The difference between those who embrace nuclear power and those who reject it

[kristopher]

This is drawn from published, peer reviewed research on the beliefs of the public and how those beliefs flow from values held.

1) Attitudes toward nuclear power are a result of perceived risk

2) Attitudes and risk perceptions are determined by previously held values and beliefs that serve to determine the level of trust in the nuclear industry.

3) Increased trust in the nuclear industry reduces perceived risk of nuclear power

4) Therefore, higher trust in the nuclear industry and the consequent lower risk perceptions predict positive attitudes toward nuclear power.

5) Traditional values are defined here as assigning priority to family, patriotism, and stability

6) Altruism is defined as a concern with the welfare of other humans and other species.

7) Neither trust in environmental institutions nor perceived risks from global environmental problems predict a person’s attitudes toward nuclear power.

8) Those with traditional values tend to embrace nuclear power; while those with altruistic values more often reject nuclear power.

9) Altruism is recognized as a dependable predictor of various categories of environmental concern.

10) Traditional values are associated with less concern for the environment and are unlikely to lead to pro-environmental behavioral intentions.

[Bonhomme Richard]

1. I never had a problem with Nuclear Power if...........

the company decision makers had to live within 10 miles of the plant.

[Dont_Bogart_the_Pretzel]

2. +1

[kristopher]

3. This is what that looks like in polling...

CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. Oct. 16-18, 2009. N=1,038 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

“To address the country’s energy needs, would you support or oppose action by the federal government to ?” (Half Sample)

"Increase coal mining"
Support 52, Oppose 45, Unsure 3

"Build more nuclear power plants"
Support 52, Oppose 46, Unsure 2

"Develop more solar and wind power"
Support 91, Oppose 8, Unsure 1

"Increase oil and gas drilling"
Support 64, Oppose 33, Unsure 3

"Develop electric car technology"
Support 82, Oppose 17, Unsure 2

"Require more energy conservation by businesses and industries"
Support 78, Oppose 20, Unsure 2

"Require more energy conservation by consumers like yourself"
Support 73, Oppose 25, Unsure 3

"Require car manufacturers to improve the fuel-efficiency of vehicles sold in this country"
Support 85, Oppose 14, Unsure 1

Asked of those who support building more nuclear power plants:
"Would you favor or oppose building a nuclear power plant within 50 miles of your home?"
Favor 66, Oppose 33

[HopeHoops]

4. I worked in two different nuclear power plants and I'm okay - WHOA! BIG DOG! BIG DOG!

Seriously. I was in the computer room, also known as the TCR (technical control room) with double airlock radiation-resistant entrances and 8' or so of concrete all around. It wasn't bad, but we did get kicked out once for a "minor nuclear emergency". We did a quick calculation based on the fastest car available (my '84 Thunderbird rental) and determined it was best just to go back to the hotel and get wasted.

[kristopher]

5. I used to plan for the aftermath of nuclear war...

when I was in the Air Force, and pretty much came to the same conclusion.

[HopeHoops]

6. I've got a poster that was originally printed in the late 60's - list of things to do.

It is a simple white poster with black lettering and it lists all of the precautions to take in the event of a nuclear attack. The very last instruction is, "tuck your head between your knees and kiss your ass good-bye."

The T-bird was fucking fast, but wouldn't have done much good if the plant had decided to blow. Hell, it took 15 minutes to get out of the fucking building!!! Then there was the 15 minute walk to where the car was parked. Just enough time to start the engine. Getting drunk made more sense than trying to outrun it.

[txlibdem]

90. I've got a poster that warns that the sun can blind you

OMG. Is nothing safe?!?

I think that poster of yours was about nuclear bombs. I wonder if we have any solar bombs (napalm? white phosphorous grenades?). Well, I guess since the sun is nothing but a huge nuclear fusion explosion, it is most closely related to the H-bomb that your posters were probably warning about.

[kristopher]

115. We were clearly discussing nuclear weapons.

You must have misread the conversation.

[txlibdem]

116. The article was clearly about nuclear power - not nuclear weapons

You must have misread the article and the OP.

Conflating nuclear weapons with nuclear power is just as wrong as being against solar power due to the fact that some little kids take a magnifying glass and burn poor innocent ants. OMG, you could even start a forest fire with solar power magnified.

[kristopher]

117. You butted into a discussion clearly about nuclear weapons, not nuclear power.

Get a grip.

[txlibdem]

124. Buttinski am I now?

Well, you're welcome. Someone had to inject some sanity into your little circle jerk.

The discussion was a hijack of the thread about nuclear power anyway. Or can't you anti-nukies keep your mind focused on a subject for more than 5 minutes at a time?

[kristopher]

126. Yes, when you repeat false statements about what was being discussed.

[txlibdem]

132. What false statements?

Should I quote you?

[Dogmudgeon]

7. Thread Review: "Paranoid, yet subtly pseudoscientific"

And it's " ... drawn from published, peer reviewed research ... " (In other words, you pulled it out of your ass.)

You've defined an entire, syllogistic-yet-non-logical, strict moral system, and anyone who doesn't follow it is a Bad Person (for example, someone whose family is a "priority"). And it's all based on the fact that you appear to lack the ability to tolerate people who have opinions with which you disagree.

I guess you also don't see the irony of writing in the turgid style of anti-Communists like Martin Dies, and anti-drug pamphlets given out to teenagers.

I usually don't like trotting out Mr. Rofl, but he insisted this time:

:rofl:

Now, if you want to discuss issues of http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=nuclear+risk+analysis&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart">nuclear energy and it's risks, http://www.sra.org/">whether perceived or scientifically determined, I would personally be happy to. BUT you will need to learn how to accept that sometimes people won't agree with you -- and that it doesn't make us bad people, nor does it mean that we pose a threat to you.

--d!

[kristopher]

8. The information above a product of a standard type of analysis in public policy

Google "values beliefs norms" and see what you get.

In depth semi-structured interviews are conducted to elicit as wide a range of norms as possible.

These norms guide behavior and are formed by values and beliefs.

To establish the values and beliefs that underlie the norms, the results of the interviews are used to design polling that elicits the range of values and beliefs among a statistically significant, randomized sample.

The results are subjected to regression analysis in order to detect and weigh correlations between the answers.

Rinse and repeat using the polling results as a basis of another round of interviews.

The results are posted in the OP.

[TheWraith]

14. So do I get to completely make up "data" too?

And get to use it to accuse anyone who disagrees with me of being a crypto-Republican?

[joshcryer]

20. Accusing people of being a crypto-Republicans is a common tactic by the two most vocal anti-nuke...

...people here. If you disagree with them you're a conservative ideologue.

[kristopher]

93. "crypto-Republican" is *your* interpretation of the reported data.

The analysis behind the OP is one level of analysis that is used to determine public attitudes.

It is based on their SELF REPORTED values and beliefs.

There are a variety of other types of analysis used to shed light on policy issues, but none are as good at establishing the full range of values to be studied as the process described at the link below.

Nor are any other methods as effective at subjecting those values to quantitative analysis to establishes the beliefs underlying the values.

In short, this is a damned good analysis and the results I reported are accurate.

The fact that *YOU* believe it is reasonable to conclude those results describe nuclear supporters as "Republicans" means *you* are characterizing the actual profile of the typical real, live nuclear supporter as "Republican".



http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x259801#259843

[kristopher]

147. Odd, that...

I expected a snappy comeback.

[kristopher]

153. Imagine that.

Still no reply to post 93. As many comments were left earlier, I'd have thought there would have been an eager response.

[NNadir]

9. This reminds me of Amory Lovins 1976 turgid but somehow famous...

...if incredibly stupid paper in the social "science" journal Foreign Affairs called http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/26604/amory-b-lovins/energy-strategy-the-road-not-taken">The Road Not Taken

It contains pseudo-intellectual gems like this one:

Recent research suggests that a largely or wholly solar economy can be constructed in the United States with straightforward soft technologies that are now demonstrated and now economic or nearly economic." Such a conceptual exercise does not require "exotic" methods such as sea-thermal, hot-dry-rock geothermal, cheap (perhaps organic) photovoltaic, or soIar-thcrmal electric systems. If developed, as some probably will be, these technologies could be convenient, but they are in no way essential for an industrial society operating solely on energy income.

Lovins, Amory, "The Road Not Taken," Foreign Affairs October 1976, 65-96 (The excerpt taken from page 83. I don't recommend that anyone try to wade through the previous 18 pages unless one is seeking a good soporific. It kind of reads like an Ayn Rand diatribe, except, believe it or not, it is even more stupid. Believe me, one really, really, really has to try to be more stupid than Ayn Rand.)

Of what does the excerpt and, in fact, the rest of the so called "paper" consist?

Platitudes with assumptions completely lacking in references, but long on smug self-serving definitions that are completely divorced from reality.

One of the most telling things about anti-nukes is that they define themselves as white knights using their own self created criteria for "white knights." To them it matters not a whit that no one, least of all them, applies the same criteria to their pals in the dangerous fossil fuel industry, or for that matter the solar or wind industry, that they apply to the nuclear industry.

As with Amory, saying "research shows" without citing a single reference to the source of the "research" is garbage. If my son, who is 16, turned in the same paper as Amory Lovins wrote 34 years ago, he would get, at best a "C" and I for one, would not argue against the teacher for giving that grade, since by the 10th grade, one expects people to cite references.

Have a wonderful evening.

[kristopher]

10. It is the product of a widely recognized, well accepted quantitative method of research...

...and analysis with roots in anthropology.

Given that the disjointed, rather manic nature of your own particular brand of reasoning must be supremely frustrating, I can understand your sour-grapes. I suspect that is what really drives you nuts about Lovins. he is an extremely influential person whose genius is real.

You on the other hand....

perhaps not so much.

[NNadir]

11. If one is accustomed to issuing imperious pseudointellectual platitudes, one

will never stop doing so, no matter how absurd one looks.

Some people do not have the wit to be embarrassed.

Just saying...


C-

[Confusious]

12. No link?

I smell bullshit!

"You've defined an entire, syllogistic-yet-non-logical, strict moral system, and anyone who doesn't follow it is a Bad Person (for example, someone whose family is a "priority"). And it's all based on the fact that you appear to lack the ability to tolerate people who have opinions with which you disagree."

which is shown over and over again by your characterizations of people who disagree as "conservative, republican, traditionalists, company shills, nuclear corpratists" It does not even enter into your mind that we may want the same results, but disagree on how to get there. If anyone shows a true inflexibility, it's you, and in spades.

I looked at google. nothing there showed anything like you posted. I think, like you usually do, you took a study and read into what you wanted and then posted it here. If not, then why no link?

[Dead_Parrot]

15. Personally, I'm printing 50 copies of the OP out to put on the roses.

Saves a trip to the stables, and some back-breaking shovel work.

[NNadir]

39. Have you considered the externalities of printing it out as opposed to just, um...

talking shit to your roses?

I remind you that magical thinking is involved, and prehaps your roses will magically be fertilized by shit talking rather than using physically printed shit.

[Dead_Parrot]

48. Hmm. Some sort of RMI podcast is indicated. nt

[kristopher]

16. Then...

...perhaps you should take your weekly bath early.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Confusious]

43. Didn't read the post did you?

just keep up with the same.

[kristopher]

18. "I looked at google. nothing there showed anything like you posted."

Then I'd suggest that your scholarship is in need of improvement. I just googled "like I posted" and the primary reference was at the top of the page.

[Confusious]

42. You use "scholarship" like republicans use "family values"

The person who uses the word the most usually doesn't have it.

your OP takes from the study and distorts the premise. If you had any real "scholarly" values, you wouldn't have done that.


if you add altruism to your google search, it turns up nothing.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[joshcryer]

19. You have it all wrong.

1) Attitudes toward nuclear power are a result of perceived environmental benefits.

2) Attitudes and environmental benefit perceptions are determined by previously held values and beliefs that serve to determine the level of trust in nuclear technology.

3) Increased trust in the environmental benefits of nuclear technology is a side effect of the factual environmental downsides of nuclear technology (it ranks with or better than coal-CCS). All technologies have an environmental downside, if killing birds through increased electrical lines or killing spawning grounds for a new dam.

4) Therefore, higher trust in the nuclear industry and the consequent lower risk perceptions predict positive attitudes toward nuclear power, for entirely legitimate reasons which the OP glosses over.

5) Traditional values are defined here as assigning priority to family, patriotism, and stability.

6) Altruism is defined as a concern with the welfare of other humans and other species.

7) Neither trust in environmental institutions nor perceived risks from global environmental problems predict a person’s attitudes toward nuclear power.

8) Those on this forum who are reasonable and are able to see through veiled misdirection tend to embrace nuclear power; they tend to exhibit altruistic values as much if not more so than "environmentalists" who reject certain forms of clean power toward their own agenda.

9) Altruism is recognized as a dependable predictor of various categories of environmental concern, until you "altruistically" want foreigners to build everything that you want to make toward environmental concerns. Then good old capitalism kicks in and all positive environmental effects are negated by new "clean" technologies, and growth patterns are unable to stop the catastrophic damage we are causing. For an "altruistic" person you sure avoid the fact that we'd need to spend some $100 trillion to stop the damage we are causing, while the markets are happily moving along spending a fraction of a fraction of that.

10) Traditional values are associated with less concern for the environment and are unlikely to lead to pro-environmental behavioral intentions, which is why it is unfair to box certain posters in this forum in has you have done, with a veiled insult intended to incite and not provide useful information.

Your whole thesis falls apart as no technology is addressed from a risk only perspective, but rather from a risk-reward perspective. Nuclear proponents on this forum, rightly, see nuclear power as a rewarding environmentally clean energy source which outweighs the risks.

[kristopher]

22. Explain the data in post 3 with your model.

[XemaSab]

32. Well put

:)

[kristopher]

No, it isn't. It is pure fantasy.

That screed has as its genesis memes provided by the propaganda arm of the nuclear industry, The Nuclear Energy Institute. Their sole job is to churn out misinformation for the gullible.

[Confusious]

46. He changes a few words, and now it's propaganda

from the nuclear industry?

Post 15 again.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=259801&mesg_id=259911

[joshcryer]

53. I changed a few words around.

You're not very bright.

[DrGregory]

87. I agree!

You're not very bright.
=========================

I agree with you about the mental capabilities of some here.

Yes - the whole field of liability law for nuclear power
plants looks strange.

But realize how we got this mish-mash. It is all due to
the attempt by some real STUPID and MISGUIDED legislators
in the 1950s who attempted to kill the fledgling nuclear
industry by attempting to impose unrealistic insurance
requirements that had ZERO relevance to any possible
accident consequences and were incapable of being met.

It was all just a "ham handed" attempt at killing the
nuclear industry before it got started. All due to a
bunch of "bleeding hearts" who thought ( term used loosely )
that the USA committed unspeakable evil in the way it
ended the second world war just a decade earlier.

Anything remotely associated with that act was an
anathema to some members of Congress.

Dr. Greg

[GliderGuider]

21. You do realize that there are other ways to characterize the differences?

The list you've put together is your way of seeing the issue, and appears to have been constructed to justify your particular conclusion. You seem to be trying to paint those who favour nuclear power as being selfish (i.e. not altruistic), traditional (i.e. not like us good progressives) and right wing (unlike us good lefties). Essentially this is an attempt to demonize those who hold a differing opinion.

Anyone on here who supports nuclear power is of course entitled to their opinion, as you are to yours. The opinions of some people on a web board make absolutely no difference in the grown-up arena where the debate has already been settled. As I've said before, regardless of any disputable technical factors, nuclear power is a moribund issue due the lack of public support and cost issues. I'm not sure why anyone on this board is beating that horse any more. He's dead, Jim.

[kristopher]

23. That isn't "my way" it is the reported results of what more than 1000 people told researchers.

[GliderGuider]

24. In that case reference the original data and conclusions, please.

Otherwise, it's just your opinion.

Regarding post 3, your list in the OP appears to elaborate conclusions that are not addressed in that skimpy C&P.

[kristopher]

25. Were you not one of those bitching about my posting the primary sources?

I'm pretty sure all of those screaming for references are the same people who scream "spam" when I post those sources without filtering them.

Find it yourself, I gave the google keywords.

[GliderGuider]

26. Nope, not I. Providing supporting links one time isn't spam. That's all I want here. n/t

[kristopher]

27. Very well.

You'll find it listed twice at the top of the page if you google /"Values beliefs norms" nuclear/.

Once under "scholarly articles" and again as the first web result.

