Sodium Fast Reactors- Key to eliminating Nuclear Waste?

[n2doc]

November 17, 2009, 9:15 AM

Meet the Man Who Could End Global Warming

Nuclear power — dangerous, right? And there's nowhere to put the nuclear waste, right? Eric Loewen is the evangelist of the sodium fast reactor, which burns nuclear waste, emits no CO2, and might just save the world.


By John H. Richardson

The man who is going to save the world is an ordinary-looking man. He's average in height, with an average face. He has blue eyes and sandy hair. He wears eyeglasses. He's forty-eight years old. He looks like the kind of guy you'd see buffing his car in the driveway or shopping for a new grill at Sears, a classic all-American Homo suburbanus, but in fact he is a former officer of the United States Navy with a Ph.D. in a fiendishly complicated type of engineering. He is low-key and unassuming, with a quiet midwestern sense of humor. He loves to surf and ski and cook and drink martinis and host large groups of people for long meals, spreading newspapers across the table to catch flying scraps of crab.

The man who is going to save the world leads high school field trips. He attends an Episcopal church where the priest is a woman. When he had a bigger house, he took in a series of foster children while they waited for adoption, eleven in all. He volunteers with a charity that teaches surfing to autistic children. One morning I watched him standing in the warm Carolina surf for hours, catching the kids as they fell off their surfboards. They went out scared and came back quivering with joy.

The next thing you should know is that Loewen's miracle technology is not some airy concept. It cost billions of dollars to develop. Some of the biggest companies in America spent ten years refining it under the close supervision of the U. S. government — before the program was shuttered and abandoned in a hasty political decision that makes Who Killed the Electric Car? look like a promotional film for General Motors.

Read more: http://www.esquire.com/features/best-and-brightest-2009/nuclear-waste-disposal-1209

[kestrel91316]

1. THIS is the only nuclear power I could get behind. Passive safety,

and its fuel is all the radioactive crap we don't want but have too much of.

I've always maintained that if we could solve the waste and safety issues, I would happily get behind nuclear power. Of course conservation, efficiency, and a simpler lifestyle are still front-and-center of my energy plan.

[TheWraith]

3. There's a bunch of new passive safety designs coming out.

The Westinghouse AP1000 is a conventional fission reactor built on a design that's modular, mass-producible on an assembly line, and completely reliant on passive safeties, no active safety systems required for cooling and reaction control.

[kestrel91316]

6. Very nice. But what about the fuel and waste? I don't support any nuclear

power plants that generate more waste rather than using it as fuel and decreasing our overall waste issue.

[TheWraith]

8. The AP1000s eat standard uranium.

Something that we should be pursuing is uranium reprocessing, which essentially recycles the used fuel rods from current reactors to produce new fuel. It leaves behind some waste, but much less than there would have been otherwise. However, currently uranium prices are so low that it's cheaper and easier just to buy new uranium than it is to recycle.

Sodium fast reactors can eat a lot of stuff current reactors don't, like nuclear waste and depleted uranium, but they're not ready for real world construction yet, whereas other safety proven designs like the AP1000 are actually being built.

That said, remember that a nuclear plant produces 30 tons of fully contained waste products per year, whereas a coal plant of equivalent size produces hundreds of thousands of tons most of which are dumped into the environment.

[Dead_Parrot]

15. "Not ready for real world construction yet"

Tell that to India.
Main vessel for India's fast breeder reactor to be lowered in two weeks

[Nederland]

19. Not ready for real world construction?

The Russians have a 560MW sodium-cooled fast breeder reactor that has been producing commercial power for the grid since 1980.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BN-600_reactor

[TheWraith]

64. I should say mass production.

The AP1000 is an example of a passive-safety reactor which is being assembly-line built then shipped to the installation sites.

In contrast, the extant sodium reactors are all currently custom built testbed models, as opposed to being commercialized.

[joshcryer]

66. The AP1000 will need custom designs, but I don't think any more than say...

...wind which depending on location is going to need different construction methods. Offshore vs onshore, mountainous vs plain.

The first few AP1000s are going to of course be expensive, but if China has anything to do about it they'll have built (or be in the process of building) 100 in 10 years. If it happens the way it is hoped, then any numbers claimed about nuclear are automatically made irrelevant.

[Statistical]

5. AP1000 uses passive safety. Can shutdown and cool itself uses

convection, and gravity with no electrical power and no human control.

Key component of Gen III+ reactors is passive safety and increased fuel efficiency.

As course Gen IV plants like fast breeders are interesting but we are 20-30 years away from widespread commercial power generation.

http://www.ap1000.westinghousenuclear.com/ap1000_psrs_pccs.html

If you like a plant that can run on waste then TWR (Traveling Wave Reactor) is pretty cool future technology.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traveling_wave_reactor

Once seeded with an initial amount of conventional uranium it can run continuously for 60+ years without needing more enriched uranium. It could even be designed to use as fuel the millions of tons of depleted uranium. Lastly it could be designed such that it is only fueled once when built and due to breeder design run for 60+ years without refueling before dismantling.

[kestrel91316]

7. We better get our asses in gear and build breeder reactors and TWR, then,

because I am totally opposed to generating ANY more nuclear waste of the sort that we've been cranking out for decades.

[Dead_Parrot]

11. Why? It just sort of sits there.

It's pretty boring compared to the alternatives.

[Statistical]

14. Also extremely compact.

A 1GW Gen III nuclear reactor has about 30 tons of fuel. This lasts about 18 months and generates

1 GW * 24 * 548 * 0.94 = 12,363 GWH of electricity (94% capacity factor is average for US Gen III reactors).

So 30 tons of waste = 12,363 GWH = 12,363,000 MWH = 12,363,000,000 KWH

1 ton of coal generates about 2500 KWH of power.
12,363,000,000 / 2500 = 4.9 million tons.

Law of conservation of mass says the coal doesn't disappear. All 4.9 million tons of it becomes various forms of waste (ash, soot, CO2, airborne particulate).

Same amount of power generates 30 tons of waste in sealed containers vs. 4.9 million tons of waste dumped into ash fills, runoff into streams, and pumped into atmosphere.

The area in the photo is enough to contain all spent fuel over a 40 year nuclear plant lifetime. You are viewing about 330 terrawatt hours worth of spent fuel.

To produce the same amount of power by coal would release almost half a billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere (not to mention billions more tons of pollution on land and in air). Coal releases roughly 2 short tons of CO2 per MWH. http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/co2_report/co2report.html

[joshcryer]

10. That is ... amazing. We need to make it. Seriously. I never heard of this before.

[thereismore]

2. Fascinating. Until I read that "Chernobyl killed just fifty-six people", after which

I smelled so much bullshit that the whole article became questionable.

[TheWraith]

4. Actually that's technically correct.

Only 56 deaths are directly attributable to the explosion and radiation poisoning of the involved workers and firefighters.

It's estimated that secondary radiation exposure from the blast is has caused, or will cause, around 4,000 more fatal cancers in the ~800,000 people exposed than there would have been otherwise (which is a roughly 4% increase over expected fatal cancer levels). However, because of the difficulty in measuring exposure and radiologic response in such a large population, it's impossible to say for sure exactly whether any given case of cancer would have still happened if they hadn't been exposed.

[Iterate]

9. No mention of the SRE at Santa Susana or Fermi 1 near Detroit.

It seems the author missed a good chance for some bragging and boosterism over the quality of their containment vessels.

[Duende azul]

39. I looked it up. No wonder none of the nuke advocates answers to your post

[hunter]

54. Back in the days when most people were driving around without seatbelts...

...babies rode in mom's lap, and toddlers were jumping around in the back seat and making faces at people in other cars through the rear window...

How's it going, grandpa?

