36 miles in diameter (which most everybody thought was far too small, btw)and the disruption to hundreds of thousands of people's lives (not to mention the illness and premature deaths mentioned above) and nuclear starts to look kind of pricey!

As I've mentioned, I don't think that we should tear all the nuclear plants down, but let's be realistic and consider all of the costs involved. If we do that, there won't be any uranium fueled nuclear plants built.

Bob "The Clean Energy Guy" Mitchell
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
May 11, 2012
Here are the nuke safety stats again...

http://tinyurl.com/3nwjboz
http://manhaz.cyf.gov.pl/manhaz/szkola/materials/S3/psi_materials/ENSAD98.pdf
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
May 11, 2012
FreeWindy, sure, we'll take your DUI out. But does that mean if we hadn't that it would count for those of us who don't drink or drive? Do we all get sent to prison when you get convicted? Your logic is conveniently poor.

Even with Chernobyl, Fukushima & all the other commercial nuke accidents included, nuke power remains safest of all. Hard to keep up with the >12,000 Americans that coal emissions kill each year. And that's not even accounting for trying to prevent all their ash from affecting the populace. You really should look up the NORM Exemptions we give the combustion folks on their radiation production.

As to Uranium, it's what's made inside a Thorium reactor and so being against it makes no sense. And, there's so much U lying around in expensive waste solid fuel, it's actually a good idea to use it. We don't have to, but why not?
www.monbiot.com/2011/12/05/a-waste-of-waste/
www.columbiatribune.com/news/2011/dec/13/used-nuclear-fuel-is-a-good-energy-source/
www.monbiot.com/2012/02/02/nuclear-vs-nuclear-vs-nuclear/
http://vimeo.com/39052604
www.snetp.eu/www/snetp/images/stories/Docs-SRA2012/sra_annex-MSRS.pdf

Remember how we allowed PG&E to kill 8 neighbors & destroy 32 homes here about 2 years ago by burning them up with a main gas line that our CPUC had let them not maintain for decades? Despite NTSB assignment of blame to PG&E, no indictments, no exec removals...

But, when the steam pipes in our San Onofre nuke started leaking, it was immediately shut down, with a team of NRC inspectors on site the next day. Treating things responsibly makes them safe. Allowing decades of negligence doesn't: http://tinyurl.com/6pcrrv6
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
May 11, 2012
FreeWindy, sure, we'll take your DUI out. But does that mean if we hadn't that it would count for those of us who don't drink or drive? Do we all get sent to prison when you get convicted? Your logic is conveniently poor.

Even with Chernobyl, Fukushima & all the other commercial nuke accidents included, nuke power remains safest of all. Hard to keep up with the >12,000 Americans that coal emissions kill each year. And that's not even accounting for trying to prevent all their ash from affecting the populace. You really should look up the NORM Exemptions we give the combustion folks on their radiation production.

As to Uranium, it's what's made inside a Thorium reactor and so being against it makes no sense. And, there's so much U lying around in expensive waste solid fuel, it's actually a good idea to use it. We don't have to, but why not?
www.monbiot.com/2011/12/05/a-waste-of-waste/
www.columbiatribune.com/news/2011/dec/13/used-nuclear-fuel-is-a-good-energy-source/
www.monbiot.com/2012/02/02/nuclear-vs-nuclear-vs-nuclear/
http://vimeo.com/39052604
www.snetp.eu/www/snetp/images/stories/Docs-SRA2012/sra_annex-MSRS.pdf

Remember how we allowed PG&E to kill 8 neighbors & destroy 32 homes here about 2 years ago by burning them up with a main gas line that our CPUC had let them not maintain for decades? Despite NTSB assignment of blame to PG&E, no indictments, no exec removals...

But, when the steam pipes in our San Onofre nuke started leaking, it was immediately shut down, with a team of NRC inspectors on site the next day. Treating things responsibly makes them safe. Allowing decades of negligence doesn't: http://tinyurl.com/6pcrrv6

Here are the nuke safety stats...

http://tinyurl.com/3nwjboz
http://manhaz.cyf.gov.pl/manhaz/szkola/materials/S3/psi_materials/ENSAD98.pdf
Bob "The Clean Energy Guy" Mitchell
Bob "The Clean Energy Guy" Mitchell
May 11, 2012
I also want to clarify a couple of things that I've said in these comments...One, I'm against new 'uranium' based nuclear development. I'm still looking at thorium based nuclear and from what I've seen, it offers some potential.

DrAlex: Excluding Chernobyl from nuclear's safety record is like taking the accident that I had while I was driving drunk out of my driving safety record! (Actually, I've never had an accident while driving drunk, but I liked the analogy!) The accident was nuclear and it happened! It has to be included!

Also, regarding the burning of bio-methane, I'm with Fred on this one. If we could plant trees so that the carbon released is less than the carbon that is captured in the trees, we should be okay. My big concern with all bio-fuels is if it is going to compete with food being grown and if we can produce enough of it to be practical.

I'm not all that up to speed on bio-fuels, but am planning on doing some more studying. You're objections to wind still baffle me though. I've tried to verify the things that you've been saying and your opinions just don't match up with the objective research that I've been able to find.

Bob 'The Clean Energy Guy' Mitchell
Bob "The Clean Energy Guy" Mitchell
Bob "The Clean Energy Guy" Mitchell
May 11, 2012
Hi Fred: Where I'm a bit confused regarding the recapture phase. It is my understanding that between 20% and 80% of fracking fluids are not recaptured. Would this be different with propane?

I also understand that about 4% of the natural gas that is freed by fracking 'leaks' out and that due to not being captured makes the carbon footprint of fracked natural gas worse than even coal.

I'm also still concerned about the increase in seismic activity that occurs near where fracking operations are being conducted. I read that the increase is on the magnitude of 450% and while most of these earthquakes are small, that there has been at least 1 (on a fault that had been stable for over 1000 years) that caused $100,000,000 in damage.

I also talked with a geologist friend of mine and he told me that while there will be many more small earthquakes because there are a lot more small fault lines than there are large ones, that there is really no scientific reason that a large fault line couldn't be lubricated from the fracking fluid and cause a large earthquake.

If this were to happen say, under Fort Worth, how much damage would even a moderate quake cause? What if it were a large quake? Would the gas companies accept responsibility for the quake or would they call it an, 'act of God'?