[GliderGuider]

28. Thanks. You're basically re-stating the article's abstract.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01155.x/full

Since the turn of the 21st century, there has been a revival of interest in nuclear power. Two decades ago, the expansion of nuclear power in the United States was halted by widespread public opposition as well as rising costs and less than projected increases in demand for electricity. Can the renewed enthusiasm for nuclear power overcome its history of public resistance that has persisted for decades? We propose that attitudes toward nuclear power are a function of perceived risk, and that both attitudes and risk perceptions are a function of values, beliefs, and trust in the institutions that influence nuclear policy. Applying structural equation models to data from a U.S. national survey, we find that increased trust in the nuclear governance institutions reduces perceived risk of nuclear power and together higher trust and lower risk perceptions predict positive attitudes toward nuclear power. Trust in environmental institutions and perceived risks from global environmental problems do not predict attitudes toward nuclear power. Values do predict attitudes: individuals with traditional values have greater support for, while those with altruistic values have greater opposition to, nuclear power. Nuclear attitudes do not vary by gender, age, education, income, or political orientation, though nonwhites are more supportive than whites. These findings are consistent with, and provide an explanation for, a long series of public opinion polls showing public ambivalence toward nuclear power that persists even in the face of renewed interest for nuclear power in policy circles.

It's always a good idea to tell your audience where the information comes from if it's not original.

[kristopher]

29. As I said "drawn from the literature"

This isn't the only "literature" that went into the OP.

[GliderGuider]

30. "Drawn from" covers a multitude of scenarios

It's best to be explicit. That prevents uncharitable people like me from suspecting either plagiarism or the appeal to unnamed authorities.

[kristopher]

31. You mean people too lazy to look up the reference from the clear instructions provided?

I told people early on how to find it, the problem is that people like you are dedicated 100% to just looking for some means of discrediting either the message or the messenger. Since the facts are against y'all, those are the only straws you have to grasp at. It is very clear that the consistency demonstrated by the anti-renewable crew here is rivaled only by the US Congress "Party of No".

[GliderGuider]

33. Posting the link with the original article short-circuits all such objections

It also means you don't need to get combative and confrontational when trying to defend your oversight later on.

[kristopher]

35. It wasn't an oversight, but thanks for your opinion.

It was to highlight the hypocrisy of those of you promoting nuclear power though propagandistic techniques.

[NNadir]

41. At the risk, of course, of providing a clear picture of the stupidity of those who oppose the

world's largest, by far, form of climate change gas free primary energy, which would still be, as it has been decades, nuclear energy.

I would expect that there are many of my class who just love this thread. I know I do.

[kristopher]

49. Don't you hate it when you do that?

You know what I mean, you make an indignant statement deriding someone for being dumb, only to find out that your supporting statement is *wrong*?

Renewable energy sources contribute nearly 20% more carbon free energy than does nuclear. Not only that, but nuclear is set to decline by nearly half over the next 15 years while wind and solar have been and are predicted to continue increasing the amount of delivered electricity by around 30% per year.

Hell, hydro alone completely shuts out nuclear.

[NNadir]

51. Actually, the form of energy that killed more people in a single accident is not,

by any stretch comparable to the primary energy output of nuclear energy.

Nuclear produces about 30 exajoules of primary energy, hydro about 10.

Some people - called um, "educated people" actually think hydro sucks.

As for the dumb ass soothsaying about the demise of nuclear energy - you may be referring to the dumbell Amory Lovins 1980 prediction that "nuclear power is dead."

China announced a program to produce more electricity from nuclear electricity than the United States produces from coal, gas, nuclear, hydro, and the stupid trivial crap that our anti-nukes are always hyping combined.

Hydro - which killed about 200,000 people at Banqiao - not that one "renewables will save us" airhead is aware or cares about the greatest energy disaster of the 20th century outside of World War II, the first big time oil war - is also not particularly clean.

Hydro is not scalable either, unless, of course, one doesn't object to destroying the last remaining 17% of the world's free rivers.

I would not be surprised to learn that our "renewables will save us" airheads would be interested in proposing the old plan to place a dam at the opening of the Grand Canyon to make it one more shit filled reservoir on the destroyed Colorado, sort of like Glen Canyon.

But if I recall correctly, the "renewables will save us" airheads have pretty much destroyed the last remaining rivers, the Sulaween - the Mekong is next - the Danube, the Rio Grande, the Yellow, the Yangste, big parts of the Amazon system, and of course, it would be tragic if a single drop of the Colorado made it to the Gulf of California, wouldn't it.

By the way, I'm going to have huge fun with the contents of that swell social "science" paper you posted, the part about the education level of nuclear supporters vs. anti-nukes. (I of course, have always thought this part about education to be pretty obvious. I have never met an educated anti-nuke, ever.) .

It is hilarious, especially when it discusses that the "education factor" in supporters of nuclear energy vs anti-nukes. It would appear that the authors of this swell paper consider education to be the major correlated factor. No surprise there, eh?

I'm trying to decide if it should be its own thread or not.

Any of that swell advice of yours on this point? New thread or old thread? Enquiring minds want to know.

One thing I will say for you, is that your are probably the best straight man since Stan Laurel. That should count for something.

[XemaSab]

57. It's come to the point where I'm willing to admit that I am a shill

I'm a shill for big hydro. It's how I make my filthy lucre.

I've worked on the Sacramento, the Pit, the McCloud, the Feather, the Yuba, the Bear, the American, Cache Creek, the Tuolumne, the Merced, the San Joaquin, the Santa Maria, the Klamath, the Trinity, the Mad, the Van Duzen, the Elk, the Smith, the Eel, the Matilija, the LA, the Sisquoc, and the Kaweah.

I'm a bit of a big hydro expert, and I'm not a fan.

[NNadir]

59. Well, you hydro shill, since the fine person who wrote the OP hasn't answered....

...and since I have accessed the entire body of the mysterious "peer reviewed" paper that was referred to in the OP - a reference having been dragged, with much pain, out of the author by another correspondent - what's your feeling about whether or not I should make a new thread to quote the text?

In context, it's rather hilarious and delicious.

That much aside, I can say for you that at least you weren't an engineer on the Banqiao.

It's been a long time - in California at least - since Mulholland signed off on the Saint Francis dam hours before it collapsed.

The nuclear power industry was founded almost exactly 30 years after St. Francis failed, and operated 50 years after that, and still hasn't caught up to the number of people that dam killed about 450 people in 1928, nearly wiping out the entire town of Santa Paula.

To my knowledge, that was the worst in California, although nowhere near the worst in the world.

Whatever Roman Polanski may have done in his personal life, one cannot watch the movie "Chinatown" without coming away with a startling feel for Mulholland and the times during which dams destroyed the Owens Valley ecology forever.

Personally, though, I have grudgingly accepted the need for dams in the current emergency, although, if one looks at the scientific literature on the externalities of hydro, one finds, particularly along the tropical rivers, that the carbon dioxide/methane cost - the greenhouse gas cost - is surprisingly high for some of them.

Let us know if someone asks you about building a damn dam at the mouth of the Grand Canyon, by the way.

[kristopher]

62. In another post you said there were 6 citations for the paper...

Edited to correct header.
Google scholar shows 12.

Here is the abstract and full list of references for the paper:
Abstract and references are intended for public use and distribution

The Future of Nuclear Power: Value Orientations and Risk Perception
Stephen C. Whitfield,1 Eugene A. Rosa,2 Amy Dan,3 and Thomas Dietz3 ∗

Abstract
Since the turn of the 21st century, there has been a revival of interest in nuclear power. Two decades ago, the expansion of nuclear power in the United States was halted by widespread public opposition as well as rising costs and less than projected increases in demand for electricity. Can the renewed enthusiasm for nuclear power overcome its history of public resistance that has persisted for decades? We propose that attitudes toward nuclear power are a function of perceived risk, and that both attitudes and risk perceptions are a function of values, beliefs, and trust in the institutions that influence nuclear policy.

Applying structural equation models to data from a U.S. national survey, we find that increased trust in the nuclear governance institutions reduces perceived risk of nuclear power and together higher trust and lower risk perceptions predict positive attitudes toward nuclear power. Trust in environmental institutions and perceived risks from global environmental problems do not predict attitudes toward nuclear power. Values do predict attitudes: individuals with traditional values have greater support for, while those with altruistic values have greater opposition to, nuclear power. Nuclear attitudes do not vary by gender, age, education, income, or political orientation, though nonwhites are more supportive than whites. These findings are consistent with, and provide an explanation for, a long series of public opinion polls showing public ambivalence toward nuclear power that persists even in the face of renewed interest for nuclear power in policy circles.


1. Colvin J. Dawn of a new era. Nuclear Plant Journal, 2005;
23:42-44.

2. Moore T. License renewal revitalizes the nuclear industry.
EPRI Journal, 2000; 25:8-17.

3. International Atomic Energy Agency. Operational and Under
Construction Reactors by Country. Vienna, Austria: Interna-
tional Atomic Energy Agency, 2005.

4. Uranium Information Center. Nuclear Issue Briefing Pa-
per #16. Melbourne, Australia: Uranium Information Center,
2002.

5. Bisconti AS. Why public opinion about nuclear en-
ergy is changing. Nuclear Energy Review December:
70-72, 2006. Available at: http://www.business-briefings.
com/cdps/cditem.cfm?NID=2402#Public%20Understanding.

6. Rosa EA, Dunlap RE. The polls-poll trends: Nuclear energy:
Three decades of public opinion. Public Opinion Quarterly,
1994; 58:295-325.

7. Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI). Nuclear energy industry
poised for growth based on excellent performance of today’s
plants. NEI News Release, 2006.

8. Ansolabehere S, Deutch J, Driscoll M, Gray PE, Holdren JP,
Joskow PL, Lester RK, Moniz EJ, Todreas NE. The future
of nuclear power. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, 2003.

9. Sailor WC, Bodansky D, Braun C, Fetter S, Van Der Zwaan B.
Nuclear power: A nuclear solution to climate change? Science,
2005; 288:1177.

10. Bennhold K. Nuclear energy is making a global comeback.
New York Times, October 17, 2004.

11. Wald M. Hopes of building nation’s first new nuclear plant in
decades. New York Times, January 27, 2005.

12. The Economist. A new dawn for nuclear power? Economist,
May, 2001; 19-25.

13. Marshall E. Is the friendly atom poised for a comeback? Sci-
ence, 2005; 309:1168-1169.

14. Rhodes R. Nuclear power’s new day. New York Times, May
7, 2001.

15. Starr C. Societal benefit versus technological risk. Science,
1969; 236:280-285.

16. Freudenburg WF, Rosa EA. Public Reactions to Nuclear
Power: Are There Critical Masses? Boulder, CO: Westview
Press/ American Association for the Advancement of Science,
1984.

17. Wald M. Mississippi extends hospitality to nuclear power. New
York Times, January 27, 2005.
The Future of Nuclear Power 437

18. Morgan D. Restarting reactor could boost nuclear power in-
dustry. Washington Post, May 16, 2002.

19. Rosa EA. The future acceptability of nuclear power in the
United States. Paris: Institute Francais des Relations Interna-
tionales, 2004.

20. Rosa EA. The public climate for nuclear power: The changing
of seasons. In The Role of Nuclear Power in Global and Do-
mestic Energy Policy: Recent Developments and Future Ex-
pectations. Washington, DC: H.H. Baker, Jr. Center for Public
Policy Conference, 2007.

21. Stern PC, Dietz T, Abel T, Guagnano GA, Kalof L. A So-
cial Psychological theory of support for social movements:
The case of environmentalism. Human Ecology Review, 1999;
6:81-97.

22. Stern PC, Dietz T, Kalof L. Value orientations, gender and
environmental concern. Environment and Behavior, 1993;
25:322-348.

23. Schwartz SH. Are there universal aspects in the structure
and contents of human values? Journal of Social Issues, 1994;
50:19-45.

24. Schwartz, SH, Bilsky W. Toward a universal psychological
structure of human values. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 1987; 53:550-562.

25. Schwartz SH, Bilsky W. Toward a theory of the universal
content and structure of values: Extensions and cross-cultural
replications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
1990; 58:878-891.

26. Dietz T. “What should we do?” Human ecology and collective
decision making. Human Ecology Review, 1994; 1:301-309.

27. Dietz T, Stern PC. Toward realistic models of individual
choice. Journal of Socio-Economics, 1995; 24:261-279.

28. Jaeger C, Renn O, Rosa EA, Webler T. Risk, Uncertainty and
Rational Action. London: Earthscan, 2001.

29. Rokeach M. Understanding Human Values: Individual and
Societal. New York: Free Press, 1979.

30. Dietz T, Fitzgerald A, Shwom R. Environmental values. An-
nual Review of Environment and Resources, 2005; 30:335-372.

31. Slimak MW, Dietz T. Personal values, beliefs and ecological
risk perception. Risk Analysis, 2006; 26:1689-1705.

32. Frewer LJ, Scholderer J, Bredahl H. Communicating about
the risks and benefits of genetically modified food: The me-
diating role of trust. Risk Analysis, 2003; 23:1117-1133.

33. Greenberg M, Lowrie K, Burger J, Powers C, Gochfeld M,
Mayer H. Nuclear waste and public worries: Public percep-
tions of the United States’ major nuclear weapons legacy sites.
Human Ecology Review, 2007; 14:1-12.

34. Greenberg M, Lowrie K, Burger J, Powers C, Gochfeld M,
Mayer H. Preferences for alternative risk management poli-
cies at the United States major nuclear weapons legacy sites.
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 2007;
50:187-209.

35. Kasperson RE, Golding D, Kasperson JX. Risk, trust and
democratic theory. In Cvetkovich G, L ̈ofstedt RE (eds). Social
Trust and the Management of Risk. London: Earthscan,1999.

36. L ̈ofstedt RE, Rosa EA. The strength of trust in Sweden, UK
and the U.S.: Some hypotheses. Report of the 4th Seminar of
TRUSTNET, Paris, France, 2000.

37. Metlay D. Institutional trust and confidence: A journey into
a conceptual quagmire. In Cvetkovich G, L ̈ofstedt RE (eds).
Social Trust and the Management of Risk. London: Earthscan,
1999.

38. Poortinga W, Pidgeon NF. Exploring the dimensionality of
trust in risk regulation. Risk Analysis, 2003; 23:961-972.

39. Renn O, Levine D. Credibility and trust in risk communica-
tion. In Kasperson RE, Stallen PJM (eds). Communicating
Risks to the Public. The Hague: Kluwer, 1991.

40. Rosa EA, Clark DL, Jr. Historical routes to technologi-
cal gridlock: Nuclear technology as prototypical vehicle. Re-
search in Social Problems and Public Policy, 1999; 7:21-
57.

41. Siegrist M, Cvetkovich G. Perceptions of hazards: The role of
social trust and knowledge. Risk Analysis, 2000; 20:713-719.

42. Seigrist M, Cvetkovich G, Gutscher H. Shared values, social
trust, and the perception of geographic cancer clusters. Risk
Analysis, 2001; 21:1047-1053.

43. Seigrist M, Cvetkovich G, Roth C. Salient value similarity,
social trust, and risk/benefit perception. Risk Analysis, 2000;
20:353-362.

44. Slovic P. Trust, emotion, sex, politics, and science: Survey-
ing the risk-assessment battlefield. Risk Analysis, 1999; 19:689-
701.

45. Slovic P, Layman M, Clary BB. Perceived risk, trust and nu-
clear waste: Lessons from Yucca Mountain. In Dunlap RE,
Kraft ME, Rosa EA (eds). Public Reactions to Nuclear Waste:
Citizens’ Views of Repository Siting. Durham, NC: Duke Uni-
versity Press, 1993.

46. Earle TC, Siegrist M, Gutscher H. Trust, risk perception,
and the TCC model of cooperation. In Siegrist M, Earle
TC, Gutscher H (eds). Trust in Cooperative Risk Manage-
ment: Uncertainty and Skepticism in the Public Mind. London:
Earthscan, 2007.

47. Dillman D. Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design
Method. New York: Wiley, 1978.

48. U.S. Census Bureau. Table DP-2 (Profile of Selected So-
cial Characteristics: 2000), Geographical Area: United States,
2000. Available at: http://factfinder.census.gov/.

49. Schwartz SH. Universals in the content and structure of val-
ues: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries.
Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 1992; 25:1-65.

50. Stern PC, Dietz T, Guagnano GA. A brief inventory of values.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1998; 58:884-
1001.

51. Dunlap RE, Van Liere KD, Mertig AD, Jones RE. Measuring
endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: A revised NEP
scale. Social Science Quarterly, 2002; 56:425-442.

52. Dunlap RE, Van Liere KD. The “new environmental
paradigm:” A proposed measuring instrument and preliminary
results. Journal of Environmental Education, 1978; 9:10-19.

53. Peters E, Slovic P. The role of affect and worldviews as orient-
ing dispositions in the perception of nuclear power. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 1996; 26:1427-1453.

54. Arbuckle JL. Amos 5. Chicago, IL: Smallwater Corporation,
2003.

55. Gallup Poll. Expanding the Use of Nuclear Energy. Princeton,
NJ: Gallup Organization, 2007.

56. Dunlap RE, Kraft ME, Rosa EA. The Public and Nuclear
Waste: Citizen’s Views of Repository Siting. Durham, NC:
Duke University Press, 1993.

57. Flynn J, Slovic P, Mertz CK. Gender, race and perception of
environmental health risks. Risk Analysis, 1994; 14:1101-1108.