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hunter/34

[Duende azul]

12. "The man who is going to save the world" that's a red flag

An article, where you have to scroll two pages to finally find some really thin technical substance raises questions.
Seems like some PR players sold their content to the magazine.
Common practice in the business: the same propagandists who sold "no climate change" on behalf of Exxon et.al. are now selling the resurrection of nukes because of "climate change". Go figure.

The keyplayers don't add much confidence to the picture: GE, Repubs...

For a start
http://www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/2009-07_NuclearSameOldStory

[Dead_Parrot]

13. And have you looked into RMI's track record?

Y'know, the stuff about being paid by Monsanto, Shell, Rio Tinto, Walmart, BP, Chevron, ConocoPhilips and Sun oil?

Does that seem unbiased to you?

[kristopher]

16. Spreading more nuclear industry propaganda eh?

Take for example WalMart. Yes, Lovins is working with WalMart.

What is he doing? Attempting to help them double the fuel efficiency of their trucking fleet. That kind of thing certainly makes suspect his extremely well informed opinion on nuclear energy, doesn't it?

I mean, imagine the gall of the man - actually DOING SOMETHING CONSTRUCTIVE rather than using propaganda to defraud the US populace of their tax money to support the Republican controlled nuclear industry.

[Dead_Parrot]

17. Err, no. The trucking developments were by Peterbilt.

Lovins green-stamped it in return for a shed load of money: There use to be a picture of the transaction at http://www.rmi.org/rmi/pid419 but RMI has taken it down for some reason (gosh, I wonder why?).

Feel free to correct me by posting 1 (one) single, solitary technical change that Lovins has initiated concerning Wallmarts trucking fleet.

Edit: Remember to include a link stating that the change was initiated by Lovins.

Further edit: Then tell us what he has done for Monsanto, Shell, Rio Tinto, BP, Chevron, ConocoPhilips and Sun oil.

[kristopher]

22. Horseshit.

He is consulting with all of those corporations on programs for increasing energy efficiency. Your unsubstantiated allegations are ridiculous on their face and the only people who buy into it are those who know nothing of the work Lovins has done.

We still have a long way to go, but compared to where we used to be we have made a lot of progress in energy efficiency at the industrial and commercial level. The idea that an expert in energy efficiency is in some way unethical because of using his expertise on reducing weight in vehicle components to double the mileage ratings of WalMart's trucking fleet (and thus affecting the entire trucking industry) or because he works in ANY efficiency program - corporate or not - is tripe that only a person insane enough to lie for nuclear power would believe.

[Dead_Parrot]

24. Yeah, Didn't think you could. nt

[kristopher]

25. Didn't think I could what, use logic.

You made an UNSUPPORTED claim that DEFIES basic logic and yet you think you made your point because you make absurd demands thay you yourself don't live up to?

What an ass.

[Duende azul]

18. To be honest, I haven't looked at it.

I was lazy and choose the first link that came up on the matter in english and that was critical of IFRs.
I'm not american and hadn't heard about RMI. So I would have to research their corporate connections. At least if I would want to base my antinuke stance on their reputation. But since that's not the case, that's not urgent.

So I'd better not used that link in my post. Or searched for a better source, in case you are right with your allegations. Thanks for reminding me to do things properly.

But regarding the OP: Don't you share the impression that it's a fluffy piece of propaganda?



Note to the poster of the OP: By criticizing the article I don't want to blame you for the content. Since I normally enjoy your posts.

[Dead_Parrot]

20. In that case, my apologies

Since I'm a brit now living in NZ, I should know better than to make assumptions about peoples knowledge of the US energy industry... I'll leave you to investigate the RMI at your leisure. You may also wish to do the same for fast reactors.
:)

[Duende azul]

38. No apology needed. I should have done my homework. But what's your take on the OP?

Does it come across as serious discussion or propaganda?

Knowing all we know how corporations work. Take Switzerland for example where Burson Marsteller runs the propaganda for the nuclear industry. With fake grassroots campaigns, manipulating wikipedia and discussion forums - you get the idea. Ironically they base the urgency of building new reactors on climate change, which on behalf of the oil giants they denied earlier on.

Come on, do you honestly belief that's real journalism?

Regarding research: For the time being I refrain from researching Armory Lovins. Seems to US specific. Not my battlefield.

Regardless reactor type, atomic energy remains a threat to life and civil liberties.
If GE gets its wet dreams fulfilled and this reactor line in mass production spread all over the globe, no one in his right mind can fantasize that it will be possible to contain proliferation. That was as far as I know one of the main reasons for Clinton and Senate to stop that thing.
Hell, the US couldn't even manage to keep their homemade anthrax in the laboratory.
To secure reactors and facilities all over the place you'd need a police state that makes America under the patriot act seem like kindergarten.
The advertised shorter halflife of the waste still is of several hundred years. We just witnessed, how fast societies change in only decades. So several hundred is still much to long. And Plutonium is still generated in the process.
And we haven't even entered in the security aspects of sodium as cooler.

So it seems - like with the wars - end that shit as soon as possible is the only viable option.

[Dead_Parrot]

58. Err, ok

Good luck with that.

[bananas]

21. Don't believe the nuclear spin

Amory Lovins advocates primarily efficiency, secondarily renewables.
The nuclear industry hates him because he points out how expensive nuclear energy is.

[joshcryer]

23. I've been enjoying this blogosphere rebuttal of Lovins' critiques. :)

http://neinuclearnotes.blogspot.com/

Guy has heart. I wouldn't spend this much time debunking it (I used to spend an awful lot of time "preaching" about AGW, but I stopped once I realized the other side was immune to logic and facts).

[kristopher]

26. You enjoy spreading misinformation?

That discussion is the same one we've been having here. Baseload is a concept that ONLY applies to an electricity generation and delivery system built around large scale, centralized thermal generation. A machine built around USER DEMAND served by integrated distributed generation has a totally different profile that does not have nor need "baseload" generation.

Lovins is correct.

[joshcryer]

27. It's hit and miss, but he does point out Lovins' disingenuous cherry picking.

[kristopher]

28. No it isn't "hit and miss" nor do his untrue claims have any more validity than those of

the other Republican liars, the climate deniers.

A lie is a lie and you seem to enjoy spreading them - particularly when those lies negatively portray renewable energy.

[joshcryer]

29. You have to stop responding to a certain thing in one thread in a seperate, unrelated thread.

http://neinuclearnotes.blogspot.com/

[kristopher]

30. It's two sides of the same coin

All of the arguments in that piece are exactly as dishonest as the other. Citing the Nuclear Energy Institute is no different than citing the American Petroleum Society or the Clean Coal Coalition. It is pure propaganda.

[joshcryer]

31. The tastey bits are when Lovins pulls a "I'll use part of this data and ignore the rest"...

...gimmick. It's used very very much in the denialist field. Every time I see the tactic I laugh.

Also, the blogger in general likes to cite renewable sources just for fun, he's good at rhetoric. He'll use NREC and WADE reports to debunk Lovins' own misdirected arguments.

Coming from an extensive AGW background it is easy enough to spot real cherry picking and misdirect. Read the sources and decide for yourself.

[kristopher]

Really and you have something besides the opinion of this right winger to support that, right?

[joshcryer]

33. Uh, I read what Lovins did and I determined that the analysis was correct?

Do you agree or disagree that Lovins has (blatantly) cherry picked data in the past?

[kristopher]

34. Self delete

[joshcryer]

35. Oh god, I'm not going to essentially restate the argument here.

You're right Lovins is infallible!

[kristopher]

36. Until proven, no I do not agree.

Smears are not proof and your ability to "determine" whether any "analysis is correct" has been demonstrated repreatedly to be nonexistent.