DrAlex: After our last conversation, I looked into Thorium and definitely think it has a place in our energy mix, as long as it turns out to be as safe as it's been explained to me. That said, it's still based upon a finite resource that has to be mined and it still has a waste issue.

I understand that it's a bi-product of rare earth mining, therefore pretty assessable, but I'm leery of claims that we have a 1000 year supply. I'm still waiting for the nuclear industry to make good on it's claim to produce electricity too cheap to meter!

It's nice to see that we agree on fracking, btw!

Bob 'The Clean Energy Guy' Mitchell
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
May 11, 2012
Di Mitar -- Yes indeed, it's been long known that there's more sunlit human-structure surface on earth than needed to generate all power via just local solar PV (and hot-water) needed during peak daytime loading.

This is why Calif., the Sierra Club & many others actively promote solar PV on existing structures. This avoids land/sea/species impacts. It avoids transmission losses and it builds a more robust grid that has no single point of failure, as our US grid unfortunately bristles with.

One good storage idea is EV battery charge/discharge control, as betterplace.com has done in Israel and now Denmark and starting in the US. The idea has benefit to the vehicle & power industries, because it allows utilities to contract with EV companies tio have immediate response to power needs or excesses. As battery or other storage systems improve, they'll benefit both EV rollout and grid efficiency/reliability.

If aliens landed, discovered the 1962 report to JFK, and saw what we now do to generate power, they'd have great laughs.

We, unfortunately, are now facing far more extreme and immediate issues than just global warming or sea rise...
http://tinyurl.com/6mtd8db
www.noaa.gov/video/administrator/acidification/index.html

Even the smartest aliens might have a hard time correcting oceanic pH in the few years we have to do it.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
May 11, 2012
Rafael, CH4is quoted as 25-100x CO2 as a GHG because it has a finite lifetime in air and oxidizes to CO2 & water. So, as Eastern Europe unfortunately demonstrated during the Soviet era, massive methane leaks have very serious global warming effects over a few decades, gradually fading to just the effects of CO2 & water. Fortunately, the fall of the Soviets & German reunification removed some very serious methane waste.

But, fracking, permafrost melting, seafloor methane-ice sublimation are doing far more damage now. And the result looks to be disastrous: http://tinyurl.com/bueq2ev

Remember, water vapor is the number 1 GHG now, and warming of seas releases more to the air, so all effects are now in positive-feedback mode, accelerating warming, natural methane release, sea rise, etc. Adding extraction/combustion products is crazy.

You ask why nuke power is as renewable as geothermal? The source of both, on earth, is the existence of uranium, thorium, potassium... isotopes in the earth. Without radioactive decay of those elements, we'd have no molten core, no magnetic field, no protection from cosmic/solar radiation and no atmosphere. We'd be as Mars has been for a billion or so years.

So indeed, the heat for geothermal stems 60% from the slow decay of thorium, 20% from earth's original formation heat, and the rest from uranium, potassium... decays. Thorium is 10ppm in the crust & much higher in the mantle. We've enough thorium discarded from rare-earth mines each year to run the entire world's power needs for decades.

Uranium is 1/4 that abundance, but can contribute thousands of years of power as well, with far less environmental damage than any wind/wave/solar 'farm' designs. This is why local solar plus efficient storage and thorium/uranium fission are all that are needed for thousands of years. This was known to JFK: http://tinyurl.com/6xgpkfa But, Nixon flubbed it: http://tinyurl.com/73p7ler
Dimitar Mirchev
Dimitar Mirchev
May 11, 2012
DrAlexC

Imagine Italy having 75 GWp (with 7+GWp installed in 2011, this can easily be true by year 2020-2025).

I'm looking for a site like this one:

http://www.transparency.eex.com/en

about Italy but cant find.

75 GWp means that at noon Italy can get 100% of it electricity from PV alone. And keeping in mind that the installation cost of PV keeps falling - What would the base load plants do than?
RAFAEL ROBILLARD
RAFAEL ROBILLARD
May 11, 2012
Dr Alex C;

Actually the GHG potential of CH4 is 21 times that of CO2.

So I agree with your comments regarding the negative effects of burning natural gas but not when the gas burnt is bio-methane. In efect while both are CH4; the former is a fossile fuel that disturbs the current equilibrium of our atmosphere by injecting into it ''old' CO2 that was captured from the ecosystem many millions of years ago - and was quietly sitting in a carbon pit ever since - while the latter injects 'freshly harvested' CO2 that was captured much more recently, during the contemporary lifetime of the organisms whose decay results in this CH4. This same logic explains that biomass (e.g., wood) is also considered a renewable source of energy.

So what distinguishes fossile CH4 from renewable CH4 is just the length of their cycle. When it is comparable with a human life cycle, it is labeled renewable, and when it is longer than that, it is not.

Bearing this is mind, and knowing that all Uranium on earth - just like all other elements heavier that iron - has been produced in a supernovae explosion which occured before the solar system was created, I would indeed appreciate you explained how nuclear power can ever be a renewable source of energy.
Fred Linn
Fred Linn
May 11, 2012
Bob----the propane is only the hydraulic transfer medium. It is the liquid that gets the pressure from the surface down into the well. After the fracture is done---it returns and is recaptured and recycled. Propane is a natural component of natural gas. That is where we get it from.

It would have no effect on EROI---it is not consumed, it is captured and recycled to the next well.


Methane contains 4 hydrogen atoms and one carbon atom---it is 80% hydrogen. Producing the same amount of energy with methane compared to coal produces only 44% of the CO2 that coal does. If we convert all coal plants to using methane---it would produce the same amount of CO2 as if we had closed 5 1/2 plants out of every 10---permanently.

CO2 is removed from the atmosphere by plants. The important factor is the RATE of CO2 production----when the rate of production of CO2 is higher than the rate of removal by plant photosynthesis----you will have a rise in accumulated CO2. When you approach the point where production and reduction(plant absorption)are the same---you achieve a more and more stable equilibrium. Climate change will be much more manageable if it is spread out over 100-200 years, than if we are looking at only 20-40 years. We don't have to do everything all at once. All we have to do, is curb the rollercoaster rate. The world can tolerate some use of fossil fuels---just not at the present rate.
ANONYMOUS
May 10, 2012
Hollande got elected by promising lots of government handouts. The reality is that renewable energy will be at the end of the line when these funds are handed out. Social programs will always get preference over something like RE subsidies. The French government is already running a large budget deficit, so where will all of this new money come from?
Philip Haddad
Philip Haddad
May 10, 2012
As an alternative energy source natural gas emits as much heat as coal. It's not the CO2 we need to be concerned with it's the heat. Nuclear power emits twice as much total heat as its electrical output. Heat alone can be computed to cause all the temperature rise we see without any input from CO2.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
May 10, 2012
Free Wind's "only problem" with methane GHG emissions is from extraction? Not from burning?