58. Kalof L, Dietz T, Guagnano GA, Stern PC. Race, gender
and environmentalism: the atypical values and beliefs of white
men. Race, Gender & Class, 2002; 9:1-19.

59. Mander J. Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television.
New York: William Morrow, 1978.

60. ABC/Time/Stanford University. Concern soars about global
warming as world’s top environmental threat. Department of
Political Science. Stanford, CA: Department of Political Sci-
ence, Stanford University, 2007.

61. Slovic P, Flynn JH, Layman M. Perceived risk, trust and the
politics of nuclear waste. Science, 1993; 254:1603-1607.

62. York R, Rosa E, Dietz T. Bridging environmental science with
environmental policy: Plasticity of population, affluence and
technology. Social Science Quarterly, 2002; 83:18-34.

63. Grewal D, Salovey P. Feeling smart: The science of emotional
intelligence. American Scientist, 2005; 93:330-339.

[NNadir]

64. Apparently you cannnot distinguish between a citation and a reference.

This, of course, is no surprise to me.

If one lives by googling - and almost all anti-nukes do - one is spectacularly unfamiliar with how the real scientific literature works.

[DrGregory]

79. Correct.

If one lives by googling - and almost all anti-nukes do - one is spectacularly unfamiliar with how the real scientific literature works.
========================================

Real scientists wouldn't accept the CRAP that gets accepted here
as "peer review".

Dr. Greg

[XemaSab]

63. You do what you gotta do

:patriot:

[Confusious]

45. So you admit to trying to hide the real article

because you knew it wouldn't back up everything you stated in the OP.

[kristopher]

50. Not exactly...

Of course you routinely show that your beliefs have no basis in reality, so it isn't odd that you'd arrive at the conclusion you wrote, but I divorced my summary from the articles that is is based on in order to compare the nukies reactions to when I post the primary source in full.

Y'all have provided perfect evidence (and you will see it again) that it doesn't matter what I post or how it is posted, you are not interested in discussing content of anything that threatens the nuclear energy industry. Your sole purpose is obstructing discussion and denying the progressive members of DU the opportunity to engage in productive discussion of one of the central planks of our party platform.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=259667&mesg_id=259667

[joshcryer]

55. Your OP is as close to the "primary source" as Obama is to Bush.

[Confusious]

58. Not exactly?

I'm a pragmatist. My entire life is dedicated to living in reality. The thing that gives me the greatest joy is fixing things that are broken. A car, a computer, a table. You can't fix things if you delude yourself as to the causes of why it is broken.

"I divorced my summary from the articles that is is based on in order to compare the nukies reactions to when I post the primary source in full"
"you are not interested in discussing content of anything"

You posted it in an offensive manner to elicit a response that would be offensive. A similar experiment would be call a bunch of black people the N word, and then complain about how violent they were and call that evidence.

"Your sole purpose is obstructing discussion and denying the progressive members of DU the opportunity to engage in productive discussion of one of the central planks of our party platform."

Which includes nuclear power, since the president is considered the leader of the party. If anyone wants to shut down discussion it's you. Lets discuss the benefits of nuclear power, and the disadvantages. Lets discuss the advantages and disadvantages of renewables.

You never want to do that. It's The imperious leader saying "this is what I want, if you disagree,then your "sole purpose is obstructing discussion and denying the progressive members of DU the opportunity to engage in productive discussion of one of the central planks of our party platform."

It reminds me of one person who said:

"you're either with us or against us"

Post 15 again

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=259801&mesg_id=259911

[XemaSab]

56. Right, like you don't ever promote anything

through spamming, bullying, lies, or egregious logical fallacies.

[Confusious]

47. From someone who posts articles like they were candy

NOT posting a link or the article raises a red flag the size of a city.

Could you be any more obvious?

[NNadir]

40. As it happens, I have accessed the full paper and collected five of six citations.

Predictably, based on a very cursory reading of the actual text, the OP is disconnected with the actual content of the paper.

I may discuss the actual paper this weekend if I am serious need of amusement. On the other hand, I actually have real work to do and children to raise and a wife to love.

But it is a rather wide target. So many opportunities for real fun, so little time.

[joshcryer]

54. I would appreciate that since I no longer have access to journals.

I know the OP won't give us a legitimate and honest overview of what the article says, as the very abstract there contradicts the obscene opinion he is trying to mislead people with (read the abstract, "nonwhites are more supportive than whites.")

[NNadir]

61. I think it deserves its own thread, and will post it this weekend. n/t.

[kristopher]

148. Let's make sure everyone can see the reality behind your promise.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=260147&mesg_id=260147

This is drawn from published, peer reviewed research on the beliefs of the public and how those beliefs flow from values held.

1) Attitudes toward nuclear power are a result of perceived risk

2) Attitudes and risk perceptions are determined by previously held values and beliefs that serve to determine the level of trust in the nuclear industry.

3) Increased trust in the nuclear industry reduces perceived risk of nuclear power

4) Therefore, higher trust in the nuclear industry and the consequent lower risk perceptions predict positive attitudes toward nuclear power.

5) Traditional values are defined here as assigning priority to family, patriotism, and stability

6) Altruism is defined as a concern with the welfare of other humans and other species.

7) Neither trust in environmental institutions nor perceived risks from global environmental problems predict a person’s attitudes toward nuclear power.

8) Those with traditional values tend to embrace nuclear power; while those with altruistic values more often reject nuclear power.

9) Altruism is recognized as a dependable predictor of various categories of environmental concern.

10) Traditional values are associated with less concern for the environment and are unlikely to lead to pro-environmental behavioral intentions.



Here is the abstract and full list of references for the paper:
Abstract and references are intended for public use and distribution

The Future of Nuclear Power: Value Orientations and Risk Perception
Stephen C. Whitfield,1 Eugene A. Rosa,2 Amy Dan,3 and Thomas Dietz3;

Abstract
Since the turn of the 21st century, there has been a revival of interest in nuclear power. Two decades ago, the expansion of nuclear power in the United States was halted by widespread public opposition as well as rising costs and less than projected increases in demand for electricity. Can the renewed enthusiasm for nuclear power overcome its history of public resistance that has persisted for decades? We propose that attitudes toward nuclear power are a function of perceived risk, and that both attitudes and risk perceptions are a function of values, beliefs, and trust in the institutions that influence nuclear policy.

Applying structural equation models to data from a U.S. national survey, we find that increased trust in the nuclear governance institutions reduces perceived risk of nuclear power and together higher trust and lower risk perceptions predict positive attitudes toward nuclear power. Trust in environmental institutions and perceived risks from global environmental problems do not predict attitudes toward nuclear power. Values do predict attitudes: individuals with traditional values have greater support for, while those with altruistic values have greater opposition to, nuclear power. Nuclear attitudes do not vary by gender, age, education, income, or political orientation, though nonwhites are more supportive than whites. These findings are consistent with, and provide an explanation for, a long series of public opinion polls showing public ambivalence toward nuclear power that persists even in the face of renewed interest for nuclear power in policy circles.


1. Colvin J. Dawn of a new era. Nuclear Plant Journal, 2005;
23:42-44.

2. Moore T. License renewal revitalizes the nuclear industry.
EPRI Journal, 2000; 25:8-17.

3. International Atomic Energy Agency. Operational and Under
Construction Reactors by Country. Vienna, Austria: Interna-
tional Atomic Energy Agency, 2005.

4. Uranium Information Center. Nuclear Issue Briefing Pa-
per #16. Melbourne, Australia: Uranium Information Center,
2002.

5. Bisconti AS. Why public opinion about nuclear en-
ergy is changing. Nuclear Energy Review December:
70-72, 2006. Available at: http://www.business-briefings.
com/cdps/cditem.cfm?NID=2402#Public%20Understanding.

6. Rosa EA, Dunlap RE. The polls-poll trends: Nuclear energy:
Three decades of public opinion. Public Opinion Quarterly,
1994; 58:295-325.

7. Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI). Nuclear energy industry
poised for growth based on excellent performance of today’s
plants. NEI News Release, 2006.

8. Ansolabehere S, Deutch J, Driscoll M, Gray PE, Holdren JP,
Joskow PL, Lester RK, Moniz EJ, Todreas NE. The future
of nuclear power. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, 2003.

9. Sailor WC, Bodansky D, Braun C, Fetter S, Van Der Zwaan B.
Nuclear power: A nuclear solution to climate change? Science,
2005; 288:1177.

10. Bennhold K. Nuclear energy is making a global comeback.
New York Times, October 17, 2004.

11. Wald M. Hopes of building nation’s first new nuclear plant in
decades. New York Times, January 27, 2005.

12. The Economist. A new dawn for nuclear power? Economist,
May, 2001; 19-25.

13. Marshall E. Is the friendly atom poised for a comeback? Sci-
ence, 2005; 309:1168-1169.

14. Rhodes R. Nuclear power’s new day. New York Times, May
7, 2001.

15. Starr C. Societal benefit versus technological risk. Science,
1969; 236:280-285.

16. Freudenburg WF, Rosa EA. Public Reactions to Nuclear
Power: Are There Critical Masses? Boulder, CO: Westview
Press/ American Association for the Advancement of Science,
1984.

17. Wald M. Mississippi extends hospitality to nuclear power. New
York Times, January 27, 2005.
The Future of Nuclear Power 437

18. Morgan D. Restarting reactor could boost nuclear power in-
dustry. Washington Post, May 16, 2002.

19. Rosa EA. The future acceptability of nuclear power in the
United States. Paris: Institute Francais des Relations Interna-
tionales, 2004.

20. Rosa EA. The public climate for nuclear power: The changing
of seasons. In The Role of Nuclear Power in Global and Do-
mestic Energy Policy: Recent Developments and Future Ex-
pectations. Washington, DC: H.H. Baker, Jr. Center for Public
Policy Conference, 2007.

21. Stern PC, Dietz T, Abel T, Guagnano GA, Kalof L. A So-
cial Psychological theory of support for social movements:
The case of environmentalism. Human Ecology Review, 1999;
6:81-97.

22. Stern PC, Dietz T, Kalof L. Value orientations, gender and
environmental concern. Environment and Behavior, 1993;
25:322-348.

23. Schwartz SH. Are there universal aspects in the structure
and contents of human values? Journal of Social Issues, 1994;
50:19-45.

24. Schwartz, SH, Bilsky W. Toward a universal psychological
structure of human values. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 1987; 53:550-562.

25. Schwartz SH, Bilsky W. Toward a theory of the universal
content and structure of values: Extensions and cross-cultural
replications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
1990; 58:878-891.

26. Dietz T. “What should we do?” Human ecology and collective
decision making. Human Ecology Review, 1994; 1:301-309.

27. Dietz T, Stern PC. Toward realistic models of individual
choice. Journal of Socio-Economics, 1995; 24:261-279.

28. Jaeger C, Renn O, Rosa EA, Webler T. Risk, Uncertainty and
Rational Action. London: Earthscan, 2001.

29. Rokeach M. Understanding Human Values: Individual and
Societal. New York: Free Press, 1979.

30. Dietz T, Fitzgerald A, Shwom R. Environmental values. An-
nual Review of Environment and Resources, 2005; 30:335-372.

31. Slimak MW, Dietz T. Personal values, beliefs and ecological
risk perception. Risk Analysis, 2006; 26:1689-1705.

32. Frewer LJ, Scholderer J, Bredahl H. Communicating about
the risks and benefits of genetically modified food: The me-
diating role of trust. Risk Analysis, 2003; 23:1117-1133.

33. Greenberg M, Lowrie K, Burger J, Powers C, Gochfeld M,
Mayer H. Nuclear waste and public worries: Public percep-
tions of the United States’ major nuclear weapons legacy sites.
Human Ecology Review, 2007; 14:1-12.

34. Greenberg M, Lowrie K, Burger J, Powers C, Gochfeld M,
Mayer H. Preferences for alternative risk management poli-
cies at the United States major nuclear weapons legacy sites.
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 2007;
50:187-209.

35. Kasperson RE, Golding D, Kasperson JX. Risk, trust and
democratic theory. In Cvetkovich G, L ̈ofstedt RE (eds). Social
Trust and the Management of Risk. London: Earthscan,1999.

36. L ̈ofstedt RE, Rosa EA. The strength of trust in Sweden, UK
and the U.S.: Some hypotheses. Report of the 4th Seminar of
TRUSTNET, Paris, France, 2000.

37. Metlay D. Institutional trust and confidence: A journey into
a conceptual quagmire. In Cvetkovich G, L ̈ofstedt RE (eds).
Social Trust and the Management of Risk. London: Earthscan,
1999.

38. Poortinga W, Pidgeon NF. Exploring the dimensionality of
trust in risk regulation. Risk Analysis, 2003; 23:961-972.

39. Renn O, Levine D. Credibility and trust in risk communica-
tion. In Kasperson RE, Stallen PJM (eds). Communicating
Risks to the Public. The Hague: Kluwer, 1991.

40. Rosa EA, Clark DL, Jr. Historical routes to technologi-
cal gridlock: Nuclear technology as prototypical vehicle. Re-
search in Social Problems and Public Policy, 1999; 7:21-
57.

41. Siegrist M, Cvetkovich G. Perceptions of hazards: The role of
social trust and knowledge. Risk Analysis, 2000; 20:713-719.

42. Seigrist M, Cvetkovich G, Gutscher H. Shared values, social
trust, and the perception of geographic cancer clusters. Risk
Analysis, 2001; 21:1047-1053.

43. Seigrist M, Cvetkovich G, Roth C. Salient value similarity,
social trust, and risk/benefit perception. Risk Analysis, 2000;
20:353-362.

44. Slovic P. Trust, emotion, sex, politics, and science: Survey-
ing the risk-assessment battlefield. Risk Analysis, 1999; 19:689-
701.

45. Slovic P, Layman M, Clary BB. Perceived risk, trust and nu-
clear waste: Lessons from Yucca Mountain. In Dunlap RE,
Kraft ME, Rosa EA (eds). Public Reactions to Nuclear Waste:
Citizens’ Views of Repository Siting. Durham, NC: Duke Uni-
versity Press, 1993.

46. Earle TC, Siegrist M, Gutscher H. Trust, risk perception,
and the TCC model of cooperation. In Siegrist M, Earle
TC, Gutscher H (eds). Trust in Cooperative Risk Manage-
ment: Uncertainty and Skepticism in the Public Mind. London:
Earthscan, 2007.

47. Dillman D. Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design
Method. New York: Wiley, 1978.

48. U.S. Census Bureau. Table DP-2 (Profile of Selected So-
cial Characteristics: 2000), Geographical Area: United States,
2000. Available at: http://factfinder.census.gov/.

49. Schwartz SH. Universals in the content and structure of val-
ues: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries.
Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 1992; 25:1-65.

50. Stern PC, Dietz T, Guagnano GA. A brief inventory of values.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1998; 58:884-
1001.

51. Dunlap RE, Van Liere KD, Mertig AD, Jones RE. Measuring
endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: A revised NEP
scale. Social Science Quarterly, 2002; 56:425-442.

52. Dunlap RE, Van Liere KD. The “new environmental
paradigm:” A proposed measuring instrument and preliminary
results. Journal of Environmental Education, 1978; 9:10-19.

53. Peters E, Slovic P. The role of affect and worldviews as orient-
ing dispositions in the perception of nuclear power. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 1996; 26:1427-1453.

54. Arbuckle JL. Amos 5. Chicago, IL: Smallwater Corporation,
2003.

55. Gallup Poll. Expanding the Use of Nuclear Energy. Princeton,
NJ: Gallup Organization, 2007.

56. Dunlap RE, Kraft ME, Rosa EA. The Public and Nuclear
Waste: Citizen’s Views of Repository Siting. Durham, NC:
Duke University Press, 1993.

57. Flynn J, Slovic P, Mertz CK. Gender, race and perception of
environmental health risks. Risk Analysis, 1994; 14:1101-1108.

58. Kalof L, Dietz T, Guagnano GA, Stern PC. Race, gender
and environmentalism: the atypical values and beliefs of white
men. Race, Gender & Class, 2002; 9:1-19.

59. Mander J. Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television.
New York: William Morrow, 1978.

60. ABC/Time/Stanford University. Concern soars about global
warming as world’s top environmental threat. Department of
Political Science. Stanford, CA: Department of Political Sci-
ence, Stanford University, 2007.

61. Slovic P, Flynn JH, Layman M. Perceived risk, trust and the
politics of nuclear waste. Science, 1993; 254:1603-1607.

62. York R, Rosa E, Dietz T. Bridging environmental science with
environmental policy: Plasticity of population, affluence and
technology. Social Science Quarterly, 2002; 83:18-34.

63. Grewal D, Salovey P. Feeling smart: The science of emotional
intelligence. American Scientist, 2005; 93:330-339.

[FBaggins]

65. Rofl! You really can't tell the difference?

You really can't find a middle ground between spamming dozens of paragraphs multiple times on the same thread and just cryptically claiming that your BS claims are the result of peer-reviewed research.

You know... like maybe one relevant paragraph and them a link to the original source material for context... the way everyone else does it?