Post 151 http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=217096&mesg_id=217508


Since you have no idea of what "markets" mean

The idea that you are qualified to opine on how to and whether it is desirable to "subvert" them is laughable.

Lets take yet ONE MORE example to demonstrate how gross and fundamental is your lack of understanding and your willingness to play as a POSER.

Very specific: "Now, if we subvert the market, if we say "well, the subjective theory of value is bullshit" and we come up with technologies to do our manufacturing outside of the dominant mindset, then we will have achieved something the markets are incapable of: application of positive technology with zero marginal cost. So in the end your manufacturing costs are in time, energy, and materials, the former two of which are essentially free."

If you achieve manufacturing something *at* zero marginal cost then you are doing the impossible. Not just something politically different, something that actually violates the very concept of marginal cost so much as to show us without any room for doubt that you have no idea what marginal cost means.

Marginal cost is the cost of producing the next unit of something. Energy isn't free. Time isn't free. Materials aren't free.

You are TRYING to say that we can avoid capital costs; in other words the costs of building whatever facility it is you have in mind.

Since you don't understand what marginal cost is and you use it to refer to capital cost, it is easy to understand why you wouldn't be able to understand the mistake that underpins your belief that having the government invest directly in these facilities is some magic way of avoiding these capital costs.

The government raises money by taxes. If it pays for a factory, that is capital investment and it is a part of the cost of production no less than if the money is supplied by private investors looking for profit.

What we can and ARE doing is to ensure that renewable energy infrastructure enjoys the same or even more favorable financing terms than fossil fuel facilities. For example if I want to build a wind farm it will probably cost 18% interest if I raise the money from venture capital sources. IF however, I have government or regulated utility guarantees for the loans as they do for coal plants then the money may only cost 4%. This is a huge advantage that the fossil fuel industry and nuclear have enjoyed which is now being corrected to favor renewables. This is part of the "rebuilding the machine" strategy that I was referring to.

You really need to stop embarrassing yourself.

Josh replies

You need to catch up on technology and learn some basic physics.
Posted by joshcryer

Energy isn't free.

See my sigline. Life relies upon it and thermodynamics dictate it. Energy is most certainly free. It is constructed man-made restrictions that put a 'price' on energy. If I build a wind turbine in my back yard, I can get free energy for the rest of my life.

Time isn't free.

Oh? So it costs me for time to pass? Nope. Time passes whether I want it to or not.

Materials aren't free.

Materials are essentially free, a carbon based technology infrastructure gets the materials from freaking air. I can build that wind turbine from the aluminum in the soil in my backyard, the carbon from the air that is in the atmosphere in my backyard, and so on.


I push a button. Out pops a wind turbine. A magical wind turbine with zero marginal cost, because all of the costs are bound up in the design and manufacture and perfection of the very first design. The rest are, yes, indeed, free. It comes from the environment, just like a seed dropping from a tree can grow to become another plant. It doesn't rely on some constructed system to do it, it just does.

Of course, this line of thinking is far beyond you, but it's clear you didn't read shit about free hardware when I mentioned it, because at least you might have showed some bit of understanding where I am coming from rather than being dismissive and ignorant.

Yes, I used "marginal cost" appropriately here.:

And more from Josh

I suspect you'll read up next time.
Posted by joshcryer


Google "RepRap" "Eben Moglen" "Open Source Hardware" "Free Software"

[joshcryer]

37. Thanks for posting very valuable assets to open minded thinkers here.

Since you clearly won't read them, it is useful for others to see them. :)

Markets aren't going to avert catastrophic climate change any time soon.

[kristopher]

40. There you go demonstrating that you don't know what the word "markets" means.

Post 151 http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=217096&mesg_id=217508


Since you have no idea of what "markets" mean

The idea that you are qualified to opine on how to and whether it is desirable to "subvert" them is laughable.

Lets take yet ONE MORE example to demonstrate how gross and fundamental is your lack of understanding and your willingness to play as a POSER.

Very specific: "Now, if we subvert the market, if we say "well, the subjective theory of value is bullshit" and we come up with technologies to do our manufacturing outside of the dominant mindset, then we will have achieved something the markets are incapable of: application of positive technology with zero marginal cost. So in the end your manufacturing costs are in time, energy, and materials, the former two of which are essentially free."

If you achieve manufacturing something *at* zero marginal cost then you are doing the impossible. Not just something politically different, something that actually violates the very concept of marginal cost so much as to show us without any room for doubt that you have no idea what marginal cost means.

Marginal cost is the cost of producing the next unit of something. Energy isn't free. Time isn't free. Materials aren't free.

You are TRYING to say that we can avoid capital costs; in other words the costs of building whatever facility it is you have in mind.

Since you don't understand what marginal cost is and you use it to refer to capital cost, it is easy to understand why you wouldn't be able to understand the mistake that underpins your belief that having the government invest directly in these facilities is some magic way of avoiding these capital costs.

The government raises money by taxes. If it pays for a factory, that is capital investment and it is a part of the cost of production no less than if the money is supplied by private investors looking for profit.

What we can and ARE doing is to ensure that renewable energy infrastructure enjoys the same or even more favorable financing terms than fossil fuel facilities. For example if I want to build a wind farm it will probably cost 18% interest if I raise the money from venture capital sources. IF however, I have government or regulated utility guarantees for the loans as they do for coal plants then the money may only cost 4%. This is a huge advantage that the fossil fuel industry and nuclear have enjoyed which is now being corrected to favor renewables. This is part of the "rebuilding the machine" strategy that I was referring to.

You really need to stop embarrassing yourself.

Josh replies

You need to catch up on technology and learn some basic physics.
Posted by joshcryer

(quoting Kris)Energy isn't free.

See my sigline. Life relies upon it and thermodynamics dictate it. Energy is most certainly free. It is constructed man-made restrictions that put a 'price' on energy. If I build a wind turbine in my back yard, I can get free energy for the rest of my life.

(quoting Kris) Time isn't free.

Oh? So it costs me for time to pass? Nope. Time passes whether I want it to or not.

(quoting Kris) Materials aren't free.

Materials are essentially free, a carbon based technology infrastructure gets the materials from freaking air. I can build that wind turbine from the aluminum in the soil in my backyard, the carbon from the air that is in the atmosphere in my backyard, and so on.


I push a button. Out pops a wind turbine. A magical wind turbine with zero marginal cost, because all of the costs are bound up in the design and manufacture and perfection of the very first design. The rest are, yes, indeed, free. It comes from the environment, just like a seed dropping from a tree can grow to become another plant. It doesn't rely on some constructed system to do it, it just does.

Of course, this line of thinking is far beyond you, but it's clear you didn't read shit about free hardware when I mentioned it, because at least you might have showed some bit of understanding where I am coming from rather than being dismissive and ignorant.

Yes, I used "marginal cost" appropriately here.:

And more from Josh

I suspect you'll read up next time.
Posted by joshcryer


Google "RepRap" "Eben Moglen" "Open Source Hardware" "Free Software"

[joshcryer]

41. Here, let me help:

Post 151 http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...


Since you have no idea of what "markets" mean

The idea that you are qualified to opine on how to and whether it is desirable to "subvert" them is laughable.

Lets take yet ONE MORE example to demonstrate how gross and fundamental is your lack of understanding and your willingness to play as a POSER.

Very specific: "Now, if we subvert the market, if we say "well, the subjective theory of value is bullshit" and we come up with technologies to do our manufacturing outside of the dominant mindset, then we will have achieved something the markets are incapable of: application of positive technology with zero marginal cost. So in the end your manufacturing costs are in time, energy, and materials, the former two of which are essentially free."