GHG burdens for our present fuels are about in the ratios of 1 for methane, to 1.2 for oil and to 1.8 for coal. The US average being about 1.4, at the mix we use overall.

So CH4 burned makes 1 CO2 molecule and 2 water molecules, and that's not a "problem"? Interesting. For over 100 years, the issue of CO2 production has been raised as a dead end for sustained energy production.

Certainly the promotion of burning CH4 is problematic, even in relation to oil, because any leaked methane is 25-100 times as bad a GHG as is plain old CO2. So if our extraction of methane isn't near perfect, there's no net advantage in relation to oil, of which there's much more. And oil extraction consumes far less water resources, even without aquifer pollution, than does fracking. And so on.

So advocating natural gas as superior to anything but perhaps coal, makes no sense.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
May 10, 2012
Di Miter -- 'base load plants - any kind - do not have future'

Do you realize that Denmark needs a dispatchable 300MW base load, just in case their wind forecast is off by less than 1 m/s?

Do you realize that Denmark allows no onshore wind now because of noise, ugliness and other environmental damage?

Do you realize how small Denmark & Europe are?

Do you realize the vast environmental damage solar/wind 'farms' would cause at the scale you propose? Do you not know that there's more than enough worldwide human-structure, sunlit surface than needed to meet all peak daytime loads via solar PV?

So, as has been clear for years, wind is not only wasteful, it's unnecessary. However, some form of 24/7 power is indeed necessary, which is why dispatchable EV storage (e.g., betterplace.com) and other local storage systems will be essential, and some thermal baseload as well -- industry, hospitals, etc. still need 24/7 power & process heat to serve you & make your favorite raw materials for your iGadgets.

It's been clear for decades that two 'renewables' -- solar & nuclear -- plus local storage, can indeed meet our needs for thousands of years without environmental damage.

If you don't understand why nuclear is as renewable as geothermal, for example, it's easy to explain.
Bob "The Clean Energy Guy" Mitchell
Bob "The Clean Energy Guy" Mitchell
May 10, 2012
Fred: My only real problem with natural gas is the process of fracking that they have been using to get at the shale gas. The process uses unbelievable amounts of water (up to 4 million gallons per well!)to start with. It then mixes this water with 10's of thousands of gallons of "fracking" chemicals and injects the mixture along with tons of sand deep into the earth under pressure to "fracture" the formations in which the gas is trapped.

Then they only collect between 20 and 80% of the fluid (which is now considered hazardous waste) back out of the hole. This means that up to 80% of the hazardous waste is lost deep into the earth. It would be bad enough if we just lost that much water, but we really don't because it migrates back towards the surface and if it makes it to the aquifers quick enough, it can contaminate our drinking water! If this happens slow enough,the earth acts as a filter, but does nothing to "filter" the dissolved toxins. If it happens quickly, not even the particulate toxins are filtered.

Add to that the fact that seismic activity near fracking operations increases on average 450% and you have a recipe for disaster!

As far as bio-methane, I'm a big fan as long as we can produce it in sufficient enough quantities without it competing with food production.

I hadn't heard of using propane to frack with, but my first question would be related to the energy payback factors. Natural gas, as a whole, has an EROEI (energy returned on energy invested)factor of between 2 and 4. Fracking with water drops this EROEI by an unknown percentage (If anybody knows, I'd love to hear about it) and I'd be concerned that using propane (which could be burned directly)might lower this payback factor even more.

Also, I'd be concerned about greenhouse gas emissions because fracking operations tend to lose about 4% of the gas that they are attempting to capture..would this make matters worse?

Bob "The Clean Energy Guy" Mitchell
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
May 10, 2012
For Rhin, Calif. policy now advances local solar installs on structures, which is the best & only 'renewable' we have. You can get installations with no $ down, because the vendor owns the system & sell juice you don't use to the utility. This is great, and here are examples, including PA which has its own utility:
http://paloaltoonline.com/news/show_story.php?id=24561
http://tinyurl.com/3znad4b (watche the day go by)

For Philip, you clearly don't understand nuclear power, or climate/ocean issues, with: "heat, not CO2 is the cause of global warming" -- it indicates an amazing lack of knowledge.

Yes, almost of the ~16,000,000,000,000 Watts of power generated every second by human systems is wasted as heat. The sun gives us 5400 times that much all day long -- 24 years in 1 day.

So any form of power generation ends up as heat, no matter what its source. Windmills, in fact, are barely 50% efficient in converting air motion to power, when the wind is either fast enough or not too fast, and because they consume so much land, they lose another 10% in distant transmission & conversion losses. Then there's the huge 700-tons/MW of coal, ore, rock, cement, shipping... just to build a single wind tower. That doesn't even cover the ongoing maintenance energy costs.

Solar/wind/wave 'farming' is guaranteed to be wasteful & generate useless heat.

However, solar PV gives us the opportunity to leave transmission, land & environmental losses behind. The key is solar-cell efficiency. (1 - efficiency) tells how much wasted heat a solar panel will create. The sun gives it 1kW per meter area, so a good, 20% efficient, 1sqm solar panel (e.g., SunPower E20) will waste 800Watts as heat and deliver 200W of electricity. Modern panel systems convert >90% of that to useful AC power. And, solar cell research is well on the way to reaching 40% efficiency.