[Confusious]

89. He's the imperious leader. He don't need no stickin' rules.

Rules are for the little people. Either that, or his "scholarly" mind can't understand the rules.

I thought I would give him the benefit of the doubt and go with the former.

[Nederland]

52. That is a North American centric view

nuclear power is a moribund issue due the lack of public support and cost issues.

This may be true in the US and Europe, but it is definitely not true in China, India and many other countries in the world.

[GliderGuider]

34. You should think the reactions on this thread as a sort of "peer review"

It's absolutely essential to the scientific process, isn't it?

[kristopher]

36. No, this isn't "peer review".

But I can see why someone of your inclinations would hope people would accept that premise. Peer review is what routinely proves y'all wrong.

[GliderGuider]

37. That's why I said "sort of"

We are your peers, and everything any of us posts here is up for review and comment. Opinions, when clearly marked, are treated as such. Repostings of other material are treated differently. Derivative material, when the source is not clearly identified, tend to be treated as original (i.e. as opinions) and judged accordingly.

If you try to claim "original" and "derivative" at the same time people tend to think you're blowing smoke.

Caveat scriptor.

[kristopher]

38. That isn't an acceptable premise either.

The people you are talking about are a very small number of nuclear supporters who have one mission here - to promote the interests of the nuclear industry. They aren't interested in legitimate discussion and nothing will be posted that negatively impacts nuclear power without a series of posts following that try out every imaginable logical fallacy in the effort to protect nuclear power. Their goal is obstruction, not dialog.

Just like you are doing now- how many posts have you made attacking me and my manner of posting and how many posts have you spent on the OP - which i demonstrated was legitimate just to allow you to get past the other crap. Yet for some reason you insist on continuing the personal attacks. Strange that, isn't it?

[Confusious]

44. See post 15

More of the same

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=259801&mesg_id=259911

[DrGregory]

75. BALONEY SQUARED

The people you are talking about are a very small number of nuclear supporters who have one mission here - to promote the interests of the nuclear industry. They aren't interested in legitimate discussion and nothing will be posted that negatively impacts nuclear power without a series of posts following that try out every imaginable logical fallacy in the effort to protect nuclear power. Their goal is obstruction, not dialog.
=========================================================================

The goal of many is GOOD SCIENCE and not the boogeyman scare tactics of the
anti-nuclear movement that proffers FALSE data and conclusions that are at
variance with the Laws of Physics.

I don't see the majority of scientists as people who merely promote the
interests of the nuclear industry. Scientists, and physicists in particular
don't carry water slavishly for a particular industry.

However, when we see the hard-won knowledge of science "trashed" by
FALSE, MISLEADING, and ERRONEOUS statements in an attempt to push what
are political positions; then scientists will speak out and call out
the ERRORS so that they don't propagate. The false "prophets" that
besmirch good science should be shown up to be what they truly are;
political hacks and shills.

Dr. Greg


Dr. Greg

[Tikki]

60. The difference is: Children who grew up too near nuclear ..

facilities and saw the consequences of an industry that did and will always put
profit above everything else.

Why is the land near my childhood home drowning in nuclear waste?

Tikki

[DrGregory]

85. Because...

Why is the land near my childhood home drowning in nuclear waste?
========================================================

Because the idiot anti-nukes got Congress to outlaw reprocessing
and recycling of spent fuel in the Nuclear NonProliferation Act
of 1978.

If you reprocess / recycle the long lived waste is recycled back
to the reactor and becomes short lived. Short lived waste you
wait for it to decay to stable, non-radioactive species.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/interviews/till.html

"Q: And you repeat the process.

A: Eventually, what happens is that you wind up with only fission products, that the waste is only fission products that have, most have lives of hours, days, months, some a few tens of years. There are a few very long-lived ones that are not very radioactive."

That's what France, UK, Japan, Russia, .... all the other nations
that employ nuclear power, and they don't have a problem - they
are not out looking for a mountain to hollow out.

Dr. Greg

[Radical Activist]

66. The insurance industry doesn't trust nuclear power.

Nuclear plants are too risky to insure. So why should the rest of us?

[Dogmudgeon]

67. Funny, but it's a thriving business in the Reality-Based universe

http://www.amnucins.com/">American Nuclear Insurers

http://www.nuclear-risk.com/">Nuclear Risk Insurers (UK)

http://www.nmlneil.com/members/default.aspx">Nuclear Electric Insurance (DE)

http://www.atompool.com/">Nordic Nuclear Insurers (SV-FI)

http://www.scm-rms.ca/NuclearInsurance_e.asp">Nuclear Insurance Association of Canada

Don't believe me? See for yourself. I'll even give you the URL:

http://www.google.com/search?q=nuclear+insurance">Google search on nuclear insurance

--d!

[Radical Activist]

68. It exists beacuse laws limit the liability of the nuclear industry.

If you know so much about it, then you also know that no insurer would accept the risk if the nuclear industry hadn't gamed the system by getting laws passed that limit their liability.

[Confusious]

69. Changing the goalposts? nt

[Radical Activist]

70. No. Reinforcing my point with more evidence.

[Name removed]

74. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Radical Activist]

78. No, it's a fact that the insurance industry won't accept the risk of nuclear plants.

The insurance industry knows that nuclear is too risky. That's why they won't insure nuclear power plants without a law that limits their liability in the case of an accident. It only proves my point. Here are two links that prove the truth of my claim.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%E2%80%93Anderson_Nuclear_Industries_Indemnity_Act

The Act establishes a no fault insurance-type system in which the first $10 billion is industry-funded as described in the Act (any claims above the $10 billion would be covered by the federal government). At the time of the Act's passing, it was considered necessary as an incentive for the private production of nuclear power — this was because investors were unwilling to accept the then-unquantified risks of nuclear energy without some limitation on their liability.


http://www.progress.org/archive/nuclear04.htm

Originally enacted by Congress in 1957, the Price-Anderson Act is a federal law designed to shield the nuclear industry from full accountability for its actions. In the event of an accident the industry’s liability is dramatically limited. No other industry receives this type of protection.

[DrGregory]

83. WRONG!

Originally enacted by Congress in 1957, the Price-Anderson Act is a federal law designed to shield the nuclear industry from full accountability for its actions. In the event of an accident the industry’s liability is dramatically limited. No other industry receives this type of protection.
========================================================

You really are a sorry piece of "work"

Evidently you are IGNORANT of the fact that the
Price-Anderson Act was patterned after liability
laws enacted for the AIRLINE industry.

There are other industries too, oil for example;
that are also covered by similar liability law.

The only thing unique about Price-Anderson is
that we had a bunch anti-nukes attempting to
set a liability requirement that exceeded the
value that scientists from our national labs
said would be the maximum.

No - the only thing unique about Price-Anderson
is the level of DISHONESTY amongst those that
disregard good science in favor of their own
politics.

Dr. Greg

[Radical Activist]

91. Using all caps with exclamation marks doesn't make your point any more valid.

There are many reputable sources that report the nuke industry could not have gotten insurance without the unique exemption on liability, which will put the burden on taxpayers in the case of a major accident. I've posted two of those sources. Your unwarranted faith in the nuclear industry and throwing insults doesn't change the facts.

[DrGregory]

102. WRONG AGAIN!!

There are many reputable sources that report the nuke industry could not have gotten insurance without the unique exemption on liability, which will put the burden on taxpayers in the case of a major accident. I've posted two of those sources. Your unwarranted faith in the nuclear industry and throwing insults doesn't change the facts.
==================================================

The FACTS are that the SCIENTISTS at Brookhaven and the
other US national laboratories said that the your made up
fairy tale CAN NOT HAPPEN.

Who are these unnamed "reputable" sources of yours. If they
are so reputable; then call them out by name.

However, I doubt any source you would name; since what would
happen in a nuclear reactor accident is a question NOT for
insurers or Greenpeace or whoever,

It is a SCIENTIFIC question - it is SCIENCE that will determine
what would happen in an accident. We have had the best scientists
in the nuclear field - those at the national labs - look at this
and they concluded that the fairy tales of destroying whole towns
are just that - fairy tales.

Nuclear reactors are NOT nuclear bombs. They can't destroy cities.

THOSE ARE THE FACTS!!

It is not FAITH in the nuclear industry that makes me pro-nuclear.

It is KNOWLEDGE - KNOWLEDGE of SCIENCE of how reactors work and
what they can and can NOT do under the Laws of Physics.

Why do you denigrate my knowledge by calling it "faith"?
To a scientist - THAT is an insult.

You are entitled to your own opinion - but NOT your own facts.
The fact of the matter is that what you call "facts" are NOT
facts - they are UNINFORMED opinion.

Dr. Greg

[Radical Activist]

104. No, I'm right that using all caps still doesn't make your claim valid.

What "made up fairy tale" are you referring to? Do you mean the well established facts I provided multiples links for which can be confirmed by many other sources?

OK, fess up. What's with your emotional attachment to the nuclear industry? Do you work at a plant? Stock investments?

[DrGregory]

106. You don't listen too well...reading comprehension problem?

What "made up fairy tale" are you referring to? Do you mean the well established facts I provided multiples links for which can be confirmed by many other sources?

OK, fess up. What's with your emotional attachment to the nuclear industry? Do you work at a plant? Stock investments?
==================================================

NONE!!! None what so ever. I do NOT work at a plant.
I am NOT invested in nuclear power.

Why is it that anti-nukes think that the only way someone
can be in favor of nuclear power is if they have some ulterior
motive - like being invested in it?

If you haven't read my posts - I am a SCIENTIST.

As a scientist, I object when the UNEDUCATED make
statements that are at variance with the laws of science.

In particular, your "made up fairy tale" that a nuclear
power plant can destroy a city. That is just plain WRONG!!!

A nuclear bomb can destroy a city, but a nuclear power plant
is NOT a bomb, and it can NOT destroy a city.

Your GULLIBILITY and LACK of science education have led you
to accept some fairy tale that reactors can destroy cities.

They can NOT - they are not bombs, and they don't look anything
like bombs. They happen to use the same physical force as a
bomb - but TNT and a wood-stove use the same physical force
( the Coulomb force ) and you can't blow things up with a wood
stove.

Your "well established link" are just links to people who are
just as lacking in knowledge as you are.

SCIENTISTS - the people who know how the laws of Nature work -
are the people to determine what would happen in an accident,
and what the consequences could be. It is, after all, the
laws of physics that govern what reactors can and can not do.

The scientists have answered this question. Scientists at the
national labs studied what the worst possible outcome could be
back in the '50s. They even assumed that the reactor didn't
have a containment building; when all commercial reactors have
containment buildings. They wanted to be sure to OVER-ESTIMATE
the consequences.

As for my so called "emotional attachment".

I HATE to see scientific truth DISGRACED by people who don't
know science and are out to push their own political agenda.
Science has no political agenda. Science truth is science truth.
Mother Nature does not take sides in politics.

Wnen you make claims that are scientifically FALSE and justify
them with your own FALSE sources that are as equally cavalier
about tossing scientific truth and reality; then you raise the
ire of any good scientist. We don't like LIARS.

Dr. Greg

[Confusious]

109. I just happen to be person who likes science/ broke student

I second his post.

[kristopher]

114. This is the scale of what is being insured against

Abstract intended for public distribution

Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences
Volume 1181 Issue Chernobyl
Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment, Pages 31 - 220

Chapter II. Consequences of the Chernobyl Catastrophe for Public Health

Alexey B. Nesterenko a , Vassily B. Nesterenko a ,† and Alexey V. Yablokov b
a
Institute of Radiation Safety (BELRAD), Minsk, Belarus b Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia
Address for correspondence: Alexey V. Yablokov, Russian Academy of Sciences, Leninsky Prospect 33, Office 319, 119071 Moscow,
Russia. Voice: [phone]; fax: [phone]. [e-mail]
†Deceased


ABSTRACT

Problems complicating a full assessment of the effects from Chernobyl included official secrecy and falsification of medical records by the USSR for the first 3.5 years after the catastrophe and the lack of reliable medical statistics in Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia. Official data concerning the thousands of cleanup workers (Chernobyl liquidators) who worked to control the emissions are especially difficult to reconstruct. Using criteria demanded by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the World Health Organization (WHO), and the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) resulted in marked underestimates of the number of fatalities and the extent and degree of sickness among those exposed to radioactive fallout from Chernobyl. Data on exposures were absent or grossly inadequate, while mounting indications of adverse effects became more and more apparent. Using objective information collected by scientists in the affected areas—comparisons of morbidity and mortality in territories characterized by identical physiography, demography, and economy, which differed only in the levels and spectra of radioactive contamination—revealed significant abnormalities associated with irradiation, unrelated to age or sex (e.g., stable chromosomal aberrations), as well as other genetic and nongenetic pathologies.

In all cases when comparing the territories heavily contaminated by Chernobyl's radionuclides with less contaminated areas that are characterized by a similar economy, demography, and environment, there is a marked increase in general morbidity in the former.

Increased numbers of sick and weak newborns were found in the heavily contaminated territories in Belarus, Ukraine, and European Russia.

Accelerated aging is one of the well-known consequences of exposure to ionizing radiation. This phenomenon is apparent to a greater or lesser degree in all of the populations contaminated by the Chernobyl radionuclides.

This section describes the spectrum and the scale of the nonmalignant diseases that have been found among exposed populations.

Adverse effects as a result of Chernobyl irradiation have been found in every group that has been studied. Brain damage has been found in individuals directly exposed—liquidators and those living in the contaminated territories, as well as in their offspring. Premature cataracts; tooth and mouth abnormalities; and blood, lymphatic, heart, lung, gastrointestinal, urologic, bone, and skin diseases afflict and impair people, young and old alike. Endocrine dysfunction, particularly thyroid disease, is far more common than might be expected, with some 1,000 cases of thyroid dysfunction for every case of thyroid cancer, a marked increase after the catastrophe. There are genetic damage and birth defects especially in children of liquidators and in children born in areas with high levels of radioisotope contamination.

Immunological abnormalities and increases in viral, bacterial, and parasitic diseases are rife among individuals in the heavily contaminated areas. For more than 20 years, overall morbidity has remained high in those exposed to the irradiation released by Chernobyl. One cannot give credence to the explanation that these numbers are due solely to socioeconomic factors. The negative health consequences of the catastrophe are amply documented in this chapter and concern millions of people.

The most recent forecast by international agencies predicted there would be between 9,000 and 28,000 fatal cancers between 1986 and 2056, obviously underestimating the risk factors and the collective doses.

On the basis of I-131 and Cs-137 radioisotope doses to which populations were exposed and a comparison of cancer mortality in the heavily and the less contaminated territories and pre- and post-Chernobyl cancer levels, a more realistic figure is 212,000 to 245,000 deaths in Europe and 19,000 in the rest of the world.

High levels of Te-132, Ru-103, Ru-106, and Cs-134 persisted months after the Chernobyl catastrophe and the continuing radiation from Cs-137, Sr-90, Pu, and Am will generate new neoplasms for hundreds of years.

A detailed study reveals that 3.8–4.0% of all deaths in the contaminated territories of Ukraine and Russia from 1990 to 2004 were caused by the Chernobyl catastrophe.

The lack of evidence of increased mortality in other affected countries is not proof of the absence of effects from the radioactive fallout.

Since 1990, mortality among liquidators has exceeded the mortality rate in corresponding population groups.

From 112,000 to 125,000 liquidators died before 2005—that is, some 15% of the 830,000 members of the Chernobyl cleanup teams.

The calculations suggest that the Chernobyl catastrophe has already killed several hundred thousand human beings in a population of several hundred million that was unfortunate enough to live in territories affected by the fallout.

The number of Chernobyl victims will continue to grow over many future generations.

[Confusious]

133. You don't listen do you

Chernobyl

Reasons have been given as to why that would not happen in the united states, but again, you ignore them and continue to post stuff like that as a reason.

Ignoring data isn't very "scholarly"

[DrGregory]

146. WRONG AGAIN!!

This is the scale of what is being insured against
==================================================

WRONG - the USA doesn't have ANYTHING like the Chernobyl
RBMK reactor in our fleet.

It's like posting a picture of the Hindenberg going
down in flames and saying that is what the airline
industry is insuring against.

A US reactor just CAN NOT DO - what Chernobyl did.
Just as a Boeing 777 won't explode in flames at the
mere spark of static electricity like the Hindenberg.

The Chernobyl reactor didn't have a containment building.
The Chernobyl reactor was 1940's technology.
The Chernobyl reactor was actually a nuclear weapons
production reactor that just happened to have a steam
cycle hooked to it so that the Soviets could make use
of otherwise wasted heat.
The Chernobyl reactor has reactivity characteristics
that are NOT ALLOWED in the USA.
The Chernobyl operators were conducting an ill-planned
EXPERIMENT on the reactor. We don't do the in the USA.

Just as the crash of the Hindenberg says NOTHING about
the safety of a Boeing 777, they just both happen to fly;
the accident at Chernobyl says NOTHING about the safety
of a US plant - they just happen to both be called reactors.
Otherwise, they are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.