If you achieve manufacturing something *at* zero marginal cost then you are doing the impossible. Not just something politically different, something that actually violates the very concept of marginal cost so much as to show us without any room for doubt that you have no idea what marginal cost means.

Marginal cost is the cost of producing the next unit of something. Energy isn't free. Time isn't free. Materials aren't free.

You are TRYING to say that we can avoid capital costs; in other words the costs of building whatever facility it is you have in mind.

Since you don't understand what marginal cost is and you use it to refer to capital cost, it is easy to understand why you wouldn't be able to understand the mistake that underpins your belief that having the government invest directly in these facilities is some magic way of avoiding these capital costs.

The government raises money by taxes. If it pays for a factory, that is capital investment and it is a part of the cost of production no less than if the money is supplied by private investors looking for profit.

What we can and ARE doing is to ensure that renewable energy infrastructure enjoys the same or even more favorable financing terms than fossil fuel facilities. For example if I want to build a wind farm it will probably cost 18% interest if I raise the money from venture capital sources. IF however, I have government or regulated utility guarantees for the loans as they do for coal plants then the money may only cost 4%. This is a huge advantage that the fossil fuel industry and nuclear have enjoyed which is now being corrected to favor renewables. This is part of the "rebuilding the machine" strategy that I was referring to.

You really need to stop embarrassing yourself.

Josh replies

You need to catch up on technology and learn some basic physics.
Posted by joshcryer

(quoting Kris)Energy isn't free.

See my sigline. Life relies upon it and thermodynamics dictate it. Energy is most certainly free. It is constructed man-made restrictions that put a 'price' on energy. If I build a wind turbine in my back yard, I can get free energy for the rest of my life.

(quoting Kris) Time isn't free.

Oh? So it costs me for time to pass? Nope. Time passes whether I want it to or not.

(quoting Kris) Materials aren't free.

Materials are essentially free, a carbon based technology infrastructure gets the materials from freaking air. I can build that wind turbine from the aluminum in the soil in my backyard, the carbon from the air that is in the atmosphere in my backyard, and so on.


I push a button. Out pops a wind turbine. A magical wind turbine with zero marginal cost, because all of the costs are bound up in the design and manufacture and perfection of the very first design. The rest are, yes, indeed, free. It comes from the environment, just like a seed dropping from a tree can grow to become another plant. It doesn't rely on some constructed system to do it, it just does.

Of course, this line of thinking is far beyond you, but it's clear you didn't read shit about free hardware when I mentioned it, because at least you might have showed some bit of understanding where I am coming from rather than being dismissive and ignorant.

Yes, I used "marginal cost" appropriately here.:

And more from Josh

I suspect you'll read up next time.
Posted by joshcryer


Google "RepRap" "Eben Moglen" "Open Source Hardware" "Free Software"

[kristopher]

42. Instead of trying to hide your ignorance of the topics, why not learn what you don't know?

In the time you've spent trying to hide your shame you could have found an article on basic resource economics and discovered either where your understanding is flawed, or where my derision is in error.

It is that massive intellectual laziness that is abhorrent and so, so Sarah Palinesque.

Post 151 by Kris: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=217096&mesg_id=217508


Since you have no idea of what "markets" mean

The idea that you are qualified to opine on how to and whether it is desirable to "subvert" them is laughable.

Lets take yet ONE MORE example to demonstrate how gross and fundamental is your lack of understanding and your willingness to play as a POSER.

Very specific: "Now, if we subvert the market, if we say "well, the subjective theory of value is bullshit" and we come up with technologies to do our manufacturing outside of the dominant mindset, then we will have achieved something the markets are incapable of: application of positive technology with zero marginal cost. So in the end your manufacturing costs are in time, energy, and materials, the former two of which are essentially free."

If you achieve manufacturing something *at* zero marginal cost then you are doing the impossible. Not just something politically different, something that actually violates the very concept of marginal cost so much as to show us without any room for doubt that you have no idea what marginal cost means.

Marginal cost is the cost of producing the next unit of something. Energy isn't free. Time isn't free. Materials aren't free.

You are TRYING to say that we can avoid capital costs; in other words the costs of building whatever facility it is you have in mind.

Since you don't understand what marginal cost is and you use it to refer to capital cost, it is easy to understand why you wouldn't be able to understand the mistake that underpins your belief that having the government invest directly in these facilities is some magic way of avoiding these capital costs.

The government raises money by taxes. If it pays for a factory, that is capital investment and it is a part of the cost of production no less than if the money is supplied by private investors looking for profit.

What we can and ARE doing is to ensure that renewable energy infrastructure enjoys the same or even more favorable financing terms than fossil fuel facilities. For example if I want to build a wind farm it will probably cost 18% interest if I raise the money from venture capital sources. IF however, I have government or regulated utility guarantees for the loans as they do for coal plants then the money may only cost 4%. This is a huge advantage that the fossil fuel industry and nuclear have enjoyed which is now being corrected to favor renewables. This is part of the "rebuilding the machine" strategy that I was referring to.

You really need to stop embarrassing yourself.

Josh replies

You need to catch up on technology and learn some basic physics.
Posted by joshcryer

(quoting Kris)Energy isn't free.

See my sigline. Life relies upon it and thermodynamics dictate it. Energy is most certainly free. It is constructed man-made restrictions that put a 'price' on energy. If I build a wind turbine in my back yard, I can get free energy for the rest of my life.

(quoting Kris) Time isn't free.

Oh? So it costs me for time to pass? Nope. Time passes whether I want it to or not.

(quoting Kris) Materials aren't free.

Materials are essentially free, a carbon based technology infrastructure gets the materials from freaking air. I can build that wind turbine from the aluminum in the soil in my backyard, the carbon from the air that is in the atmosphere in my backyard, and so on.


I push a button. Out pops a wind turbine. A magical wind turbine with zero marginal cost, because all of the costs are bound up in the design and manufacture and perfection of the very first design. The rest are, yes, indeed, free. It comes from the environment, just like a seed dropping from a tree can grow to become another plant. It doesn't rely on some constructed system to do it, it just does.

Of course, this line of thinking is far beyond you, but it's clear you didn't read shit about free hardware when I mentioned it, because at least you might have showed some bit of understanding where I am coming from rather than being dismissive and ignorant.

Yes, I used "marginal cost" appropriately here.:

And more from Josh

I suspect you'll read up next time.
Posted by joshcryer


Google "RepRap" "Eben Moglen" "Open Source Hardware" "Free Software"

[joshcryer]

43. I know that your admitted derision is wrong because this is my field.

I work in free software, I work in free hardware, this is my domain. I know you are wrong because I know the results. I know that the terminology I used is correct because I got it from a lawyer who choses his words very precisely.

And I was never intending to "bury" your spam, so from now on if you insist I will happily paste my "errors," for all to see. But only if I am in fact not in error. You see, I stand completely behind my statements, because it shows that I am of a mindset that transcends the dominant mindset which you are a part of.

Post 151 http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...


Since you have no idea of what "markets" mean

The idea that you are qualified to opine on how to and whether it is desirable to "subvert" them is laughable.

Lets take yet ONE MORE example to demonstrate how gross and fundamental is your lack of understanding and your willingness to play as a POSER.

Very specific: "Now, if we subvert the market, if we say "well, the subjective theory of value is bullshit" and we come up with technologies to do our manufacturing outside of the dominant mindset, then we will have achieved something the markets are incapable of: application of positive technology with zero marginal cost. So in the end your manufacturing costs are in time, energy, and materials, the former two of which are essentially free."

If you achieve manufacturing something *at* zero marginal cost then you are doing the impossible. Not just something politically different, something that actually violates the very concept of marginal cost so much as to show us without any room for doubt that you have no idea what marginal cost means.