At that point, solar panels & nuclear plants will be equal & neither generates CO2.
Philip Haddad
Philip Haddad
May 10, 2012
The thing that people must accept is that heat, not CO2 is the cause of global warming. Atomic energy power plants emit a total of twice their electrical output. All energy becomes heat. The only energy sources which do not contribute to global warming are those which remove as much energy from the environment as they replace with a more useable form- wind, solar, hydroelectric, etc. and certanly not nuclear.
Robert Hall
Robert Hall
May 10, 2012
It seems to me, as I read entries in blog after blog, that the two issues that prevent forging ahead with renewables at full speed ("damn the cost, full speed ahead") are, one, distribution issues (grid connection and net metering issues - including payment for feeding energy back into the grid, not just providing credit for future usage), and, two, storage obstacles. Do we have credible storage capability for energy produced via renewables? Can we overcome the huge utility companies' political influence?
Dimitar Mirchev
Dimitar Mirchev
May 10, 2012
Let me repeat - base load plants - any kind - do not have future. They are obsolete. As we install more and more wind, photovoltaics and other renewables this is what is going to happen in Western EU:

First (5-10 years) Wind + Solar will become more than the load. Which means that there will be increasingly more days when it is so sunny and windy that 75%+ of the load will come from renewables. The prove of that is this:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-09-29/utilities-giving-away-power-as-wind-sun-flood-european-grid.html

Next step (10-20 years, sunnier countries Italy, Spain, Greece, France - first) is only photovoltaics to become more than the load. This means that in the more sunny days at noon some parts of EU will be 100% renewable.

This will happen without subsidies just following buisness-as-usual installation cost decrementation.

In tha light of this - we dont need any base load. Scratch that - all base load will close because they will not be able to sell their electricity.

Nuclear power owners do not have a winning move - they wont be able to sell as low as renewables and if they do they will have to increase the price of electricity for the times when there are no wind or solar but this means that even more Grid Energy Storage will be installed and at the end nuclear plants wont be able to sell anything.
RAFAEL ROBILLARD
RAFAEL ROBILLARD
May 10, 2012
As a corollary, let me add, that our company works exclusively with flux energies - as opposed to stock energies. Why ? Simply because aside from their renewable / inocuous nature, they also are PUBLIC. No-one including states have yet found a way to grab and monopolize them. This characteristic helps people become (or remain) independent, which is something we like.

So we have recently introduced our 3 kW "Solar Evolution" system, a DIY RE generator for households that reduces - or eliminates alltogether - the customer's dependence to the grid.

It can be installed gradually by steps, but makes big savings from day one, as its leveraged cost of energy is competitive with the (french) grid's. It comes in two flavors: with and without injection of surplus to the grid, and please contact info@solydair.com if you are intertested.
RAFAEL ROBILLARD
RAFAEL ROBILLARD
May 10, 2012
Gentlemen,

This is the best news of the year concerning us RE SME's in France. The prior occupant tried his best to wipe off all RE initiatives from the french map - except those carried out by the very influential french multinationals. This created 15000 jobless from the incipient solar industry and almost killed it in the egg. While this attitude of favouring the french multinationals in detriment of SME's is a tradition in this country, (cf. the fate of Thémis, the first CSP plant to be ever built, back in 1979), we hope the Hollande government will be less easily influenced by the nuclear lobby than Sarkozy !

From our side we can agree that Nuclear power doesn't emit many GEG's and that in some ways - particularly military - it has been an asset for France. But we cannot avoid noticing that it entails substantial disadvantages - including military; can you imagine ? - as well as a dependency on a toxic and non-renewable fuel that france does not posess and that has WW reserves for less than 60 years (at current burning rate; but Japan Germany and Switzerland are consuming kess of it), without forgetting the issue of the deadly waste that we genereously leave for dozens of generations to deal with, the contaminated concrete constructions that will remain there until erosion gradually distributes its radiactive dust around the world, the pollution it creates by warming up the waters of the main rivers here, and of course the risk that an accident (or terrorist attack) entails.

Now that we know how to convert solar radiation directly to electricity, and now we have reached a competitive cost, it would be incredibly stupid to reject this solution in favor of an obsolete, dangerous and not-sustainable beyond 60 years technology as is nuclear. Unless of course big money matters influenced their choice over public interest. This was the line of the previous Government, we trust the new one will do better!

Rafael
Ambrose Higgins
Ambrose Higgins
May 10, 2012
I agree that you don't need to be a conspiracy theorist to see that a few pro-nuke comments - and pro-FF - may proceed from hacks from Big Energy, but it isn't their motives that matter, but what they say.

I am a long-standing anti-nuke, but in cases such as France or Germany, I would favour a nuke phase-out rather than a precipitous shut-down; close down plants, without replacement, as they come to the end of their safe working life. In the meantime, I would put the predominant focus of renewables on carbon emissions reduction.

Three things I have in mind which make this more urgent are 1) it's not just a question of replacing the sources of electricity and heating for existing purposes, but of creating replacement energy for transport, either electric capacity and infrastructure or bio-fuels: gas/diesel, 2) as the viability and applicability of renewables become more evident, the possibilities that open up will only be limited by our imagination, e.g. we can solve a range of global water problems: universal availability & potability, salinity, environmental river flows and food security, and 3) the major exporters of hydrocarbons, especially oil and gas, include an unrepresentatively large number of countries ruled by variously despotic, erratic and luny tune types such as you mightn't necessarily invite to your backyard BBQ, whether charcoal or gas fired.

That disproportion may be wholly fortuitous or in part fed by precisely a culture of FF export dependency. It would be nice for the democratic world to be free of hectoring and posturing from said quarters, and from the need to constantly track and neutralise the intrigues and destabilization with which they spatter the planet; just as pulling the petrogas rug out from under those thugs is probably the shortest path to affording their subject peoples a chance to develop normally.

So, yes, an end to nukes, but managed and gradual, fitting in with multiple objectives.
V. Bruce Stenswick
V. Bruce Stenswick
May 10, 2012
In response to Mark Lytle, I doubt people are being paid. The lack of support for nuclear is partially due to people not understanding the seriousness of climate change. I do not think nuclear is the best option, but we need an ABC policy, Anything But Carbon. In response to pierrot, I am hardly the expert, but there is work being done on 4th generation reactors that would burn existing waste. Again, my view is ABC.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
May 10, 2012
Ok, Free Windy, indeed no one technology deserves your "free pass". But your logic gives bias a free pass.

Nuclear power, even including Chernobyl, remains the safest form of mass generation ever deployed by mankind. Even the Swiss know that. And you've had plenty of time to study up on it too, remember? http://tinyurl.com/3nwjboz and
http://manhaz.cyf.gov.pl/manhaz/szkola/materials/S3/psi_materials/ENSAD9

(continued...)
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
May 9, 2012
Ok, Free Windy, indeed no one technology deserves your "free pass". But your logic gives bias a free pass.