Dr. Greg

[kristopher]

152. Poor reading comprehension strikes again.

Chernobyl scale.

[DrGregory]

155. I can read perfectly well.

oor reading comprehension strikes again.

Chernobyl scale.
==============================

The point is that there is NO NEED to insure
against something that CAN NOT HAPPEN because
it is forbidden by the Laws of Physics.


Let's assume you drive a car. You probably
have a liability insurance policy with a
limit of $300K or something like that.

Why don't you have liability coverage for
$1 BILLION?

Why aren't you insured for damages of that
SCALE?

The reason you aren't required to buy that
amount of insurance is that you and your car
can't do a BILLION dollars in damage.

If you car hits a large costly building, it's
not going to topple the building. How would
your car ever do so much damage as to warrant
a liability coverage of $1 BILLION?

So you aren't required to have that much coverage.

Likewise, because the large scale of the damage
done at Chernobyl was due to a UNIQUE situation;
a reactor with a TERRIBLE design; there's no need
to insure US power reactors to that level.

US power reactors CAN NOT DO what Chernobyl did;
their designs are such that the Laws of Physics
preclude the Chernobyl scale events from happening.

Dr. Greg

[kristopher]

161. Sure, the Titanic was unsinkable

The World Trade Center could never collapse.

The blowout preventer on a deep sea oil well could never fail.

Your hubris is nothing short of remarkable and your lack of knowledge is becoming the stuff of EE legend.

[DrGregory]

163. It's not hubris - it's physics

Sure, the Titanic was unsinkable
----------------------------------

That was White Star marketing that said that.

Scientists and engineers never said the Titanic
was unsinkable. Scientists and engineers knew
that the Titanic could still float if a maximum
of 4 of her water-tight compartments were flooded.

The long gash from the encounter with the iceberg
flooded more than the max of 4 compartments.

When are you going to learn that science can make
certain absolute statements. Science can say that
something won't happen if to do so violates the
Laws of Physics.

Dr. Greg

[kristopher]

165. How does the physics account for things like defective materials, poor workmanship,

... greed and/or deliberate sabotage?

Your claims are ridiculous.

[DrGregory]

166. What do you think the NRC is for?

How does the physics account for things like defective materials, poor workmanship,
===================================================================

What do you think the NRC is for? That's why every part of a nuclear power
plant is inspected, and documented - to be sure that we don't have
defective materials and poor workmanship.

Honestly, the EXACT same claim could be made for airliners.

So why aren't airliners falling out of the sky every day due to
defective materials and poor workmanship?

The reason is the FAA. Like the NRC, FAA inspectors are at every
step in airliner manufacture and maintenance.

Additionally, reactor designs are made to be tolerant of defective
materials and poor workmanship. You can't license a reactor in
which a single failure, or a small number of failures will cause
an accident.

Even if you have multiple failures, the systems are designed to
deal with them. As a last resort - reactors have containment
buildings to bottle up any accident.

The containment building work very well at Three Mile Island in
bottling up that accident. The only releases were intentional.
( There were areas wherein it was desired to put personnel, and
those areas were vented to limit the radiation exposure. All
releases were within the limits the plant the plant could legally
release ).

Dr. Greg

[DrGregory]

167. I guess we give up on a technological society

How does the physics account for things like defective materials, poor workmanship,
... greed and/or deliberate sabotage?
============================================

If one assumes that everyone that builds anything is going to cheat;
and use defective materials, or does poor workmanship, or even
resort to sabotage; then I guess the only thing to do is give
up on a technological society.

The people that built the boiler in your child's school were greedy
and used defective materials and poor workmanship, which is why
school boilers are blowing up every day and children are killed.

The people that build / maintain airliners are a sleazy bunch that
use defective materials to build / repair airliners, or they do
sloppy work, or deliberately sabotage airliners. That's why every
day we have a handful of airliners falling out of the sky with the
requisite carnage and toll in human life...

Practically any technology could be subject to such a vacuous claim.
Why don't we have the plethora of failures that should ensue?

Because we have extremely good oversight. When has there been
ANY nuclear mishap of any consequence attributable to defective
materials and the like?

There have been some questionable procedures that led to problem;
but the systems have always dealt with those. That's part of the
"defense in depth". Systems are designed such that local failures
remain local.

Again, if you can make that argument for nuclear power; then it can
be made for airliners, trains, skyscrapers.....you name it. Therefore
we should all go back to living on farms and doing everything with
manual labor.

After all, we can't trust to do anything by machine; there may be
a defective part in it.


Dr. Greg

[DrGregory]

168. Engineers do it all the time

How does the physics account for things like defective materials, poor workmanship,
==========================================

Engineers do it all the time. That's one of the reasons
for "safety factors" or "margins of safety"

Suppose a steel part has to be able to support a load of 1 lb.
If the part fails - something bad will happen.

The engineer doesn't calculate the size of steel part that will
support 1 lb; and hope it gets made correctly.

The engineer will specify / design the part to carry 10 lbs.
That way when someone makes a defective part that will only
carry 5 lbs; the part will still be able to handle the
requisite load.

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

How big a safety margin is determined so that even the worse
defects, or poorest workmanship; can still yield a serviceable
part.

Dr. Greg

[kristopher]

169. It only takes one...

Operating Experience
In general, the performance of nuclear power plant safety-related concrete structures has been very good. However, there have been a few isolated incidences of degradation that primarily occurred early in life and have been corrected.2 Causes generally were related either to improper material selection or construction/design deficiencies. Examples of some of these problems include low concrete compressive strengths, voids under the post-tensioning tendon bearing plates, cracking of post-tensioning anchor heads, containment dome delaminations, misplaced steel reinforcement, post-tensioning system button-head deficiencies, and water-contaminated corrosion inhibitors.

Several incidences of degradation related to environmental effects have occurred. Examples include corrosion of steel reinforcement in water intake structures, corrosion of post-tensioning tendon wires, leaching of tendon gallery concrete, low prestressing forces, and leakage of corrosion inhibitors from tendon sheaths. Other aging-related problems include cracking and spalling of containment dome concrete due to freezing and thawing, and corrosion of containment liners. As the plants age incidences of degradation are expected to increase, primarily due to environmental effects. Additional information on degradation of U.S. nuclear power plant concrete structures is available,3,4 as well as problem areas experienced with nuclear power plant concrete structures in other countries.5

The reactor core at the Davis-Besse nuclear plant sits within a metal pot designed to withstand pressures up to 2,500 pounds per square inch. The pot -- called the reactor vessel -- has carbon steel walls nearly six inches thick to provide the necessary strength. Because the water cooling the reactor contains boric acid that is highly corrosive to carbon steel, the entire inner surface of the reactor vessel is covered with 3/16-inch thick stainless steel.

But water routinely leaked onto the reactor vessel's outer surface. Because the outer surface lacked a protective stainless steel coating, boric acid ate its way through the carbon steel wall until it reached the backside of the inner liner. High pressure inside the reactor vessel pushed the stainless steel outward into the cavity formed by the boric acid. The stainless steel bent but did not break. Cooling water remained inside the reactor vessel not because of thick carbon steel but due to a thin layer of stainless steel. The plant's owner ignored numerous warning signs spanning many years to create the reactor with a hole in its head.

Workers repairing one of five cracked control rod drive mechanism (CRDM) nozzles at Davis-Besse discovered extensive damage to the reactor vessel head. The reactor vessel head is the dome-shaped upper portion of the carbon steel vessel housing the reactor core. It can be removed when the plant is shut down to allow spent nuclear fuel to be replaced with fresh fuel. The CRDM nozzles connect motors mounted on a platform above the reactor vessel head to control rods within the reactor vessel. Operators withdraw control rods from the reactor core to startup the plant and insert them to shut down the reactor.

The workers found a large hole in the reactor vessel head next to CRDM nozzle #3. The hole was about six inches deep, five inches long, and seven inches wide. The hole extended to within 1-1/2 inches of the adjacent CRDM nozzle #11. The stainless steel liner welded to the inner surface of the reactor vessel head for protection against boric acid was at the bottom of the hole. This liner was approximately 3/16-inch thick and had bulged outward about 1/8-inch due to the high pressure (over one ton per square inch) inside the reactor vessel.

What could have happened?

A loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA) occurs if the stainless steel liner fails or CRDM nozzle #3 is ejected. The water cooling the reactor core quickly empties through the hole into the containment building. The containment building is made of reinforced concrete designed to withstand the pressure surge from the flow through the break.

To compensate for the reactor water exiting through the hole, water inside the pressurizer (PZR) and the cold leg accumulators flows into the reactor vessel. This initial makeup is supplemented by water from the Refueling Water Storage Tank (RWST) delivered to the reactor vessel by the high, intermediate, and low pressure injection pumps. The makeup water re-fills the reactor vessel and overflows out the hole in the reactor vessel head. Approximately 30 to 45 minutes later, the RWST empties. Operators close valves between the pumps and the RWST and open valves between the low pressure injection (RHR) pumps and the containment sump. Water pouring from the broken reactor vessel head drains to the containment sump where the RHR pumps recycle it to the reactor vessel. A cooling water system supplies water to the RHR heat exchanger shown to the left of the RHR pump to remove heat generated by the reactor core.
On paper, that's how the safety systems would have functioned to protect the public. But the following examples suggest that things might not have gone by the book:

-The Three Mile Island nuclear plant experienced a loss of coolant accident in March 1979. Emergency
pumps automatically started to replace the water flowing out the leak. Operators turned off the pumps
because instruments falsely indicated too much water in the reactor vessel. Within two hours, the reactor
core overheated and melted, triggering the evacuation of nearly 150,000 people.

-At the Callaway nuclear plant in 2001, workers encountered problems while testing one of the emergency
pumps. Investigation revealed that a foam-like bladder inside the RWST was flaking apart. Water carried
chunks of debris to the pump where it blocked flow. The debris would have disabled all the emergency
pumps during an accident.

-At the Haddam Neck nuclear plant in 1996, the NRC discovered the piping carrying water from the RWST
to the reactor vessel was too small. It was long enough but it was not wide enough to carry enough water
during an accident to re-fill the reactor vessel in time to prevent meltdown. The plant operated for nearly 30
years with this undetected vulnerability.

-At several US and foreign nuclear power plants, including the Limerick nuclear plant 8 years ago, the force
of water/steam entering the containment building during a loss of coolant accident has blown insulation off
piping and equipment. The water carried that insulation and other debris into the containment sump. The
debris clogged the piping going to the emergency pumps much like hair clogs a bathtub drain. According to
a recent government report, 46 percent of US nuclear plants are very likely to experience blockage in the
containment sumps in event of a hole the size found at Davis-Besse opens up. For slightly larger holes, the
chances of failure increase to 82 percent.<1>

Thus, events at Davis-Besse may have gone by the book had the stainless steel failed it would have become the subject of many books on the worst loss of coolant accident in US history...
UCS -- Aging Nuclear Plants -- Davis-Besse: The Reactor with a Hole in its Head

http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/nuclear_power/acfnx8tzc.pdf







Scapegoating of Davis Besse by NRC
http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/federal-agency-scapegoating-0141.html

Retrospective
http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_power/nuclear_power_risk/safety/davis-besse-retrospective.html

Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences
Volume 1181 Issue Chernobyl
Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment, Pages 31 - 220

Chapter II. Consequences of the Chernobyl Catastrophe for Public Health

Alexey B. Nesterenko a , Vassily B. Nesterenko a ,† and Alexey V. Yablokov b
a
Institute of Radiation Safety (BELRAD), Minsk, Belarus b Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia
Address for correspondence: Alexey V. Yablokov, Russian Academy of Sciences, Leninsky Prospect 33, Office 319, 119071 Moscow,
Russia. Voice: [phone]; fax: [phone]. [e-mail]
†Deceased


ABSTRACT

Problems complicating a full assessment of the effects from Chernobyl included official secrecy and falsification of medical records by the USSR for the first 3.5 years after the catastrophe and the lack of reliable medical statistics in Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia. Official data concerning the thousands of cleanup workers (Chernobyl liquidators) who worked to control the emissions are especially difficult to reconstruct. Using criteria demanded by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the World Health Organization (WHO), and the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) resulted in marked underestimates of the number of fatalities and the extent and degree of sickness among those exposed to radioactive fallout from Chernobyl. Data on exposures were absent or grossly inadequate, while mounting indications of adverse effects became more and more apparent. Using objective information collected by scientists in the affected areas—comparisons of morbidity and mortality in territories characterized by identical physiography, demography, and economy, which differed only in the levels and spectra of radioactive contamination—revealed significant abnormalities associated with irradiation, unrelated to age or sex (e.g., stable chromosomal aberrations), as well as other genetic and nongenetic pathologies.

In all cases when comparing the territories heavily contaminated by Chernobyl's radionuclides with less contaminated areas that are characterized by a similar economy, demography, and environment, there is a marked increase in general morbidity in the former.

Increased numbers of sick and weak newborns were found in the heavily contaminated territories in Belarus, Ukraine, and European Russia.

Accelerated aging is one of the well-known consequences of exposure to ionizing radiation. This phenomenon is apparent to a greater or lesser degree in all of the populations contaminated by the Chernobyl radionuclides.

This section describes the spectrum and the scale of the nonmalignant diseases that have been found among exposed populations.

Adverse effects as a result of Chernobyl irradiation have been found in every group that has been studied. Brain damage has been found in individuals directly exposed—liquidators and those living in the contaminated territories, as well as in their offspring. Premature cataracts; tooth and mouth abnormalities; and blood, lymphatic, heart, lung, gastrointestinal, urologic, bone, and skin diseases afflict and impair people, young and old alike. Endocrine dysfunction, particularly thyroid disease, is far more common than might be expected, with some 1,000 cases of thyroid dysfunction for every case of thyroid cancer, a marked increase after the catastrophe. There are genetic damage and birth defects especially in children of liquidators and in children born in areas with high levels of radioisotope contamination.

Immunological abnormalities and increases in viral, bacterial, and parasitic diseases are rife among individuals in the heavily contaminated areas. For more than 20 years, overall morbidity has remained high in those exposed to the irradiation released by Chernobyl. One cannot give credence to the explanation that these numbers are due solely to socioeconomic factors. The negative health consequences of the catastrophe are amply documented in this chapter and concern millions of people.

The most recent forecast by international agencies predicted there would be between 9,000 and 28,000 fatal cancers between 1986 and 2056, obviously underestimating the risk factors and the collective doses. On the basis of I-131 and Cs-137 radioisotope doses to which populations were exposed and a comparison of cancer mortality in the heavily and the less contaminated territories and pre- and post-Chernobyl cancer levels, a more realistic figure is 212,000 to 245,000 deaths in Europe and 19,000 in the rest of the world. High levels of Te-132, Ru-103, Ru-106, and Cs-134 persisted months after the Chernobyl catastrophe and the continuing radiation from Cs-137, Sr-90, Pu, and Am will generate new neoplasms for hundreds of years.

A detailed study reveals that 3.8–4.0% of all deaths in the contaminated territories of Ukraine and Russia from 1990 to 2004 were caused by the Chernobyl catastrophe. The lack of evidence of increased mortality in other affected countries is not proof of the absence of effects from the radioactive fallout. Since 1990, mortality among liquidators has exceeded the mortality rate in corresponding population groups.

From 112,000 to 125,000 liquidators died before 2005—that is, some 15% of the 830,000 members of the Chernobyl cleanup teams. The calculations suggest that the Chernobyl catastrophe has already killed several hundred thousand human beings in a population of several hundred million that was unfortunate enough to live in territories affected by the fallout. The number of Chernobyl victims will continue to grow over many future generations.

[Name removed]

86. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DrGregory]

84. EXACTLY!!!

I am a leftist myself. I am dreading how much damage control we will have to do when the world demands of us, "Why did you terrify us and LIE?"

================================

They are their own worst enemies because sooner or later the TRUTH will prevail.

They will have ZERO credibility - and the "left" will be soiled with their stench.

Dr. Greg

[Name removed]

88. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DrGregory]

82. Learn how insurance works...

If you know so much about it, then you also know that no insurer would accept the risk if the nuclear industry hadn't gamed the system by getting laws passed that limit their liability.
===============================================================

More of this CRAP that the insurers need a liability limit.

NO - the liability of the insurer is CAPPED at the policy limit.
There's NO NEED for a law to cap the liability of insurance
companies - and we don't have one.

You believed the NONSENSE someone told you; and you compound
your error by attempting to defend the nonsense.

Dr. Greg

[DrGregory]

77. FALSE!!!

You've fallen for one of the anti-nuke untruths.

Nuclear plants ARE insured by commercial underwriters.

They HAVE to be - it is a condition of their license
and a condition of the Price-Anderson act.

A little history lesson is in order. Back in the '50s
when nuclear power was first starting, Congress wondered
what type of insurance requirements should be written into
law. How bad could a nuclear accident be?

In order to determine that, the AEC gave that task to the
scientists at Brookhaven National Lab to study. They did
a study in which they assumed everything that could go wrong,
did; and everything that could go right, didn't. They assumed
the power plant did NOT have a containment building. They did
everything they could to OVERESTIMATE the damage, and hence give
Congress an upper limit.