Marginal cost is the cost of producing the next unit of something. Energy isn't free. Time isn't free. Materials aren't free.

You are TRYING to say that we can avoid capital costs; in other words the costs of building whatever facility it is you have in mind.

Since you don't understand what marginal cost is and you use it to refer to capital cost, it is easy to understand why you wouldn't be able to understand the mistake that underpins your belief that having the government invest directly in these facilities is some magic way of avoiding these capital costs.

The government raises money by taxes. If it pays for a factory, that is capital investment and it is a part of the cost of production no less than if the money is supplied by private investors looking for profit.

What we can and ARE doing is to ensure that renewable energy infrastructure enjoys the same or even more favorable financing terms than fossil fuel facilities. For example if I want to build a wind farm it will probably cost 18% interest if I raise the money from venture capital sources. IF however, I have government or regulated utility guarantees for the loans as they do for coal plants then the money may only cost 4%. This is a huge advantage that the fossil fuel industry and nuclear have enjoyed which is now being corrected to favor renewables. This is part of the "rebuilding the machine" strategy that I was referring to.

You really need to stop embarrassing yourself.

Josh replies

You need to catch up on technology and learn some basic physics.
Posted by joshcryer

(quoting Kris)Energy isn't free.

See my sigline. Life relies upon it and thermodynamics dictate it. Energy is most certainly free. It is constructed man-made restrictions that put a 'price' on energy. If I build a wind turbine in my back yard, I can get free energy for the rest of my life.

(quoting Kris) Time isn't free.

Oh? So it costs me for time to pass? Nope. Time passes whether I want it to or not.

(quoting Kris) Materials aren't free.

Materials are essentially free, a carbon based technology infrastructure gets the materials from freaking air. I can build that wind turbine from the aluminum in the soil in my backyard, the carbon from the air that is in the atmosphere in my backyard, and so on.


I push a button. Out pops a wind turbine. A magical wind turbine with zero marginal cost, because all of the costs are bound up in the design and manufacture and perfection of the very first design. The rest are, yes, indeed, free. It comes from the environment, just like a seed dropping from a tree can grow to become another plant. It doesn't rely on some constructed system to do it, it just does.

Of course, this line of thinking is far beyond you, but it's clear you didn't read shit about free hardware when I mentioned it, because at least you might have showed some bit of understanding where I am coming from rather than being dismissive and ignorant.

Yes, I used "marginal cost" appropriately here.:

And more from Josh

I suspect you'll read up next time.
Posted by joshcryer


Google "RepRap" "Eben Moglen" "Open Source Hardware" "Free Software"

[kristopher]

44. You work in software and you think you heard something...

from a lawyer who "chooses his words very precisely.

Let's look at how you "hear" things and translate that into a belief. You first say that you KNOW this because it is your "domain". Yet, you then specify that this "domain" is free hardware and free software.

Do you get paid for your "time".
Do you pay and electric bill and put fuel in your car with money?
Does the petroleum refinery and plastics makers who make the plastic for the components of whatever free hardware you deal with materialize these products without an associated costs?

You have a misunderstood remark from a lawyer to support your claim and you KNOW?

Post 151 by Kris: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=217096&mesg_id=217508


Since you have no idea of what "markets" mean

The idea that you are qualified to opine on how to and whether it is desirable to "subvert" them is laughable.

Lets take yet ONE MORE example to demonstrate how gross and fundamental is your lack of understanding and your willingness to play as a POSER.

Very specific: "Now, if we subvert the market, if we say "well, the subjective theory of value is bullshit" and we come up with technologies to do our manufacturing outside of the dominant mindset, then we will have achieved something the markets are incapable of: application of positive technology with zero marginal cost. So in the end your manufacturing costs are in time, energy, and materials, the former two of which are essentially free."

If you achieve manufacturing something *at* zero marginal cost then you are doing the impossible. Not just something politically different, something that actually violates the very concept of marginal cost so much as to show us without any room for doubt that you have no idea what marginal cost means.

Marginal cost is the cost of producing the next unit of something. Energy isn't free. Time isn't free. Materials aren't free.

You are TRYING to say that we can avoid capital costs; in other words the costs of building whatever facility it is you have in mind.

Since you don't understand what marginal cost is and you use it to refer to capital cost, it is easy to understand why you wouldn't be able to understand the mistake that underpins your belief that having the government invest directly in these facilities is some magic way of avoiding these capital costs.

The government raises money by taxes. If it pays for a factory, that is capital investment and it is a part of the cost of production no less than if the money is supplied by private investors looking for profit.

What we can and ARE doing is to ensure that renewable energy infrastructure enjoys the same or even more favorable financing terms than fossil fuel facilities. For example if I want to build a wind farm it will probably cost 18% interest if I raise the money from venture capital sources. IF however, I have government or regulated utility guarantees for the loans as they do for coal plants then the money may only cost 4%. This is a huge advantage that the fossil fuel industry and nuclear have enjoyed which is now being corrected to favor renewables. This is part of the "rebuilding the machine" strategy that I was referring to.

You really need to stop embarrassing yourself.

Josh replies

You need to catch up on technology and learn some basic physics.
Posted by joshcryer

(quoting Kris)Energy isn't free.

See my sigline. Life relies upon it and thermodynamics dictate it. Energy is most certainly free. It is constructed man-made restrictions that put a 'price' on energy. If I build a wind turbine in my back yard, I can get free energy for the rest of my life.

(quoting Kris) Time isn't free.

Oh? So it costs me for time to pass? Nope. Time passes whether I want it to or not.

(quoting Kris) Materials aren't free.

Materials are essentially free, a carbon based technology infrastructure gets the materials from freaking air. I can build that wind turbine from the aluminum in the soil in my backyard, the carbon from the air that is in the atmosphere in my backyard, and so on.


I push a button. Out pops a wind turbine. A magical wind turbine with zero marginal cost, because all of the costs are bound up in the design and manufacture and perfection of the very first design. The rest are, yes, indeed, free. It comes from the environment, just like a seed dropping from a tree can grow to become another plant. It doesn't rely on some constructed system to do it, it just does.

Of course, this line of thinking is far beyond you, but it's clear you didn't read shit about free hardware when I mentioned it, because at least you might have showed some bit of understanding where I am coming from rather than being dismissive and ignorant.

Yes, I used "marginal cost" appropriately here.:

And more from Josh

I suspect you'll read up next time.
Posted by joshcryer


Google "RepRap" "Eben Moglen" "Open Source Hardware" "Free Software"

[joshcryer]

45. No, you misunderstand, I don't work, a paying job, in free software.

I work in it as a side project. :hi: That's because any efforts I make are at essentially zero marginal cost (infinitely copyable). Of course you will object because everyone else has to pay for stuff to get their own copy, but that's not a very relevant example, since once we have a manufacturing base in place and once energy is freely accessible like it is when you want to get a suntan, then it would be from any philosophical argument you could attempt to conjure.

Currently I must in fact work and get paid money to pay for my electric bill, however, you know that I have expressed a desire to be completely off the grid, if you had interest in my statements to Irate Citizen (who also seems to come from the same archaic market mindset), you'd know that.

It is not my fault I was born into a constructed system of domination whereby I must work to make a living, whereby access to energy is restricted, whereby access to all manners of things I have come to desire is limited by artificial systems of control.

Like I said, you come from a dominant mindset. Archaic, quaint, and ultimately irrelevant. I did not misunderstand anything.

I know what marginal cost means, you simply have no imagination.

[kristopher]

46. Take your claim of free energy

There is no such thing.

There is always a cost to extract, make usable and deliver usable energy.

Energy Returned on Energy Invested

Petroleum was 1:100 when we were scooping it off the top of the ground, cheap but not free.
It has now declined to between 1:15 and 1:20 or so. It is declining.