Nuclear power, even including Chernobyl, remains the safest form of mass generation ever deployed by mankind. Even the Swiss know that. And you've had plenty of time to study up on it too, remember? http://tinyurl.com/3nwjboz and
http://manhaz.cyf.gov.pl/manhaz/szkola/materials/S3/psi_materials/ENSAD9

So, if you really do want to support the combustion industry, oppose nukes. That's all they've been afraid of for decades. Do you foget how the opposition to the Shoreham plant on Long Island was partly funded by the Heating Oil Institute?

So despite Free Windy's unthinking lumping of the Chernobyl reactor explosion with nuclear power, there's the reality that only the Soviets used the Chernobyl RBMK design -- no one in the rest of the world did, because the RBMK is inherently unstable and so doesn't get Windy's "free pass".
Vicki Stuart
Vicki Stuart
May 9, 2012
Vous devez placer davantage l'accent sur le soutien des fournisseurs d'énergie locale, au moins comme il le fait en Allemagne ou le Danemark
http://www.ewea.com/green-jobs-in-germany/
Fred Linn
Fred Linn
May 9, 2012
Hi Bob.

Fossil natural gas and biomethane are the same thing, CH4. Exactly the same stuff chemically. The two can be mixed in any proportion with no loss of performance in any application.

If you have a 100 year supply of fossil natural gas---and you build out the facility to replace 1% per year of your use with biomethane----in 100 years, your biomethane use will be 100% of your use. And 50% of the fossil natural gas will remain in the ground. Reverse amortization.

Google methane clathrate or methane hydrate.

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/05/11522433-us-claims-unprecedented-success-in-test-for-new-fuel-source?lite

http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?a_id=117534&rss=true

Both Germany and Japan are currently drilling commercial scale test beds in the North Sea and the Sea of Japan off the west coast of Japan to access methane hydrate deposits for commercial energy use.

Methane can also be used to power vehicles directly using currently available internal combustion engines. Coal, nuclear, wind or solar can not do that.

Even conservative estimates of methane hydrate deposits are huge.

Not only that----water combined with toxic chemicals is not the only means of fracking. LPG fracking(propane) is safe, nontoxic, and can be completely recycled. Propane is a liquid under pressure, and changes to a gas when the pressure is released. It is recovered when the natural gas is removed. No water is used or disposed of, and propane is not soluble in water. This is a tried and proven technology that is in commercial use now.

http://www.gasfrac.com/
Mark Lytle
Mark Lytle
May 9, 2012
Quite a few pro-Nuclear trolls here. I don't believe support for Nuclear is as high in the public as it is on this comment area. Way too odd.
At least some of these people are paid to post by the Nuclear industry.

It's notable that if you have to go Nuclear, Thorium would be a much better way to go, although it's probably not as pretty as claimed either.
Bob "The Clean Energy Guy" Mitchell
Bob "The Clean Energy Guy" Mitchell
May 9, 2012
Fred: I agree with you except that I don't think that gas is going to remain "cheap" for long once any significant portion of base load generation is converted to it. Add to that the idea of powering trucks and automobiles with compressed natural gas and the possibility of the US exporting the gas abroad and I just don't see it staying as cheap as it currently is.

Another consideration of natural gas is the process of "fracking". Fracking is the one reason that natural gas has become so "cheap" and my gut level is that at some point in the not too distant future that this process is going to contaminate a major aquifer or cause another costly earthquake. At that point, people are going to stand firm against the process.

Even if that doesn't happen, the increased demand for the fuel is going to decrease the time it's going to take for us to consume the resource. So, while there might be 100 years of gas available today(at current consumption rates) that figure could drop to 20 or 30 years simply by switching base load generation and a limited percentage of our transportation fuel needs to gas.

Bob "The Clean Energy Guy" Mitchell
Fred Linn
Fred Linn
May 9, 2012
The only thing that is done with coal OR nuclear energy is boil water.

We have plenty of means to boil water that is both cleaner and safer.

To convert a power plant to methane(natural gas) all you need to do is run a pipe to the plant, remove the coal furnace grates and install gas burners. Sort of like converting a BBQ grill to gas from charcoal.

Nothing else needs to change. You will not need strip mines, deep mines, trains, slack washers, coal cars, unloading hoppers, front loaders, skip loaders,trucks, bulldozers, storage and firetrucks(large piles of coal can both spontaneously combust or explode), or conveyors belts and pulverizers. You will also not need, smokestack emission controls, sludge ponds for ash and soot slurries.

You do not have to worry about toxic waste and emissions, and natural gas requires no complex and dangerous processing to be made into a fuel that then generates enormous amounts of extremely dangerous toxic and dangerous radiation when used.

Buildings, boilers, turbines, grid connections and controls, recondensors

Natural gas is cheap and abundant. And we can easily make biomethane from any type of biomass waste at all, including sewage and landfills. It is being done now, and we've been able to do it for the last 160 years in recent recorded history. The waste products of producing biomethane from biomass by anaerobic digestion is clean water and compost. Both clean water and compost(topsoil---the most fertile soil you can get) are valuable commodities in themselves.

You do not even need large power plants, an electrical grid, or base/peak load response at all with methane.

Catalytic converters can produce either heat or electricity by electrochemical reactions, and the demand/response can be controlled at the point of consumption. Catalytic converters are extremely efficient, and can be made mobile.
Bob "The Clean Energy Guy" Mitchell
Bob "The Clean Energy Guy" Mitchell
May 9, 2012
After Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disasters, I don't think that you can give Nuclear power a free pass on it's safety record. Sorry to have to disagree with you again Dr.Alex!

That said, Nuclear is indeed the enemy of coal and I don't think that we need to be in any rush to dismantle these plants before their economic life has expired. At the present time, we need them to keep pumping out energy.

That said, adding more nuclear capacity just doesn't make sense. As was pointed out, in the time it takes to put one of these plants into production, more than enough solar, wind and other renewables could be put into place so that they are not needed.

Our biggest challenge is to work it out so that the 'true' costs of each potential energy sources are included in their costs so that the free markets can make an unbiased decision on which is truly the 'best' way to power the planet.