However, there were those in Congress, then as now, that opposed
nuclear power and wanted to kill the fledgling industry by foisting
excessive insurance requirements on it. Those forces didn't like
the Brookhaven study. They said the insurance requirements had to
be essentially infinite. They claimed that unless the requirements
were as high as they said, in the event of an accident, members of
the general public would sustain a loss.

The more moderate members of Congress addressed this with a 2-tier
protection scheme in the Price-Anderson act. The utilities would
be required to get insurance from commercial underwriters at a level
consistent with the true estimations for potential loss.

To address the concerns of the anti-nuke critics, a second tier was
defined if the first was insufficient. The Government would step
in and pay damages in excess of what was covered by the insurance.

In the event this second tier is necessary, and the Government did
have to pay damages, the Government would then collect those damages
from the pooled assets of ALL nuclear utilities.

The Government has yet to pay out dollar ONE under this 2nd tier
provision. However, the anti-nukes call it a "subsidy". The
Government has yet to pay out any money, and if it did, the Government
gets reimbursed. Some subsidy.

Evidently someone told you the LIE that insurance companies don't
insure nuclear power plants. They DO!! What they will NOT do is
write a policy for a value many times greater than the worst consequences.
Try getting a BILLION dollar policy on your car insurance. Even if you
could afford it, a company won't write one, since a car accident can't
do a BILLION dollars worth of damages.

Someone told you a LIE, and you didn't check it out to see if it were
true. Then you repeat the LIE here, and the process continues.

POOR scholarship, really POOR scholarship.

Dr. Greg

[Radical Activist]

80. TRUE!!! No one will insure nuclear without a special law to limit liability.

That's because, otherwise, nuclear is too big of a risk to accept.

[DrGregory]

81. BALONEY!!!

No one will insure nuclear without a special law to limit liability.
=======================================================

Evidently you have zero idea of how insurance works.

An insurance company does NOT need a law to limit liability.

The exposure of the insurance company is limited to the value
of the policy. Why do you ERRONEOUSLY say that we needed a law
to limit liability?

The insurance company knows how bad an accident can get from
the Brookhaven study. They write a policy for $X billion dollars,
and in case of an accident, their exposure is limited to $X billion dollars.

The insurance industry has NO NEED for a liability limit - that limit
is part of the policy. What about basic insurance law / practice don't
you understand?

Suppose you get a $300K automobile liability coverage from, say, Geico.

Does Geico need a law to limit their exposure? NO!! Their exposure
is limited to $300K by the policy. They don't need a law limiting
liability. They cover you for $300K and charge you a premium commensurate
with that exposure, and the probability that they will have to pay it.

Why does an insurance company need a liability limit?

GADS - poor scholarship just became POOR UNDERSTANDING.

Dr. Greg

[Radical Activist]

92. Spin, spin, spin.

It's not the insurer that needs the liability limit. It's the owner of the nuclear power plant that needs it because no insurer would cover the full cost of a major nuclear accident. What insurer will offer to cover the cost of blowing up an entire town and killing thousands of people? None! It would bankrupt any insurance company and the plant owner if it ever happened. So, they got a special law that gets taxpayers to cover the costs of an accident beyond the liability limit. There would be no nuclear industry without that special law to rig the system.

[Confusious]

94. Nuclear reactors don't explode.

If you can't be honest and/or correct about that, why should I listen to anything else you have to say?

[Radical Activist]

95. Red herring.

Fine, go off on a tangent about my choice of words. Your nitpicking doesn't refute the fact that the nuclear industry could not insure their plants without a special law to put much of the liability burden onto taxpayers.

[Confusious]

96. Your choice of words is the entire point

really, if you can't discuss things without going off into hyperbole, then there's really no point to listen. Wasn't it you who said theree's was no insurance for nuclear reactors? From what I read, insurance companies fall all over themselves to insure nuclear reactors, if you look it up.

As far a subsities for nuclear, Germany is going to spend 53 billion in peoples taxes for 3 percent of their energy. 2.5 trillion for 100 percent. How much are we going to spend to pay 5 times more for solar and wind alone?

[Radical Activist]

97. I did look it up.

I already gave two links proving my point. You can easily find others if you don't like those sources.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=259801&mesg_id=260067

What's the point of complaining about wind and solar subsidies? Coal and nuclear are more heavily subsidized. Coal especially. If you take away coal subsidies at every level then it's not any cheaper than wind. How much more are we going to spend to give an unfair advantage to dirty fuel sources?

[DrGregory]

100. BALONEY!

Coal and nuclear are more heavily subsidized.
==========================================

WHERE is nuclear "subsidized"?

Where do US taxpayer dollars go the the nuclear industry?

If anything, the nuclear industry is subsidizing the US
Government. The Government TAXES the nuclear industry
for waste disposal - about $20 Billion so far which was
supposed to pay for Yucca Mountain. That's been canceled
So what did the nuclear industry get for $20 Billion?

Also don't do what most anti-nukes do and point to all
the money the USA spends on nuclear weapons. That is NOT
the nuclear industry.

That's like saying the Government subsidizes airlines because
of all the money they pay to Boeing for fighters / bombers for
the Pentagon.

Show me a subsidy - money from the Government to the industry.

Dr. Greg

[Confusious]

101. $10 billion payed by the industry

Which means they carry insurance for that amount.

"You didn't read your own link to Price-Anderson. If the
Government has to pay - then the nuclear utilities have
to PAY THE GOVERNMENT BACK."

Dr greg.


The reason I bring up wind and solar subsidies is because we're going to be paying much more then the nuclear industry gets to set things up. While I'm not against solar or wind, I don't like the "this is free, this is expensive" bullshit argument.

Get enough solar panels, we're going to have to set up funds to clean up the heavy metals that will leach out of the solar panels in the waste dumps.


They are both expensive, in different ways, so your complaining about it is your "red herring."

[DrGregory]

103. For the record...

I don't like the "this is free, this is expensive" bullshit argument.
==================================================================

Hey I agree.

For the record, I'm NOT against either wind nor solar.

I believe we need a MIX.

What I'm against are those that say one or the other is going
to do it all - and do it for "free".

For example, solar has a VERY BIG downside - it doesn't work at night.

If we go 100% solar as some here "think" we should; then what do we do about
energy at night? Some proponents say we don't need energy at night - that
"baseload" is a bunch of industry propaganda. We need energy at night because
we all have refrigerators and we need them to work at night - or what is the point?
So 100% solar is a NON-STARTER.

That doesn't mean there isn't a place for solar or a place for wind. However,
they won't be the major players. The National Academy of Science and Engineering
say that solar, wind and renewables should be in the mix to about 20% max.

The other 80% should be carried by nuclear and hydro, with nuclear having the
lion's share. The National Academy has a good plan - why don't we listen to
our scientists and follow it? But NO!! The environmentalists have to play
politics, and to Hell with the Earth.

Dr. Greg

[Radical Activist]

105. "I believe we need a MIX."

If only I had a dollar for every time I heard that line from a spokesperson for the coal or nuclear industry. I agree on this one. We need a more balanced mix than the roughly 49/47 split of coal/nuclear we have now. Which means we can stop building coal and nuclear for at least the next two decades while we build enough wind and solar to make up 30% of the power supply. Once we add renewables and shut down coal and nuclear plants, then we'll have a more balanced mix. Given that, do you support a ban on building new nuclear plants for the next 20 years while we build renewable sources?

You wrote: "If we go 100% solar as some here "think" we should"
Oh yes, another popular industry straw-man. No, people aren't arguing for 100% solar. That's stupid.

[DrGregory]

107. Why not get some FACTS - instead of making the up?

If only I had a dollar for every time I heard that line from a spokesperson for the coal or nuclear industry. I agree on this one. We need a more balanced mix than the roughly 49/47 split of coal/nuclear we have now.
==============================================================

Where did you EVER get this 49 / 47 split of coal / nuclear.

It's so EASY to get FACTS in the age of the Internet.

The USA is about 50% coal - you are almost right there.

However, in nuclear you are 100% in error - you are off by
a factor of 2

Nuclear accounts for about 20%-25% of our electricity - NOT 47%

In addition to the 50% coal, we have about 20% gas. Nuclear is about 20%.
Hydro is about 7-9% and a percent or two of miscellaneous sources -
jet engine derivative gas turbines used for peaking units for example.

As I stated before, my mix is consistent with the one determined
by the National Academy of Science and Engineering.

The Academy says we should be 20% renewable and 80% nuclear.

So why would we have a moratorium on nuclear - we are behind what
the National Academy recommends now.

Dr. Greg

[Confusious]

108. no, because we don't have time

in the next ten years, if we don't do something about emissions, global warming will eat us.

besides that, if solar and wind are so superior, why stop nuclear? are they so weak you need to handicap the competition?

49/47 - more erroneous "facts"

[DrGregory]

110. Tipping Point.

Edited on Sun Oct-03-10 08:00 PM by Confusious
in the next ten years, if we don't do something about emissions, global warming will eat us.

besides that, if solar and wind are so superior, why stop nuclear? are they so weak you need to handicap the competition?
=====================================================================

EXACTLY! So many are ignorant of the "tipping point". If things get
too unbalanced with regard to CO2; it won't matter what we do. If we
go the "renewable" route, and then find out we should have included
more nuclear - it will be too late - we don't have the luxury of time.

One of the things that Dr. Patrick Moore stated in his address to
the World Affairs Council of Western Michigan was that if we fail
to avoid the tipping point; then the failure can be laid at the
feet of the environmentalists.

Dr. Moore showed the experience of Europe. The nations of Europe
in order to meet their Kyoto Protocol goals attempted various
energy strategies. Denmark went heavily into wind. Germany went
heavily into solar. In terms of CO2 emission per capita per year;
Denmark is the WORST in western Europe, and Germany is second worst.

How did that happen with all that renewable energy? It happened
because even with its massive investment, Denmark only gets about
18% of its electric power from wind. For the other 82%, they had
to rely on the backup source: coal. Same with Germany; the reliance
on solar couldn't cut it.

The two cleanest nations were France and Sweden. They release
6.2 tons per person per year and 6.3 tons per person per year,
respectively. The USA is over 20 tons per person per year for
comparison.

How did France and Sweden achieve this, when Denmark and Germany
FAILED? France is almost 100% nuclear, and Sweden is basically
50% nuclear and 50% hydro power.

Dr. Moore's seminar was broadcast on C-SPAN and you can watch it
courtesy of C-SPAN. It is worth a gander:

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/199958-1

Dr. Greg

[kristopher]

113. That is the same idiotic argument that nnad's always makes.

It's like saying a house that doesn't have the roof finished leaks when it rains, therefore people cannot protect themselves from rain with houses.

The urgency of the climate problem is precisely why we need to focus our scarce resources on the technologies that deliver the most electricity in the least time for the least money - and nuclear is NOT that technology.

Abstract here: http://www.rsc.org/publishing/journals/EE/article.asp?doi=b809990c

Full article for download here: http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/revsolglobwarmairpol.htm


Energy Environ. Sci., 2009, 2, 148 - 173, DOI: 10.1039/b809990c

Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security

Mark Z. Jacobson

Abstract
This paper reviews and ranks major proposed energy-related solutions to global warming, air pollution mortality, and energy security while considering other impacts of the proposed solutions, such as on water supply, land use, wildlife, resource availability, thermal pollution, water chemical pollution, nuclear proliferation, and undernutrition.

Nine electric power sources and two liquid fuel options are considered. The electricity sources include solar-photovoltaics (PV), concentrated solar power (CSP), wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, wave, tidal, nuclear, and coal with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. The liquid fuel options include corn-ethanol (E85) and cellulosic-E85. To place the electric and liquid fuel sources on an equal footing, we examine their comparative abilities to address the problems mentioned by powering new-technology vehicles, including battery-electric vehicles (BEVs), hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs), and flex-fuel vehicles run on E85.

Twelve combinations of energy source-vehicle type are considered. Upon ranking and weighting each combination with respect to each of 11 impact categories, four clear divisions of ranking, or tiers, emerge.

Tier 1 (highest-ranked) includes wind-BEVs and wind-HFCVs.
Tier 2 includes CSP-BEVs, geothermal-BEVs, PV-BEVs, tidal-BEVs, and wave-BEVs.
Tier 3 includes hydro-BEVs, nuclear-BEVs, and CCS-BEVs.
Tier 4 includes corn- and cellulosic-E85.

Wind-BEVs ranked first in seven out of 11 categories, including the two most important, mortality and climate damage reduction. Although HFCVs are much less efficient than BEVs, wind-HFCVs are still very clean and were ranked second among all combinations.

Tier 2 options provide significant benefits and are recommended.

Tier 3 options are less desirable. However, hydroelectricity, which was ranked ahead of coal-CCS and nuclear with respect to climate and health, is an excellent load balancer, thus recommended.

The Tier 4 combinations (cellulosic- and corn-E85) were ranked lowest overall and with respect to climate, air pollution, land use, wildlife damage, and chemical waste. Cellulosic-E85 ranked lower than corn-E85 overall, primarily due to its potentially larger land footprint based on new data and its higher upstream air pollution emissions than corn-E85.

Whereas cellulosic-E85 may cause the greatest average human mortality, nuclear-BEVs cause the greatest upper-limit mortality risk due to the expansion of plutonium separation and uranium enrichment in nuclear energy facilities worldwide. Wind-BEVs and CSP-BEVs cause the least mortality.

The footprint area of wind-BEVs is 2–6 orders of magnitude less than that of any other option. Because of their low footprint and pollution, wind-BEVs cause the least wildlife loss.

The largest consumer of water is corn-E85. The smallest are wind-, tidal-, and wave-BEVs.

The US could theoretically replace all 2007 onroad vehicles with BEVs powered by 73000–144000 5 MW wind turbines, less than the 300000 airplanes the US produced during World War II, reducing US CO2 by 32.5–32.7% and nearly eliminating 15000/yr vehicle-related air pollution deaths in 2020.

In sum, use of wind, CSP, geothermal, tidal, PV, wave, and hydro to provide electricity for BEVs and HFCVs and, by extension, electricity for the residential, industrial, and commercial sectors, will result in the most benefit among the options considered. The combination of these technologies should be advanced as a solution to global warming, air pollution, and energy security. Coal-CCS and nuclear offer less benefit thus represent an opportunity cost loss, and the biofuel options provide no certain benefit and the greatest negative impacts.

[Confusious]

122. bullshit

every country that deploys renewables in europe has the highest electricity prices with the most subsidies. Those that have the lowest with the least are using nuclear.

Netherlands, germany, spain highest

france, sweden, norway, finland lowest.

[kristopher]

125. Talk to me after renewables have received 95% of the subsidies for 50 years...

And nuclear 5% - that would reverse what has been the case to date. You are repeating a proven false argument.

[Confusious]

127. False numbers again

Coal has received the most, nuclear next, and wind and solar haven't received as much because they weren't around.

But considering the amount Germany is spending, you'll make that up in record time.

Of course, you totally ignore my post and go off on something not even close to what I posted.

[DrGregory]

160. European experience CONTRADICTS your claim

The urgency of the climate problem is precisely why we need to focus our scarce resources on the technologies that deliver the most electricity in the least time for the least money - and nuclear is NOT that technology.
=============================================

WRONG - at least by the actual EXPERIENCE in Europe.

As I and Dr. Moore point out; the countries of Europe
DID THE EXPERIMENT attempting to meet Kyoto promises.

We had multiple countries and multiple solutions.
We can now score the WINNERS and LOSERS.

Denmark went with wind turbines; and they are a LOSER.
The wind turbines did NOT deliver. Denmark got only
about 18% of what it needed from those turbines. They
had to fall back to fossil fuel for 82% of their electric
power. Thus they are one of the WORST in CO2 emission per capita
in western Europe. Watch the C-SPAN video.

Germany went with solar - and also FAILED.

Western Europe did have some winners in terms of having
the lowest CO2 emission per capita. Those WINNERS
are France and Sweden.

As Dr. Moore points out; France won with nuclear power,
and Sweden won with a 50% nuclear / 50% hydro combination.

Scientists, like myself; say the proof is in the experiment.
One can fill up Internet bandwidth with studies by gurus of
the renewable movement - but that doesn't light people's homes.

Europe did the experiment - and the countries that went the
renewable route LOST!! The countries that went with nuclear WON.

The experiment / experience of the Europeans is that nuclear
IS the technology that can deliver, and renewables are NOT.
Renewables were found wanting in Denmark and Germany.

Compare the CO2 emissions per capita by country:

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

Unlike with the papers of academics and other self-righteous gurus; you
can't argue with experiment.

Why would the USA want to emulate the LOSERS by going the renewable route.
We should emulate the WINNERS and go with nuclear.

Dr. Greg

[kristopher]

162. Dr. Moore, the paid spokeman for the nuclear industry?

This article is part of the Center for Media & Democracy's focus on the fallout of nuclear "spin."