Coal is similar.

Nuclear is between 1:5 and 1:15 depending on the technology and it too is declining as uranium becomes harder to find or as we use breeder technologies.

Wind counting older generations of turbines is about 1:30. Wind using the most modern terrestrial technologies is about 1:50 and rising. Wind offshore is close to 1:80 and rising.

Solar is between 1:20 and 1:40 and rising.

That is not free. You have improperly conceptualized the matter. I hope this helps.

[joshcryer]

47. Ahah, you have caught yourself. Marginal cost concerns economics, we're talking about physics.

There's no economic cost in me going outside, standing under the sun, and receiving photons for vitamin D synthesis.

Likewise, there's not necessarily any economic cost in me going outside, sitting down with a big scary automation machine that makes me components to a wind turbine, assembles them, and erects them. And pushing a button.

There is only economic cost if you stand there with a gun and tell me to pay you some arbitrarily defined percentage.

There is always, always, always a thermodynamic cost, but that is distinct from economics. Second law of thermodynamics and all. Unavoidable.

You clearly have conflated marginal cost (economics) with physics.

[kristopher]

48. Actually no, I'm recommending it for you as an inexpensive alternative to what I did.

I'm not an economist, but I've taken up to 800 level econ for policy analysis.

[joshcryer]

49. I used to be a CFP, I took two years of economics at SIU. I hate economics.

I know enough about economics to be able to make knowledgeable statements about it. I know enough to know that it's arbitrary bullshit for the most part (took it in three different colleges, all teachers taught it differently).

There's no economic cost in me going outside, standing under the sun, and receiving photons for vitamin D synthesis.

Likewise, there's not necessarily any economic cost in me going outside, sitting down with a big scary automation machine that makes me components to a wind turbine, assembles them, and erects them. And pushing a button.

There is only economic cost if you stand there with a gun and tell me to pay you some arbitrarily defined percentage.

There is always, always, always a thermodynamic cost, but that is distinct from economics. Second law of thermodynamics and all. Unavoidable.

You clearly have conflated marginal cost (economics) with physics.

[kristopher]

50. Bullshit.

No one who has even one semester of econ would say the crap you are saying.

In bold below is your original comment about marginal costs. Readers should know that this was in the context of a discussion on how much MONEY it would cost to deploy renewables. They can judge for themselves if you are talking about physics or the way to eliminate the marginal cost (yes an economic term) associated with the effort.

Post 151 by Kris: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=217096&mesg_id=217508


Since you have no idea of what "markets" mean

The idea that you are qualified to opine on how to and whether it is desirable to "subvert" them is laughable.

Lets take yet ONE MORE example to demonstrate how gross and fundamental is your lack of understanding and your willingness to play as a POSER.

Very specific: Josh wrote:"Now, if we subvert the market, if we say "well, the subjective theory of value is bullshit" and we come up with technologies to do our manufacturing outside of the dominant mindset, then we will have achieved something the markets are incapable of: application of positive technology with zero marginal cost. So in the end your manufacturing costs are in time, energy, and materials, the former two of which are essentially free."

If you achieve manufacturing something *at* zero marginal cost then you are doing the impossible. Not just something politically different, something that actually violates the very concept of marginal cost so much as to show us without any room for doubt that you have no idea what marginal cost means.

Marginal cost is the cost of producing the next unit of something. Energy isn't free. Time isn't free. Materials aren't free.

You are TRYING to say that we can avoid capital costs; in other words the costs of building whatever facility it is you have in mind.

Since you don't understand what marginal cost is and you use it to refer to capital cost, it is easy to understand why you wouldn't be able to understand the mistake that underpins your belief that having the government invest directly in these facilities is some magic way of avoiding these capital costs.

The government raises money by taxes. If it pays for a factory, that is capital investment and it is a part of the cost of production no less than if the money is supplied by private investors looking for profit.

What we can and ARE doing is to ensure that renewable energy infrastructure enjoys the same or even more favorable financing terms than fossil fuel facilities. For example if I want to build a wind farm it will probably cost 18% interest if I raise the money from venture capital sources. IF however, I have government or regulated utility guarantees for the loans as they do for coal plants then the money may only cost 4%. This is a huge advantage that the fossil fuel industry and nuclear have enjoyed which is now being corrected to favor renewables. This is part of the "rebuilding the machine" strategy that I was referring to.

You really need to stop embarrassing yourself.

Josh replies

You need to catch up on technology and learn some basic physics.
Posted by joshcryer

(quoting Kris)Energy isn't free.

See my sigline. Life relies upon it and thermodynamics dictate it. Energy is most certainly free. It is constructed man-made restrictions that put a 'price' on energy. If I build a wind turbine in my back yard, I can get free energy for the rest of my life.

(quoting Kris) Time isn't free.

Oh? So it costs me for time to pass? Nope. Time passes whether I want it to or not.

(quoting Kris) Materials aren't free.

Materials are essentially free, a carbon based technology infrastructure gets the materials from freaking air. I can build that wind turbine from the aluminum in the soil in my backyard, the carbon from the air that is in the atmosphere in my backyard, and so on.


I push a button. Out pops a wind turbine. A magical wind turbine with zero marginal cost, because all of the costs are bound up in the design and manufacture and perfection of the very first design. The rest are, yes, indeed, free. It comes from the environment, just like a seed dropping from a tree can grow to become another plant. It doesn't rely on some constructed system to do it, it just does.

Of course, this line of thinking is far beyond you, but it's clear you didn't read shit about free hardware when I mentioned it, because at least you might have showed some bit of understanding where I am coming from rather than being dismissive and ignorant.

Yes, I used "marginal cost" appropriately here.:

And more from Josh

I suspect you'll read up next time.
Posted by joshcryer


Google "RepRap" "Eben Moglen" "Open Source Hardware" "Free Software"

[joshcryer]

51. No one? Lawrence Lessig? C'mon, don't be stupid.

Now you're just getting all mushy on me. In fact, I see what you're trying to do. Bury my responses so no one can see that I actually responded to your bullshit ignorance.

There's no economic cost in me going outside, standing under the sun, and receiving photons for vitamin D synthesis.

Likewise, there's not necessarily any economic cost in me going outside, sitting down with a big scary automation machine that makes me components to a wind turbine, assembles them, and erects them. And pushing a button.

There is only economic cost if you stand there with a gun and tell me to pay you some arbitrarily defined percentage.

There is always, always, always a thermodynamic cost, but that is distinct from economics. Second law of thermodynamics and all. Unavoidable.

You clearly have conflated marginal cost (economics) with physics.

[kristopher]

52. Great addition. Thanks.

We can even put it on top:
Josh wrote:

There's no economic cost in me going outside, standing under the sun, and receiving photons for vitamin D synthesis.

Likewise, there's not necessarily any economic cost in me going outside, sitting down with a big scary automation machine that makes me components to a wind turbine, assembles them, and erects them. And pushing a button.

There is only economic cost if you stand there with a gun and tell me to pay you some arbitrarily defined percentage.

There is always, always, always a thermodynamic cost, but that is distinct from economics. Second law of thermodynamics and all. Unavoidable.

You clearly have conflated marginal cost (economics) with physics.

Kris wrote as reply to above:

No one who has even one semester of econ would say the crap you are saying.

In bold below is your original comment about marginal costs. Readers should know that this was in the context of a discussion on how much MONEY it would cost to deploy renewables. They can judge for themselves if you are talking about physics or the way to eliminate the marginal cost (yes an economic term) associated with the effort.

Post 151 by Kris: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=217096&mesg_id=217508


Since you have no idea of what "markets" mean

The idea that you are qualified to opine on how to and whether it is desirable to "subvert" them is laughable.