With nuclear, these costs need to include the value of the land around where nuclear disasters have occurred, as well as the costs to reimburse the hundreds of thousands (if not millions)of people dislocated by these disasters (depending upon how large an evacuation zone you believe). The end result is if you factor in the costs of truly insuring against the losses of a disaster, nuclear starts to look pretty freaking expensive!

Fossil fuels need to have their environmental and health costs included as well. A recent study by the National Academy of Science put that cost in the US alone at over 120 billion dollars per year!

When you consider 'all costs in', renewable energy is a bargain at twice the price! We just need to take our heads out of the sand long enough to realize this!

Bob 'The Clean Energy Guy' Mitchell
Douglas Prince
Douglas Prince
May 9, 2012
I understand all the anxiety regarding France's future energy needs and whether nuclear will be included as part of the solution. Each form of energy generation has it's pluses and minuses.

My main question is: Will Hollande's wife get naked for the media, too?
Sornam Alagarsamy Alagarsamy
Sornam Alagarsamy Alagarsamy
May 9, 2012
sir
we expected the fall of Mr Sarkoshy. we welcome His Excellency Hollende and we wish France should love renewable Energy and Green energy and power from Nature like solar bioetc but not thro Nuclear....even india we suffer by nuclear thrust..
we are naturally worried over nuclear disasters.S.A.Alagarsamy
www.mgrbiodiesel.com
India
pierre vincent
pierre vincent
May 9, 2012
bruce: "Nuclear is the enemy of coal, and climate change outweighs the risks of nuclear."

there is not enough minable fissile uranium on planet earth to replace all the world's coal plants for more than maybe 5 years, therefore, nuclear is not a solution to climate change.

It takes 20 years to get a 1 GW nuclear plant online. A single large PV manufacturer can pump out 1 GW of panels each and every year.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
May 9, 2012
(...continued from 1st half) http://tinyurl.com/7hatm2b http://asia.iop.org/cws/article/news/47111 http://tinyurl.com/6vmaljn http://vimeo.com/39052604 www.deccanherald.com/content/246849/india-all-set-tap-thorium.html Hollande may try to join Nixon in bad decisions, but the reality now is that global tragedy is right around the corner, and CO2 reductions/sequestration won't fix it... http://tinyurl.com/6mtd8db www.noaa.gov/video/administrator/acidification/index.html Even a Greenpeace founder has awakened to realize the fact that indeed nuclear power is the future, just as it has been the safest source in the past... http://manhaz.cyf.gov.pl/manhaz/szkola/materials/S3/psi_materials/ENSAD98.pdf www.washingtonpost.com/national/nuclear-power-is-safest-way-to-makeelectricity- according-to-2007-study/2011/03/22/AFQUbyQC_story.html?hpid=z3 or: http://tinyurl.com/3nwjboz So, come see how the Chinese will dominate the world energy market: www.itheo.org/articles/announcing-thec12-shanghai if we're all dumb enough to believe 0 deaths from nukes is worse than >12,000 dead Americans each year from coal, etc. www.thoriumremix.com/2011 -- Dr. A. Cannara 650-400-3071
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
May 9, 2012
(...continued from 1st half) http://tinyurl.com/7hatm2b http://asia.iop.org/cws/article/news/47111 http://tinyurl.com/6vmaljn http://vimeo.com/39052604 www.deccanherald.com/content/246849/india-all-set-tap-thorium.html Hollande may try to join Nixon in bad decisions, but the reality now is that global tragedy is right around the corner, and CO2 reductions/sequestration won't fix it... http://tinyurl.com/6mtd8db www.noaa.gov/video/administrator/acidification/index.html Even a Greenpeace founder has awakened to realize the fact that indeed nuclear power is the future, just as it has been the safest source in the past... http://manhaz.cyf.gov.pl/manhaz/szkola/materials/S3/psi_materials/ENSAD98.pdf www.washingtonpost.com/national/nuclear-power-is-safest-way-to-makeelectricity- according-to-2007-study/2011/03/22/AFQUbyQC_story.html?hpid=z3 or: http://tinyurl.com/3nwjboz So, come see how the Chinese will dominate the world energy market: www.itheo.org/articles/announcing-thec12-shanghai if we're all dumb enough to believe 0 deaths from nukes is worse than >12,000 dead Americans each year from coal, etc. www.thoriumremix.com/2011 -- Dr. A. Cannara 650-400-3071
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
May 9, 2012
(...continued from 1st half) http://tinyurl.com/7hatm2b http://asia.iop.org/cws/article/news/47111 http://tinyurl.com/6vmaljn http://vimeo.com/39052604 www.deccanherald.com/content/246849/india-all-set-tap-thorium.html Hollande may try to join Nixon in bad decisions, but the reality now is that global tragedy is right around the corner, and CO2 reductions/sequestration won't fix it... http://tinyurl.com/6mtd8db www.noaa.gov/video/administrator/acidification/index.html Even a Greenpeace founder has awakened to realize the fact that indeed nuclear power is the future, just as it has been the safest source in the past... http://manhaz.cyf.gov.pl/manhaz/szkola/materials/S3/psi_materials/ENSAD98.pdf www.washingtonpost.com/national/nuclear-power-is-safest-way-to-makeelectricity- according-to-2007-study/2011/03/22/AFQUbyQC_story.html?hpid=z3 or: http://tinyurl.com/3nwjboz So, come see how the Chinese will dominate the world energy market: www.itheo.org/articles/announcing-thec12-shanghai if we're all dumb enough to believe 0 deaths from nukes is worse than >12,000 dead Americans each year from coal, etc. www.thoriumremix.com/2011 -- Dr. A. Cannara 650-400-3071
Dimitar Mirchev
Dimitar Mirchev
May 9, 2012
The main issue with base load plants is that they are obsolete. We do not need them anymore.

Soon (5-10 (maximum 15) years) Italy and France will have more solar than the load. Than during noobn they will be 100%+ solar. What will the nuclear plants do than? They will wither have to sell at loss or close and soon shut down.

http://www.platts.com/RSSFeedDetailedNews/RSSFeed/ElectricPower/8452007

http://cleantechnica.com/2012/04/02/april-1st-in-germany-happy-birthday-renewable-energy-sources-act/
Patrick O'Leary
Patrick O'Leary
May 9, 2012
While I understand anti-nuclear sentiments, I do not understand conflating nuclear, base load with Solar, peaking power. Personaly, I don't have too many issues with nuclear. The spent fuel will wait for a much shorter time than the ore did.