This article is part of the Center for Media & Democracy's spotlight on front groups and corporate spin.

Patrick Moore was a leading figure with Greenpeace Canada and subsequently with Greenpeace International between 1981 and 1986. In 1991 he established a consultancy business, Greenspirit Enterprises, "focusing on environmental policy and communications in natural resources, biodiversity, energy and climate change."<1>

Moore began working for the Nuclear Energy Institute front group, the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition, in 2006.

He has worked for the mining industry, the logging industry, PVC manufacturers, the nuclear industry and in defence of biotechnology. In October 2008, Greenpeace issued a statement distancing itself from Moore, saying he "exploits long gone ties with Greenpeace to sell himself as a speaker and pro-corporate spokesperson, usually taking positions that Greenpeace opposes."...

[kristopher]

112. Renewables deploy far faster than nuclear and are far less expensive.

Therefore is is INSANE to promote nuclear power based on the urgency of the problem.

Nuclear power is supported by the same constituency as coal and petroleum.

CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. Oct. 16-18, 2009. N=1,038 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

“To address the country’s energy needs, would you support or oppose action by the federal government to ?” (Half Sample)

"Increase coal mining"
Support 52, Oppose 45, Unsure 3

"Build more nuclear power plants"
Support 52, Oppose 46, Unsure 2

"Develop more solar and wind power"
Support 91, Oppose 8, Unsure 1

"Increase oil and gas drilling"
Support 64, Oppose 33, Unsure 3

"Develop electric car technology"
Support 82, Oppose 17, Unsure 2

"Require more energy conservation by businesses and industries"
Support 78, Oppose 20, Unsure 2

"Require more energy conservation by consumers like yourself"
Support 73, Oppose 25, Unsure 3

"Require car manufacturers to improve the fuel-efficiency of vehicles sold in this country"
Support 85, Oppose 14, Unsure 1

Asked of those who support building more nuclear power plants:
"Would you favor or oppose building a nuclear power plant within 50 miles of your home?"
Favor 66, Oppose 33

Abstract here: http://www.rsc.org/publishing/journals/EE/article.asp?doi=b809990c

Full article for download here: http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/revsolglobwarmairpol.htm


Energy Environ. Sci., 2009, 2, 148 - 173, DOI: 10.1039/b809990c

Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security

Mark Z. Jacobson

Abstract
This paper reviews and ranks major proposed energy-related solutions to global warming, air pollution mortality, and energy security while considering other impacts of the proposed solutions, such as on water supply, land use, wildlife, resource availability, thermal pollution, water chemical pollution, nuclear proliferation, and undernutrition.

Nine electric power sources and two liquid fuel options are considered. The electricity sources include solar-photovoltaics (PV), concentrated solar power (CSP), wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, wave, tidal, nuclear, and coal with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. The liquid fuel options include corn-ethanol (E85) and cellulosic-E85. To place the electric and liquid fuel sources on an equal footing, we examine their comparative abilities to address the problems mentioned by powering new-technology vehicles, including battery-electric vehicles (BEVs), hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs), and flex-fuel vehicles run on E85.

Twelve combinations of energy source-vehicle type are considered. Upon ranking and weighting each combination with respect to each of 11 impact categories, four clear divisions of ranking, or tiers, emerge.

Tier 1 (highest-ranked) includes wind-BEVs and wind-HFCVs.
Tier 2 includes CSP-BEVs, geothermal-BEVs, PV-BEVs, tidal-BEVs, and wave-BEVs.
Tier 3 includes hydro-BEVs, nuclear-BEVs, and CCS-BEVs.
Tier 4 includes corn- and cellulosic-E85.

Wind-BEVs ranked first in seven out of 11 categories, including the two most important, mortality and climate damage reduction. Although HFCVs are much less efficient than BEVs, wind-HFCVs are still very clean and were ranked second among all combinations.

Tier 2 options provide significant benefits and are recommended.

Tier 3 options are less desirable. However, hydroelectricity, which was ranked ahead of coal-CCS and nuclear with respect to climate and health, is an excellent load balancer, thus recommended.

The Tier 4 combinations (cellulosic- and corn-E85) were ranked lowest overall and with respect to climate, air pollution, land use, wildlife damage, and chemical waste. Cellulosic-E85 ranked lower than corn-E85 overall, primarily due to its potentially larger land footprint based on new data and its higher upstream air pollution emissions than corn-E85.

Whereas cellulosic-E85 may cause the greatest average human mortality, nuclear-BEVs cause the greatest upper-limit mortality risk due to the expansion of plutonium separation and uranium enrichment in nuclear energy facilities worldwide. Wind-BEVs and CSP-BEVs cause the least mortality.

The footprint area of wind-BEVs is 2–6 orders of magnitude less than that of any other option. Because of their low footprint and pollution, wind-BEVs cause the least wildlife loss.

The largest consumer of water is corn-E85. The smallest are wind-, tidal-, and wave-BEVs.

The US could theoretically replace all 2007 onroad vehicles with BEVs powered by 73000–144000 5 MW wind turbines, less than the 300000 airplanes the US produced during World War II, reducing US CO2 by 32.5–32.7% and nearly eliminating 15000/yr vehicle-related air pollution deaths in 2020.

In sum, use of wind, CSP, geothermal, tidal, PV, wave, and hydro to provide electricity for BEVs and HFCVs and, by extension, electricity for the residential, industrial, and commercial sectors, will result in the most benefit among the options considered. The combination of these technologies should be advanced as a solution to global warming, air pollution, and energy security. Coal-CCS and nuclear offer less benefit thus represent an opportunity cost loss, and the biofuel options provide no certain benefit and the greatest negative impacts.

[Confusious]

121. Really?

What about all the infrastructure to deliver that power that has to be built for renewables? roads, power lines, etc.

How about comparing the amount generated vs time? I never see any of those in your gigantic posts which can't seem to follow the rules. Of course I don't look to hard, since you try to falsify things.

The thames project: 5 years 2.2 billion, 630MW. 1 nuclear reactor, 5 years, 2.2 billion, 1000MW ( for a small one )

[kristopher]

129. You can't prove your point using outliers.

You completely lack the most basic analytic skills, you cannot use outliers as a basis for such an argument.

Following most analysts, the authors of the 2009 MIT study also quote (pp. 5–6) total nuclear-plant costs as "overnight costs" and say that "this total cost, which is exclusive of financing cost, is $4,706/kW"; noting that the earlier (2003) MIT analyses also compared overnight costs, "as described in the MIT (2003) Future of Nuclear Power study," the 2009 MIT authors attempt to justify their interest-cost-trimming procedures by saying that using overnight costs "represents the standard basis for quoting comparable costs across different plants" (Du and Parsons 2009). Likewise, when the 2009 MIT authors assume a reactor- construction-time period, they again follow the 2003 MIT authors and say (p. 4) nuclear-plant "construction is planned to occur over a 5-year period" (Du and Parsons 2009).

However, most experienced nuclear operators, like Florida Power and Light, say US new-nuclear-plant-construction time is 12 years (Herbst and Hopley 2007), not the 5 years assumed by the MIT authors. Likewise, the US National Academy of Sciences estimates at least 11 years (Smith 2007). The average UK-nuclear-plant-construction time is 11 years (House of Commons Energy Select Committee 1990); in France, 14 years (International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) 2007); in Japan, 17 years (Stoett 2003); in Eastern Europe, 15 years (Bunyard 2006; International Energy Agency (IEA) 2001).

Nuclear proponents admit that building the latest US reactors took 23 years (Herbst and Hopley 2007).

Climate Change, Nuclear Economics, and Conflicts of Interest
Kristin Shrader-Frechette
Sci Eng Ethics
DOI 10.1007/s11948-009-9181-y

[Confusious]

131. China can do it, why can't we?

Ling Ao has two nuclear reactors, 938 MWe PWRs Ling Ao-1 and -2, based on the French 900 MWe three cooling loop design, which started commercial operation in 2002 and 2003.<2>

In a Phase II development two CPR-1000 reactors, Ling Ao-3 and -4, are being constructed in conjunction with Areva, based on the French three cooling loop design. Ling Ao-3, China’s first domestic CPR-1000 nuclear power plant, was first connected to the grid on 15 July 2010,<3> having started criticality testing on 11 June 2010.<4> It started commercial operations on 27 September 2010.<5>

[DrGregory]

164. That's your rationale???

Nuclear power is supported by the same constituency as coal and petroleum.
================================

That's your rationale; who supports or doesn't support nuclear.

Who cares what constituency supports what energy source.

The question is what source or sources can do the job.

Nuclear can do the job. Renewables can't - at least that has
been their record.

Dr. Greg

[Radical Activist]

118. Ok, so I remembered the IL numbers for the energy mix

and mixed those up with the national numbers. Pointing out my mistake over one number doesn't refute my arguments.

We're producing a surplus of energy nationally. If we keep adding heavily subsidized nuclear it won't leave room in the market for renewables. If nuclear is so much stronger than the competition, then why won't anyone build a nuclear plant without massive taxpayer subsidies? There are plenty of unsubsidized wind projects being built. Why can't nuclear do the same?

[Confusious]

119. Renewables are more heavily subsidized then nuclear. nt

[Radical Activist]

120. Because no one has built a nuclear plant in years.

And no one will build a new plant without massive subsidies. Those have already begun in the stimulus bill. And none of it compares to the subsidies at every level which make coal artificially cheap.

[Confusious]

134. Which massive subsidies would those be?

A loan guarantee is a guarantee against the plant being built. If it's built, the government pays nothing.

So we only subsidize nuclear plants when they're being built? That makes them even better, since you have to subsidize the cost of electricity from renewables from plant being built through production to the end of life.

[Radical Activist]

135. Oh come on.

You're writing like you know something about the subject. If so, then you must know that's far from the only way nuclear is subsidized. Shall we start with the Manhattan Project, the DOE facility in Paducah Kentucky, and then work our way forward to federal expenditures on finding a waste storage facility?

No, wind is not subsidized more than nuclear.

[Confusious]

136. More bad facts

I would not include nuclear weapons in subsities for nuclear power, since you don't need a reactor to make a nuclear weapon.

maybe we should include the cost of steel since that is used in guns, in the price of wind power and solar, if you want to go in that direction?

As far oas waste, the federal government took money from the industry to build a waste facililty, and then blew the money. Now the industry is suing to get the government to either get the money back or create a waste facility.

[Radical Activist]

137. You're not being serious.

Are going to claim that Manhattan Project scientists only saw their work as something that would be used for weapons and not nuclear power? :eyes:
That was a taxpayer expense that launched the industry. What private company would have developed the technology and started building plants without any federal support? How much longer would it have taken? Every stage of development in the nuclear industry has been aided by federal facilities and expenditures. That isn't true of the U.S. wind industry. Bringing up steal is a ridiculous, irrelevant comparison.

You didn't respond to Paducah. Let's add in the uranium conversion facility in Metropolis IL that works under federal contract? There's no equivalent in the wind industry to nuclear's level of federal assistance.

And it's very easy to discover that not all of the Yucca Mountain costs would have been payed by the industry. Taxpayer and ratepayers are picking up a big portion of the tag. Yes, it is a subsidy. If the industry wins their lawsuits it will be yet another cost to taxpayers for a problem that companies wouldn't properly deal with by themselves.

And to even suggest the only subsidies for new plants are loan guarantees is grossly dishonest.

[Confusious]

141. Yes I'm going to claim that.

The first commercial nuclear plant came into operation during the mid 1950's, long after the bomb had been made.

You can say nuclear weapons are a part of it, but you can have a reactor without weapons, and weapons without reactors. You just like to tie the shit together, because it sways the ignorant.

canada has nuclear power, no nuclear weapons, sweden has nuclear power, no nuclear weapons, Germany has nuclear power, no nuclear weapons.

Most nuclear waste comes from the production of nuclear weapons, so as it our government that makes them, it is OUR responsibility to pay to clean it up.

The government's job is to promote science. Would you like to complain about the internet you're on, because that started as a government project for the defense department. Maybe you could tie the cost of the internet into nuclear also, because it was created to keep things operational after a nuclear war.

You keep saying that it gets subsidies. Yes it does. But so does everything else. It's a bullshit argument. What about the roads that will be needed to get to the wind farms and the solar plant? What about the power lines that will have to be built? What about the 13cents a kilowatt hour that the government is going to have to pay for when nuclear is 3 cents?

You act like nuclear is the only one we pay for. We pay for them ALL.

[Radical Activist]

143. Taxpayers spent the money to create the nuclear industry.

You wrote: "You just like to tie the shit together, because it sways the ignorant."

I tie the two together because taxpayers picked up the tag for creating the nuclear power industry. The discussion is about subsidies, remember? The fact that "you can have a reactor without weapons" is completely irrelevant.

The wind industry developed without a fraction of the subsidies nuclear received. You have to factor in subsidies if we're talking about the real cost of power. Nuclear is not cheap. It's just subsidized to a greater degree. And stop exaggerating the price of renewables.

[Confusious]

144. I noticed you pretty much avioded any of the statements I made

This is getting kind of monotonous. Going around in circles here.

Again:

The government wanted weapons. The made the weapons without caring about the peaceful uses of the research. most of the waste comes from the manufacture of weapons. most of the money spent is on weapons, and the creation of plutonium. Which you don't need a commercial reactor for. Want that to stop? have our government stop making weapons.

The commercial industry took something that the government already had, and turned it into a peaceful source of power. kind of like the internet, which was a military project, and became something peaceful. While they don't foot the entire bill for nuclear waste, they shouldn't have to, when the lion's share comes from the government and it's building of nuclear weapons.

You say "you can have a reactor without weapons" is irrelevant why? you where the one who brought up the manhattan project, etc. You wanted to include the cost of nuclear weapons in nuclear power. I just told you why you can't do that. Does it bother you that it's not turning out like you wanted it to be?

Again:

You just like to tie the shit together, because it sways the ignorant.

The stats I gave you for Germany are the real. Not an exaggeration like "nuclear power plants blow up" or "nobody insures nuclear"

As for the wind industry, i would never say it didn't develop without the gov'ment. It's been lining up at the trough the same as all the the others lately. Except that when we finally get the power, it's 13 cents a kilowatt hour instead of the great free energy we're being sold.

[DrGregory]

158. WRONG AGAIN!!

Nuclear is not cheap. It's just subsidized to a greater degree.
----------------------------------------------------

The money the Government spends on weapons is for weapons; nor
power reactors.

You are COMPLETELY WRONG about the nuclear power industry being
created by the taxpayers. The nuclear power industry was created
essentially by General Electric and Westinghouse.

The Manhattan Project designed reactors at Hanford, and the AEC
also designed reactors for Savannah River. These are the production
reactors that are used to produce materials for nuclear weapons.
However, those production reactors are NOT SUITABLE as power plants.
You also don't want to attempt to combine the constraints of a
production reactor and a power reactor. That's what the Soviets
attempted to do with the RBMK reactor - which is the type that
Chernobyl had. You get a REALLY BAD design when you attempt to
serve the two disparate functions.

A little bit closer to a power plant was the work of Rickover's
Navy. Small reactors do serve as power plants for submarines and
naval vessels.

However, the constraints on a marine propulsion unit for a warship
are again NOT CONSISTENT with what one wants for a power reactor.

So General Electric and Westinghouse developed the commercial
BWR - boiling water reactor (GE) and PWR - pressurized water
reactor (PWR). GE and Westinghouse did this THEMSELVES.

I live not far from the GE laboratory the developed the BWR.

The very first commercial reactors were quite small. The first
commercial BWR was Consumer's Power Big Rock Point plant in Michigan.
The first commercial PWR was Yankee Rowe in Massachusetts.

Rickover put a reactor designed for a submarine in a facility at
Shippingport as a demonstration.

However, the real development work on commercial reactors was
done by, and PAID for by; General Electric and Westinghouse.

Later, boiler makers Combustion Engineering and Babcock & Wilcox
also started to offer reactors; both of them adopting their own
variation of the Westinghouse PWR.

You are entitled to your own opinions; but NOT your own FACTS.

The FACTS are that the commercial nuclear power plants in the
form of the 104 nuclear power plants currently operating today;
ALL trace their lineage to R&D and design costs paid for by
General Electric and Westinghouse.

It was GE and Westinghouse; NOT the Government; that started
and developed the nuclear industry.

Dr. Greg

[DrGregory]

157. ABSOLUTELY!!

Are going to claim that Manhattan Project scientists only saw their work as something that would be used for weapons and not nuclear power?
================================

ABSOLUTELY!!! There was a WAR on - don't you remember?

The entire operation was directed toward developing a weapon
to win the war. There was no time during a war to engage
in "side projects" for nuclear power. That could all be
done AFTER the war.

Why not read Einstein's letter to FDR. Leo Szilard and other
scientists were VERY CONCERNED that Germany was working on
the atomic bomb too. Actually, they were. Fortunately, the
German scientists made some mistakes that sent them down blind
alleys. However, we didn't know that at the time.