Lets take yet ONE MORE example to demonstrate how gross and fundamental is your lack of understanding and your willingness to play as a POSER.

Very specific: Josh wrote:"Now, if we subvert the market, if we say "well, the subjective theory of value is bullshit" and we come up with technologies to do our manufacturing outside of the dominant mindset, then we will have achieved something the markets are incapable of: application of positive technology with zero marginal cost. So in the end your manufacturing costs are in time, energy, and materials, the former two of which are essentially free."

If you achieve manufacturing something *at* zero marginal cost then you are doing the impossible. Not just something politically different, something that actually violates the very concept of marginal cost so much as to show us without any room for doubt that you have no idea what marginal cost means.

Marginal cost is the cost of producing the next unit of something. Energy isn't free. Time isn't free. Materials aren't free.

You are TRYING to say that we can avoid capital costs; in other words the costs of building whatever facility it is you have in mind.

Since you don't understand what marginal cost is and you use it to refer to capital cost, it is easy to understand why you wouldn't be able to understand the mistake that underpins your belief that having the government invest directly in these facilities is some magic way of avoiding these capital costs.

The government raises money by taxes. If it pays for a factory, that is capital investment and it is a part of the cost of production no less than if the money is supplied by private investors looking for profit.

What we can and ARE doing is to ensure that renewable energy infrastructure enjoys the same or even more favorable financing terms than fossil fuel facilities. For example if I want to build a wind farm it will probably cost 18% interest if I raise the money from venture capital sources. IF however, I have government or regulated utility guarantees for the loans as they do for coal plants then the money may only cost 4%. This is a huge advantage that the fossil fuel industry and nuclear have enjoyed which is now being corrected to favor renewables. This is part of the "rebuilding the machine" strategy that I was referring to.

You really need to stop embarrassing yourself.

Josh replies

You need to catch up on technology and learn some basic physics.
Posted by joshcryer

(quoting Kris)Energy isn't free.

See my sigline. Life relies upon it and thermodynamics dictate it. Energy is most certainly free. It is constructed man-made restrictions that put a 'price' on energy. If I build a wind turbine in my back yard, I can get free energy for the rest of my life.

(quoting Kris) Time isn't free.

Oh? So it costs me for time to pass? Nope. Time passes whether I want it to or not.

(quoting Kris) Materials aren't free.

Materials are essentially free, a carbon based technology infrastructure gets the materials from freaking air. I can build that wind turbine from the aluminum in the soil in my backyard, the carbon from the air that is in the atmosphere in my backyard, and so on.


I push a button. Out pops a wind turbine. A magical wind turbine with zero marginal cost, because all of the costs are bound up in the design and manufacture and perfection of the very first design. The rest are, yes, indeed, free. It comes from the environment, just like a seed dropping from a tree can grow to become another plant. It doesn't rely on some constructed system to do it, it just does.

Of course, this line of thinking is far beyond you, but it's clear you didn't read shit about free hardware when I mentioned it, because at least you might have showed some bit of understanding where I am coming from rather than being dismissive and ignorant.

Yes, I used "marginal cost" appropriately here.:

And more from Josh

I suspect you'll read up next time.
Posted by joshcryer


Google "RepRap" "Eben Moglen" "Open Source Hardware" "Free Software"

[Nederland]

55. Much as it pains me to say...

I'm going to have to agree with Kristopher here. You say:

There's no economic cost in me going outside, standing under the sun, and receiving photons for vitamin D synthesis.

This is simply not true. The cost of you standing in the sun is the value of whatever else you could be doing. Economists refer to this as Opportunity Cost.

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

[wtmusic]

56. Ouch.

I feel your pain. :D

[joshcryer]

59. That's stretching the concept of opportunity cost until it's almost meaningless.

Vitamin D synthesis happens when there is sunlight, it is a natural, evolved, ecological phenomena. If all behaviors that utilized free environmental energy had "opportunity costs" associated with them we would call ecology economics. This is precisely why I used the term "economic costs" rather than "opportunity costs" because while they are often interchangeable, people who believe the markets cover all interactions between entities will tend to dumb down concepts to cover whatever biases they have.

It's as if arguing that a bird that eat seeds rather than worms has an opportunity cost associated with its behavior, though it is evolved to only eat seeds and worms are not even a consideration in its diet.

It's an economic behavior to buy supplements to get vitamin D, it is an ecological behavior to get vitamin D from sunlight. There is an opportunity cost associated with buying supplements because I have a choice to not buy them and instead spend my time getting it freely from the environment. There is no opportunity cost associated with vitamin D synthesis because I am existing in my natural environment and it simply occurs without me even having to think about it. Like breathing.

[bananas]

57. LOL - that "guy" is paid to do PR for the nuclear industry - "his" blog is the official blog of ...

the Nuclear Energy Institute, the official lobbying group of the nuclear industry.
From SourceWatch:

NEI is governed by a 47-member board of directors and has more than 130 employees. NEI's board includes representatives from the nation's 27 nuclear utilities, plant designers, architect/engineering firms, and fuel cycle companies. Eighteen members of the board serve on the executive committee, which is responsible for NEI's business and policy affairs.<6> NEI also takes part in Alliance for Energy and Economic Growth, a group funded by the gas, oil, electric and nuclear industries. <7>

In recent years, the NEI has used a variety of approaches to try and win the PR battle to secure a new generation of nuclear power plants.

http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=NEI
Nuclear Energy Institute
From SourceWatch
(Redirected from NEI)

This article is part of the Nuclear spin analysis project of SpinWatch (UK) and the Center for Media and Democracy.

According to its website, the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) is "the policy organization of the nuclear energy and technologies industry and participates in both the national and global policy-making process. NEI's objective is to ensure the formation of policies that promote the beneficial uses of nuclear energies and technologies in the United States and around the world." <1>

Contents

* 1 Response to Obama's presidential win and policies
* 2 The lobbying / PR wing of the U.S. nuclear industry
o 2.1 Bringing U.S. pundit David Frum to France
o 2.2 Clean Energy America
o 2.3 Sponsoring auto racers
o 2.4 Spinning nuclear as "emission-free"
o 2.5 2007 ad campaign
o 2.6 2006 ad campaign
o 2.7 The power behind the nuclear resurgence
o 2.8 NEI attacks nuclear opponents
o 2.9 Bush and Yucca Mountain
o 2.10 "Clean, safe" pro-nuclear front group
o 2.11 NEI ghostwriters
o 2.12 Criticism for saying nuclear is clean
* 3 Quietly lobbying local communities to accept waste
* 4 Defense companies join NEI
* 5 Lobbying for full federal loan guarantees
* 6 Brother, can you spare $18 per megawatt hour?
* 7 Atoms for prosperity
* 8 History
* 9 Polls on nuclear power acceptance
* 10 Lobbying
* 11 Personnel
* 12 Contact information
* 13 Articles and resources
o 13.1 Related SourceWatch articles
o 13.2 References
o 13.3 External resources
o 13.4 External articles

<snip>

[joshcryer]

60. That doesn't change the relevance of the argument.

[bananas]

61. Their "arguments" are pure propaganda.

I remember when the Keystone report came out - the reactions were hilarious.
The nuclear industry had been making absurdly low cost estimates, the Keystone report blew those out of the water.
Nuclear Engineering International Magazine had a good article:

http://www.neimagazine.com/story.asp?sectioncode=76&storyCode=2047917
How much?
20 November 2007

For some utilities, the capital costs of a new nuclear power plant are prohibitive.

Just before the release of the US Energy Information Administration’s (EIA’s) Annual Energy Outlook 2005 (AEO 2005) the then senior vice president of nuclear generation and chief nuclear officer at the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), Marvin Fertel, told the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee that the assumptions made on new nuclear plant construction were erroneous. The EIA had assumed overnight capital costs of $1928/kWe, which Fertel claimed were “unrealistically high, and inflated.”