Both nuclear and solar have a similar policy implication for the EU: OPEC oil and the external cost. Freeing up that flow of funds does wonders for an economy. If they wave Kyoto banners, get used to it.
Fred Linn
Fred Linn
May 9, 2012
------"......., changing a successful nuclear policy like France has, seems like a step backward. They have the technological know how and experience. Why change?"----------

Because the best time to do something to avoid the danger of nuclear reactor failure is before a failure happens. After a failure happens it is too late.

The only truly fail-safe way to prevent a nuclear reactor failure is..........................don't have nuclear reactors.
Rich Barbarics
Rich Barbarics
May 9, 2012
While I'm not an advocate of new nuclear plants due to the large capital investment, changing a successful nuclear policy like France has, seems like a step backward. They have the technological know how and experience. Why change? The drive for all the renewables business was response to global warming and reduction in use of fossil fuels needed for purposes other than burning. France must be the worldwide leader in this regard and should be lauded for their efforts.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
May 9, 2012
(...continued because of this dumb interface's URL paranoia)
http://tinyurl.com/7hatm2b
http://asia.iop.org/cws/article/news/47111
http://tinyurl.com/6vmaljn
http://vimeo.com/39052604
www.deccanherald.com/content/246849/india-all-set-tap-thorium.html
(continued...)
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
May 9, 2012
(...continued because of this dumb interface)
http://tinyurl.com/7hatm2b
http://asia.iop.org/cws/article/news/47111
http://tinyurl.com/6vmaljn
http://vimeo.com/39052604
www.deccanherald.com/content/246849/india-all-set-tap-thorium.html

Hollande may try to join Nixon in bad decisions, but the reality now is that global tragedy is right around the corner, and CO2 reductions/sequestration won't fix it...
http://tinyurl.com/6mtd8db
www.noaa.gov/video/administrator/acidification/index.html

(continued...)
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
May 9, 2012
(...continued)
http://tinyurl.com/7hatm2b
http://asia.iop.org/cws/article/news/47111
http://tinyurl.com/6vmaljn
http://vimeo.com/39052604
www.deccanherald.com/content/246849/india-all-set-tap-thorium.html

Hollande may try to join Nixon in bad decisions, but the reality now is that global tragedy is right around the corner, and CO2 reductions/sequestration won't fix it...
http://tinyurl.com/6mtd8db
www.noaa.gov/video/administrator/acidification/index.html

Even a Greenpeace founder has awakened to realize the fact that indeed nuclear power is the future, just as it has been the safest source in the past...
http://manhaz.cyf.gov.pl/manhaz/szkola/materials/S3/psi_materials/ENSAD98.pdf
www.washingtonpost.com/national/nuclear-power-is-safest-way-to-makeelectricity-
according-to-2007-study/2011/03/22/AFQUbyQC_story.html?hpid=z3 or: http://tinyurl.com/3nwjboz

So, come see how the Chinese will dominate the world energy market: www.itheo.org/articles/announcing-thec12-shanghai
if we're all dumb enough to believe 0 deaths from nukes is worse than >12,000 dead Americans each year from coal, etc.
www.thoriumremix.com/2011
--
Dr. A. Cannara
650-400-3071
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
May 9, 2012
Yes indeed, the anti-nukes were tricked decades ago when the Heating Oil Institute paid for their ads against the Shoreham station on Long Island, preventing it from ever operating safely. Count up those CO2 molecules now in air & sea because of the naivete of people blindly fearing the safest form of mass power generation ever deployed by mankind, in favor of oil, coal, etc.

Unfortunately, blind ignorance is what our descendents will be paying for, just as the Japanese & Germans won't pay for their increased emissions/

JFK asked for & got the recommendation on how to eliminate combustion power by 2000: http://tinyurl.com/6xgpkfa Too bad Nixon followed with the wrong funding choice.

Fortunately, other countries, including France, are returning to where we left off in 1972...
http://tinyurl.com/4t5ojde

(continued...)
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
May 9, 2012
Yes indeed, the anti-nukes were tricked decades ago when the Heating Oil Institute paid for their ads against the Shoreham station on Long Island, preventing it from ever operating safely. Count up those CO2 molecules now in air & sea because of the naivete of people blindly fearing the safest form of mass power generation ever deployed by mankind, in favor of oil, coal, etc.

Unfortunately, blind ignorance is what our descendents will be paying for, just as the Japanese & Germans won't pay for their increased emissions/

JFK asked for & got the recommendation on how to eliminate combustion power by 2000: http://tinyurl.com/6xgpkfa Too bad Nixon followed with the wrong funding choice.

Fortunately, other countries, including France, are returning to where we left off in 1972...
http://tinyurl.com/4t5ojde
http://tinyurl.com/7hatm2b
http://asia.iop.org/cws/article/news/47111
http://tinyurl.com/6vmaljn
http://vimeo.com/39052604
www.deccanherald.com/content/246849/india-all-set-tap-thorium.html
(continued...)
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
May 9, 2012
Yes indeed, the anti-nukes were tricked decades ago when the Heating Oil Institute paid for their ads against the Shoreham station on Long Island, preventing it from ever operating safely. Count up those CO2 molecules now in air & sea because of the naivete of people blindly fearing the safest form of mass power generation ever deployed by mankind, in favor of oil, coal, etc.

Unfortunately, blind ignorance is what our descendents will be paying for, just as the Japanese & Germans won't pay for their increased emissions/

JFK asked for & got the recommendation on how to eliminate combustion power by 2000: http://tinyurl.com/6xgpkfa Too bad Nixon followed with the wrong funding choice.