The EIA, Fertel said, “assumed that new nuclear plants would experience the same delays, lengthy construction periods and high costs experienced by some of the plants built in the 1980s and 1990s.” These assumptions were unrealistic owing to advances in construction techniques and new simplified, standardised plant designs. More realistic overnight capital cost estimates of new nuclear were of the order of $1400-1500/kWe for the first-of-a-kind and $300 less for the nth-of-a-kind, he claimed.

<snip>

There are many other figures available, including the June 2007 report by The Keystone Center, titled Nuclear Power Joint Fact-Finding. This study, which was funded by several nuclear plant operators as well as other interested parties including General Electric and NEI, estimates overnight costs of $2950/kWe (in 2007 dollars). With interest, this figure translates to between $3600/kWe and $4000/kWe.

Interestingly, when Nuclear Power Joint Fact-Finding was released, the nuclear industry press chose to either focus on other aspects – in particular the ‘finding’ that nuclear is a viable option for dealing with climate change – or ignore the report altogether. Considering the number of organisations involved in the nuclear industry that backed the report, this low level of coverage is anomalous, and suggests a certain amount of discomfort with the findings.

<snip>

(Note: Nuclear Engineering International Magazine is often abbreviated "NEI Magazine" or just "NEI",
and Nuclear Energy Institute is often abbreviated "NEI",
but they are not affiliated with each other)

Here's the Nuclear Energy Institute blog entry when the Keystone report came out,
and some reader comments by pro-nukes:

http://neinuclearnotes.blogspot.com/2007/06/keystone-report-on-nuclear-energy.html

Friday, June 15, 2007
The Keystone Report on Nuclear Energy

From the NEI newsroom:

Capping a year-long evaluation of nuclear energy by a diverse group of experts, The Keystone Center today issued a report that details the group’s consensus that U.S. nuclear power plants are safer today with an improved safety culture; that climate change policies will improve nuclear energy’s relative economics, and that options are available today to safely manage used fuel.

The report, a “joint fact-finding on nuclear power,” was undertaken to provide an “assessment” of nuclear energy amid growing discussion – in policy circles and among the general public – of the technology’s appropriate role in the nation’s energy future.

“Nuclear technology is re-emerging as a power generation option in the face of concerns about climate change, energy demand growth, and the relative cost of competing technologies,” the report states.

For a copy of the final report, click here.

<snip some comments>

The Congressional Quarterly reports on this at:

http://public.cq.com/docs/gs/greensheets110-000002532359.html

CQ sees the report as saying that nuclear power (GNEP specifically), can not significantly contribute to the global warming problem. It presents current conditions and historical problems as insoluble - that plants can't be built fast enough (that it would not be possible for the industry to maintain 1981-1990 growth for 40 years), plants will cost too much, and be uneconomic for the industry, and that we can't manage the wastes (we would need multiple repositories). They also find that proliferation risks would be significantly enhanced. (The CQ article presenting the report is titled: "Proliferation Threat Seen in Nuclear Power Expansion")

A fair reading of the actual report reaches these same conclusions.

<snip some comments>

I've also been told that nuclear utility people, and even NEI contributed to this report. How can NEI sign its name to any document that states that new nuclear's overall costs will be 8-11 cents/kW-hr, and that even its operating costs are 3.7 cents?

The fact that the "official" capital cost estimates for new reactors has been going up, oh, about 50% per year for several years now is annoying enough ($1000/kW ~7 years ago, then $1500/kW, then $2000, then $2500, and now I'm even hearing about $3000-$4000). Am I being lied to now or was I being lied to then? Inflation and materials cost escalation is nowhere near enough to explain this. Weren't reactors supposed to be cheaper this time around ("50% fewer valves....", etc..).

LOL - "Am I being lied to now or was I being lied to then?"
The answer is "both" - those cost estimates were still way too low,
as reported in the Wall Street Journal a year later:

http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2008/05/12/its-the-economics-stupid-nuclear-powers-bogeyman/?mod=WSJBlog

May 12, 2008, 1:59 pm
It’s the Economics, Stupid: Nuclear Power’s Bogeyman
Posted by Keith Johnson

It turns out nuclear power’s biggest worry isn’t Yucca Mountain, Three Mile Island ghosts, or environmental protesters. It’s economics.

Costs: You ain’t seen nothing yet.

Rebecca Smith reports today in the WSJ (sub reqd.) on the biggest hurdle to the nascent nuclear-energy revival in the U.S.—skyrocketing construction costs. Though all power sectors are affected to different degrees by rising capital costs, nuclear power’s vulnerability puts it in a class by itself. Notes the paper:

A new generation of nuclear power plants is on the drawing boards in the U.S., but the projected cost is causing some sticker shock: $5 billion to $12 billion a plant, double to quadruple earlier rough estimates. Part of the cost escalation is bad luck. Plants are being proposed in a period of skyrocketing costs for commodities such as cement, steel and copper; amid a growing shortage of skilled labor; and against the backdrop of a shrunken supplier network for the industry.

Over the last five years, cost estimates for new nuclear power plants have been continually revised upward. Even the bean counters can’t keep pace. The paper notes:

Estimates released in recent weeks by experienced nuclear operators — NRG Energy Inc., Progress Energy Inc., Exelon Corp., Southern Co. and FPL Group Inc. — “have blown by our highest estimate” of costs computed just eight months ago, said Jim Hempstead, a senior credit officer at Moody’s Investors Service credit-rating agency in New York.

<snip>

And the cost estimates have continued to go up since then.

[bananas]

62. Amory Lovins has already been proven correct on the cost issue

which is why the Nuclear Energy Institute works so hard at trying to convince people that up is down and black is white.
Unfortunately, a lot of people fall for it.

[Nederland]

65. Question

Do you think its possible that Amory Lovins had something to do with the increased costs, making that a self fulfilling prophecy? Why is it that countries like Korea and France can build reactors much cheaper than we do?

[bananas]

63. NEI spokesman says global warming is a good thing

The Nuclear Energy Institute hired "environmentalist" Patrick Moore to do PR for them,
he runs a greenwashing PR company, there's lots more about him in this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=192849&mesg_id=192857

"Greenpeace co-founder praises global warming"

Edited on Wed Apr-08-09 12:03 PM by bananas

A news article from 2006:

http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2006/Jan/13/b...

Posted on: Friday, January 13, 2006

Greenpeace co-founder praises global warming
By Sean Hao

Genetically engineered sugarcane grows in a culture at the Hawaii Agriculture Research Center in 'Aiea. Hawai'i is one of the top U.S. sites for genetically modified crop research, attracting much debate.

Global warming and nuclear energy are good and the way to save forests is to use more wood.

That was the message delivered to a biotechnology industry gathering yesterday in Waikiki. However, it wasn't the message that was unconventional, but the messenger — Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore. Moore said he broke with Greenpeace in the 1980s over the rise of what he called "environmental extremism," or stands by environmental groups against issues such as genetic crop research, genetically modified foods and nuclear energy that aren't supported by science or logic.

Hawai'i, which is one of the top locations nationwide for genetically modified crop research, has become a focal point in the debate about the risks and value of such work. Friction between environmentalists and other concerned groups and the biotech industry surfaced most recently in relation to the use of local crops to grow industrial and pharmaceutical compounds. Last year that opposition halted a Big Island project planning to use algae for trial production of pharmaceutical drugs.

<snip>

[DU GrovelBot]

32. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

This week is our fourth quarter 2009 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!

[Nihil]

53. I like you Grovelbot ...

... you only post your spam once per thread ...

:P