BFortunately, other countries, including France, are returning to where we left off in 1972...
http://tinyurl.com/4t5ojde
http://tinyurl.com/7hatm2b
http://asia.iop.org/cws/article/news/47111
http://tinyurl.com/6vmaljn
http://vimeo.com/39052604
www.deccanherald.com/content/246849/india-all-set-tap-thorium.html

Hollande may try to join Nixon in bad decisions, but the reality now is that global tragedy is right around the corner, and CO2 reductions/sequestration won't fix it...
http://tinyurl.com/6mtd8db
www.noaa.gov/video/administrator/acidification/index.html

Even a Greenpeace founder has awakened to realize the fact that indeed nuclear power is the future, just as it has been the safest source in the past...
http://manhaz.cyf.gov.pl/manhaz/szkola/materials/S3/psi_materials/ENSAD98.pdf
www.washingtonpost.com/national/nuclear-power-is-safest-way-to-makeelectricity-
according-to-2007-study/2011/03/22/AFQUbyQC_story.html?hpid=z3 or: http://tinyurl.com/3nwjboz

So, come see how the Chinese will dominate the world energy market: www.itheo.org/articles/announcing-thec12-shanghai
if we're all dumb enough to believe 0 deaths from nukes is worse than >12,000 dead Americans each year from coal, etc.
www.thoriumremix.com/2011
--
Dr. A. Cannara
650-400-3071
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
May 9, 2012
Yes indeed, the anti-nukes were tricked decades ago when the Heating Oil Institute paid for their ads against the Shoreham station on Long Island, preventing it from ever operating safely. Count up those CO2 molecules now in air & sea because of the naivete of people blindly fearing the safest form of mass power generation ever deployed by mankind, in favor of oil, coal, etc.

Unfortunately, blind ignorance is what our descendents will be paying for, just as the Japanese & Germans won't pay for their increased emissions/

JFK asked for & got the recommendation on how to eliminate combustion power by 2000: http://tinyurl.com/6xgpkfa . Too bad Nixon followed with the wrong funding choice.

But fortunately, other countries, including France, are returning to where we left off in 1972...
http://tinyurl.com/4t5ojde
http://tinyurl.com/7hatm2b
http://asia.iop.org/cws/article/news/47111
http://tinyurl.com/6vmaljn
http://vimeo.com/39052604
www.deccanherald.com/content/246849/india-all-set-tap-thorium.html

Hollande may try to join Nixon in bad decisions, but the reality now is that global tragedy is right around the corner, and CO2 reductions/sequestration won't fix it...
http://tinyurl.com/6mtd8db
www.noaa.gov/video/administrator/acidification/index.html

Even a Greenpeace founder has awakened to realize the fact that indeed nuclear power is the future, just as it has been the safest source in the past...
http://manhaz.cyf.gov.pl/manhaz/szkola/materials/S3/psi_materials/ENSAD98.pdf
www.washingtonpost.com/national/nuclear-power-is-safest-way-to-makeelectricity-
according-to-2007-study/2011/03/22/AFQUbyQC_story.html?hpid=z3 or: http://tinyurl.com/3nwjboz

So, come see how the Chinese will dominate the world energy market: www.itheo.org/articles/announcing-thec12-shanghai
if we're all dumb enough to believe 0 deaths from nukes is worse than >12,000 dead Americans each year from coal, etc.
www.thoriumremix.com/2011
--
Dr. A. Cannara
650-400-3071
V. Bruce Stenswick
V. Bruce Stenswick
May 8, 2012
I do not think anyone should get ecstatic on the demise of nuclear. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend". Nuclear is the enemy of coal, and climate change outweighs the risks of nuclear.
Minwoo Kim
Minwoo Kim
May 8, 2012
Japan's FiT in July is among the highest in the world. It's clear that Japan's FiT will shake the solar market. New solar technology will show in Japan. This is it!
As you know, earthquake in japan is happening frequently. Floating solar panels installation is one of the best solutions for power crisis in Japan. So you have to reduce the vibration to install Floating solar panels. Because, it makes many kinds of problems! The vibrations caused by wind, waves and external forces. New Floating Body Stabilizer for Floating solar panels installation has been created in South Korea. The Floating Body Stabilizers generate drag force immediately when Floating solar panels are being rolled and pitched on the water. Recently, this Floating Body Stabilizers using to reduce the Vibration of Floating Solar Panels in South Korea. You can see New Floating Body Stabilizer videos in YouTube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=moO--q5B92k, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nA_xFp5ktbU&feature=youtu.be.

Add Your Comments

To add your comments you must sign-in or create a free account.

  • Create a Free Account!
  • Sign-In
Steve Leone

Steve Leone

Steve Leone has been a journalist for more than 15 years and has worked for news organizations in Rhode Island, Maine, New Hampshire, Virginia and California.
  • About
  • Articles
  • Blog
  • Contact
  • FOLLOW
  • CONTACT
Stay Connected
         
To register for our free e-Newsletters, create your free account here:

Editors' Picks

  • EU Debate Over Climate Change Policy Could Dampen Renewable Energy Growth
  • The Future of Solar in Latin America
  • Fighting Blackouts: Japan Residential PV and Energy Storage Market Flourishing
  • The Economic Case for Divesting from Fossil Fuels
  • Are Run-of-River Hydroelectric Systems Ready to Ride US Currents?
  • Moniz Unanimously Confirmed As New DOE Chief

Most Commented

  • 12
    No Easy Fix for Broken Wind Turbine at US High School
  • 6
    Renewable Energy Research Initiative Launched in UK
  • 3
    Wind Turbine Lubrication and Maintenance: Protecting Investments in Renewable Energy
  • 3
    French and German Ministers Call for 2030 Renewable Energy Targets

Total Access Partners

Growing Your Business? Learn More about Total Access
  • Greenpower Capital
  • PLANSEE SE
  • Renewable Energy World Asia
  • Mersen (formerly Ferraz Shawmut)
  • Schneider Electric
  • ASME - American Society of Mechanical Engineers
  • Chaloux Environmental Communications, Inc. (CEC)
  • Canadian Clean Energy Conferences
News
  • Renewable Energy
  • Solar Energy
  • Wind Energy
  • Bioenergy
  • Geothermal Energy
  • Hyrdo Power
  • Blogs
  • Video
  • Finance
Resources
  • Companies
  • Products
  • Careers
  • Events
  • Webcasts
  • White Papers
  • Magazines
  • Press Releases
  • e-Newsletters
Company
  • About Us
  • Our Team
  • Contact Us
  • Advertising & Services
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Site Map
Network Partners - Magazines
  • Hydro Review Magazine
  • Hydro Review Worldwide Magazine
  • Renewable Energy World Magazine
Network Partners - Events
  • Power-Gen International
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Europe
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Asia
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India
  • HydroVision International
  • HydroVision Brazil
  • HydroVision India
  • HydroVision Russia
© Copyright 1999-2013 RenewableEnergyWorld.com - All rights reserved.
RenewableEnergyWorld.com - World's #1 Renewable Energy Network for news & Information