The scientists working at Los Alamos were racing the clock;
because they believed it was possible that any day the German
atomic bomb effort led by Heisenberg would be fruitful and
produce an atomic bomb for Hitler.

When you are under that type of pressure; you don't worry about
attempting to make a money-making operation. The entire focus
of the Los Alamos scientists was on making the atomic bomb.

Dr. Greg

[Radical Activist]

138. Obama administration sued over secrecy surrounding nuclear power subsidies

http://www.grist.org/article/obama-administration-sued-over-secrecy-surrounding-nuclear-power-subsidies/

[Radical Activist]

139. Additional cost of building new nukes instead of wind: $1.9 trillion to $4.1 trillion

http://www.grist.org/article/how-much-will-nuclear-cost-us-citizens/

[Confusious]

140. I think I would prefer a study from MIT over grist.

I also noticed there were no cits on where the info came from.


How about real costs? 53~57 billion for 3 percent more renewable energy in Germany. 2.5 Trillion, equal to the entire GDP of Germany for 100 percent.

One of the highest electricity prices in Europe. Still imports power from "Nuclear" France.

[Radical Activist]

142. As if Grist conducted the study. So disingenuous.

And you're comparing apples to oranges. The U.S. has more efficient locations for wind and the industry is producing power cheaper than when Germany built its wind farms. Could you be any more deliberately deceptive?

[Confusious]

145. Really? would you happen to have a link to prove your point?

you can google mine and find them.

I find it funny that you would say that germanys wind power farms are more inefficient. Being inefficient is something the germans are noted for. :sarcasm:

Considering that they didn't really start until 1997, and we started some of ours in the 1980's, I think you're wrong again.

As for grist, they didn't even provide a link or cite to the study they did use. That is a first for me to believe them.

[DrGregory]

156. MORE BAD FACTS!!

You're writing like you know something about the subject. If so, then you must know that's far from the only way nuclear is subsidized. Shall we start with the Manhattan Project, the DOE facility in Paducah Kentucky, and then work our way forward to federal expenditures on finding a waste storage facility?
========================================

I continually see this. Every time I ask about subsidies
for the commercial nuclear power industry; the anti-nukes
talk about the money spent on nuclear weapons.

That's like saying that the US Government subsidizes the
airline industry because the Pentagon gives money to Boeing
in exchange for bombers and fighters.

Nuclear weapons and nuclear power reactors are TOTALLY SEPARATE
in their funding streams.

The Paducah enrichment facility now belongs to USEC - the Government
owned United States Enrichment Corporation. USEC operates as a
business. It SELLS enrichment services to the nuclear power industry.
They PAY for those services - it is NOT a subsidy.

The waste storage facility is also paid for by the industry. There
is a special TAX on nuclear generated electricity that goes to pay
for the waste treatment operations. As of last I checked, the industry
had paid over $17 BILLION dollars more than the Government had paid out.

This operation was patterned after the operation of the air traffic
control system. The nation needed a system of radars and centers to
control the flow of commercial air travel. However, rather than letting
the airline industry perform that function for itself; the Government
assigned that task to the FAA - and then CHARGES the airline industry
for the service. The charges are in the form of "LANDING FEES".

This way the Government has control of the operation; but the money is
paid by the industry.

That SAME MODEL was decided by Congress back in the '70s as the proper
model for how we should handle the disposal of spent fuel. It's a very
important task, and since we don't trust the industry to do it; we will
have the Government do it. However, we will CHARGE the industry for the
service. So there is a special TAX paid by the utilities with nuclear
power plants. Again, it is NOT a subsidy.

Dr. Greg

[kristopher]

123. Only when you use false reasoning provided by the Heritage Foundation.

No reputable analyst would endorse using the current "subsidy per kilowatt hour produced" as a meaningful metric of governmental support. That's like saying a 10 year old has eaten more in its life than a 80 year old adult because the child eat ate 600 grams more per day than the adult over the past 2 weeks.

That fallacy has been pointed out to you before, so you clearly do not care about the accuracy of the information you spread trying to promote the nuclear industry.

[Confusious]

128. You disagree, so it must be from the heritage foundation

I point you to post 15 again.

"No reputable analyst would endorse using the current "subsidy per kilowatt hour produced" as a meaningful metric of governmental support."

You don't accept it, because it makes renewables look bad when compared to nuclear. To me, it sounds like a perfectly good metric.

I mean really, how would you measure it, but in money per kilowatt hour? What else does the government give out to pay for these things? Doughnuts?

I get an electric bill, it's an amount of money per kilowatt hour. Are you telling me the electric company is charging me wrong?

How about sausage per kilowatt hour? nope probably don't like that either.

[DrGregory]

159. What worries the nuclear industry.

If nuclear is so much stronger than the competition, then why won't anyone build a nuclear plant without massive taxpayer subsidies?
------------------------------------------------

First depends on location - California has OUTLAWED new nuclear power plants.

The reason that power company executives won't build nuclear without guarantees
has to do with the "Shoreham Effect" as it is called.

A little more history.

One of the last nuclear power plants built from the time when we were building
nuclear power plants in the '70s and '80s was one in New York called Shoreham.

Shoreham was completed and approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. It was
all set to get its license and operate. However, at the time Shoreham was getting
ready to go into operation, the State of New York had a very anti-nuclear governor
in one Mario Cuomo. Governor Cuomo appointed anti-nukes to the New York Public
Utilities Commission.

Before Shoreham could begin commercial operation, it has to get a ruling from the
New York PUC as to how much it could charge for electricity generated by the plant.
Shoreham's owner, LILCO; made application to the New York PUC for a ruling as to
how much it could charge for Shoreham-generated electricity.

The answer to LILCO from the anti-nukes on the New York PUC was a price of $0.00 per kwh.

The price from the PUC was ZERO. The PUC told LILCO they could give the electricity away;
but they could not charge for it.

A nuclear power plant has to "earn its keep". The owners of the plant are a business.
The nuclear power plant has to earn the money to pay back its construction costs, and its
operation costs, and hopefully a reasonable profit for the owner.

Because LILCO could not charge for Shoreham's power - it became a big "white elephant".

LILCO had borrowed the money to pay to build Shoreham; but with no way for Shoreham to
earn any money; there was no way to pay back the loans, and the banks wanted to be paid back.
LILCO had no choice but to file for bankruptcy.

The anti-nukes had finally found the ultimate weapon to use against a nuclear power plant.
If they could get control of the State regulatory agencies - if they could get anti-nuclear
Governors into power that appoint the members of those agencies - then they can rule that
the plant can't make money.

THAT is what power companies are afraid of. They are NOT afraid of the power plant not
working - that's the manufacturers problem if it didn't. They are not afraid of taking out
big loans - not when you can build a facility that can make LOTS of salable product.

It's the POLITICS that scares them. They are afraid to take out a big loan; and then through
no fault of their own, have the anti-nukes prevent them from using the plant to make money;
which necessitates a bankruptcy. Right now, if you build a nuclear power plant, you are
betting the company; and you lose if the anti-nukes get control.

THAT is the purpose of the loan guarantee.

Congress could solve the problem another way - FORBID the type of shenanigans by the State
that New York did with Shoreham. Have Congress pass a law that said that regulation of
nuclear power plants and ALL aspects of their operation is under FEDERAL purview and no State
can interfere. If Congress passed such a law; they could get utilities to build nuclear plants
without the loan guarantees.

Dr. Greg

[kristopher]

111. You still haven't supported that bullshit claim that renewables can't do it.

[Confusious]

130. Oh, I believe it's been shown over and over again

The key world is "alone", which doesn't seem to be in your "scholarly" vocab.

[DrGregory]

99. Nuclear industry does insure plants just fine - law or no law

Fine, go off on a tangent about my choice of words. Your nitpicking doesn't refute the fact that the nuclear industry could not insure their plants without a special law to put much of the liability burden onto taxpayers.
==============================

There has NEVER been a need in half a century for
the Government to step in EVEN though the law
requires the money to be PAID BACK.

READ the LAW!!!

Besides, the USA has had ONE and only ONE accident
in 50 years in which the public was at all involved,
and NOBODY was hurt or killed.

Insurers LOVE to insure nuclear power plants - because
if you look at the track record - which is something
that you can't spin and LIE about - it is exemplary!!!

NOBODY KILLED / NOBODY INJURED

and you say they can't get insurance with THAT type
of record?/

The insurers know enough to listen to the SCIENTISTS
who say that these boogeyman stories about destroying
entire towns are just CRAP - that can't happen.

Take your boogeyman stories somewhere and scare some
little children - but the adults - at least EDUCATED
adults aren't buying it.

Dr. Greg

[DrGregory]

98. Make up your mind, or whatever you have

It's not the insurer that needs the liability limit. It's the owner of the nuclear power plant that needs it because no insurer would cover the full cost of a major nuclear accident.
=======================================

Make up your mind. That's NOT what you said earlier.

You said the INSURERS needed the limit - not the owner.
Can you read your own posts?/

IGNORANCE IGNORANCE IGNORANCE

Nuclear reactor can NOT explode!! They are NOT bombs
and they will NOT destroy entire towns.

You didn't read your own link to Price-Anderson. If the
Government has to pay - then the nuclear utilities have
to PAY THE GOVERNMENT BACK.

No - the only reason we have a law the way it is, is
due to a bunch of STUPID Congressmen who wanted to
kill the nuclear industry back in the '50s even though
the scientists at the national labs, particularly
Brookhaven told them that the scenario you envision
is a fairytale.

Dr. Greg

[DrGregory]

71. BALONEY!!!

8) Those with traditional values tend to embrace nuclear power; while those with altruistic values more often reject nuclear power.
==================================

More of the "we are the altruistic", "we are the holy", "we are the correct-thinking"
self-righteous BS that we get from the anti-nuclear movement.

A better explanation comes from a psychiatrist, Dr. Robert DuPont who has actually studied
the phenomenon:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/interviews/dupont.html

"Q: Why is coal having such an easy time compared to nuclear power?

A: The greatest mystery to me is how the American environmental movement can be anti-nuclear, because the environment is so much benefited by nuclear power, compared to any other way to generate electricity, including solar and wind. I have seen the solar panels and the windmills and what they do to the environment, and to say that those are friendly to the environment is laughable. So that it's just a very strange argument to me."

Dr. Greg

[kristopher]

72. I'm not convinced, I think the process that produced the OP is the best method.

This is drawn from published, peer reviewed research on the beliefs of the public and how those beliefs flow from values held.

1) Attitudes toward nuclear power are a result of perceived risk

2) Attitudes and risk perceptions are determined by previously held values and beliefs that serve to determine the level of trust in the nuclear industry.

3) Increased trust in the nuclear industry reduces perceived risk of nuclear power

4) Therefore, higher trust in the nuclear industry and the consequent lower risk perceptions predict positive attitudes toward nuclear power.

5) Traditional values are defined here as assigning priority to family, patriotism, and stability

6) Altruism is defined as a concern with the welfare of other humans and other species.

7) Neither trust in environmental institutions nor perceived risks from global environmental problems predict a person’s attitudes toward nuclear power.

8) Those with traditional values tend to embrace nuclear power; while those with altruistic values more often reject nuclear power.

9) Altruism is recognized as a dependable predictor of various categories of environmental concern.

10) Traditional values are associated with less concern for the environment and are unlikely to lead to pro-environmental behavioral intentions.



Here is the abstract and full list of references for the paper:
Abstract and references are intended for public use and distribution

The Future of Nuclear Power: Value Orientations and Risk Perception
Stephen C. Whitfield,1 Eugene A. Rosa,2 Amy Dan,3 and Thomas Dietz3;

Abstract
Since the turn of the 21st century, there has been a revival of interest in nuclear power. Two decades ago, the expansion of nuclear power in the United States was halted by widespread public opposition as well as rising costs and less than projected increases in demand for electricity. Can the renewed enthusiasm for nuclear power overcome its history of public resistance that has persisted for decades? We propose that attitudes toward nuclear power are a function of perceived risk, and that both attitudes and risk perceptions are a function of values, beliefs, and trust in the institutions that influence nuclear policy.

Applying structural equation models to data from a U.S. national survey, we find that increased trust in the nuclear governance institutions reduces perceived risk of nuclear power and together higher trust and lower risk perceptions predict positive attitudes toward nuclear power. Trust in environmental institutions and perceived risks from global environmental problems do not predict attitudes toward nuclear power. Values do predict attitudes: individuals with traditional values have greater support for, while those with altruistic values have greater opposition to, nuclear power. Nuclear attitudes do not vary by gender, age, education, income, or political orientation, though nonwhites are more supportive than whites. These findings are consistent with, and provide an explanation for, a long series of public opinion polls showing public ambivalence toward nuclear power that persists even in the face of renewed interest for nuclear power in policy circles.


1. Colvin J. Dawn of a new era. Nuclear Plant Journal, 2005;
23:42-44.

2. Moore T. License renewal revitalizes the nuclear industry.
EPRI Journal, 2000; 25:8-17.

3. International Atomic Energy Agency. Operational and Under
Construction Reactors by Country. Vienna, Austria: Interna-
tional Atomic Energy Agency, 2005.

4. Uranium Information Center. Nuclear Issue Briefing Pa-
per #16. Melbourne, Australia: Uranium Information Center,
2002.

5. Bisconti AS. Why public opinion about nuclear en-
ergy is changing. Nuclear Energy Review December:
70-72, 2006. Available at: http://www.business-briefings.
com/cdps/cditem.cfm?NID=2402#Public%20Understanding.

6. Rosa EA, Dunlap RE. The polls-poll trends: Nuclear energy:
Three decades of public opinion. Public Opinion Quarterly,
1994; 58:295-325.

7. Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI). Nuclear energy industry
poised for growth based on excellent performance of today’s
plants. NEI News Release, 2006.

8. Ansolabehere S, Deutch J, Driscoll M, Gray PE, Holdren JP,
Joskow PL, Lester RK, Moniz EJ, Todreas NE. The future
of nuclear power. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, 2003.

9. Sailor WC, Bodansky D, Braun C, Fetter S, Van Der Zwaan B.
Nuclear power: A nuclear solution to climate change? Science,
2005; 288:1177.

10. Bennhold K. Nuclear energy is making a global comeback.
New York Times, October 17, 2004.

11. Wald M. Hopes of building nation’s first new nuclear plant in
decades. New York Times, January 27, 2005.

12. The Economist. A new dawn for nuclear power? Economist,
May, 2001; 19-25.

13. Marshall E. Is the friendly atom poised for a comeback? Sci-
ence, 2005; 309:1168-1169.

14. Rhodes R. Nuclear power’s new day. New York Times, May
7, 2001.

15. Starr C. Societal benefit versus technological risk. Science,
1969; 236:280-285.

16. Freudenburg WF, Rosa EA. Public Reactions to Nuclear
Power: Are There Critical Masses? Boulder, CO: Westview
Press/ American Association for the Advancement of Science,
1984.

17. Wald M. Mississippi extends hospitality to nuclear power. New
York Times, January 27, 2005.
The Future of Nuclear Power 437

18. Morgan D. Restarting reactor could boost nuclear power in-
dustry. Washington Post, May 16, 2002.

19. Rosa EA. The future acceptability of nuclear power in the
United States. Paris: Institute Francais des Relations Interna-
tionales, 2004.

20. Rosa EA. The public climate for nuclear power: The changing
of seasons. In The Role of Nuclear Power in Global and Do-
mestic Energy Policy: Recent Developments and Future Ex-
pectations. Washington, DC: H.H. Baker, Jr. Center for Public
Policy Conference, 2007.

21. Stern PC, Dietz T, Abel T, Guagnano GA, Kalof L. A So-
cial Psychological theory of support for social movements:
The case of environmentalism. Human Ecology Review, 1999;
6:81-97.

22. Stern PC, Dietz T, Kalof L. Value orientations, gender and
environmental concern. Environment and Behavior, 1993;
25:322-348.

23. Schwartz SH. Are there universal aspects in the structure
and contents of human values? Journal of Social Issues, 1994;
50:19-45.

24. Schwartz, SH, Bilsky W. Toward a universal psychological
structure of human values. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 1987; 53:550-562.

25. Schwartz SH, Bilsky W. Toward a theory of the universal
content and structure of values: Extensions and cross-cultural
replications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
1990; 58:878-891.

26. Dietz T. “What should we do?” Human ecology and collective
decision making. Human Ecology Review, 1994; 1:301-309.

27. Dietz T, Stern PC. Toward realistic models of individual
choice. Journal of Socio-Economics, 1995; 24:261-279.

28. Jaeger C, Renn O, Rosa EA, Webler T. Risk, Uncertainty and
Rational Action. London: Earthscan, 2001.

29. Rokeach M. Understanding Human Values: Individual and
Societal. New York: Free Press, 1979.

30. Dietz T, Fitzgerald A, Shwom R. Environmental values. An-
nual Review of Environment and Resources, 2005; 30:335-372.

31. Slimak MW, Dietz T. Personal values, beliefs and ecological
risk perception. Risk Analysis, 2006; 26:1689-1705.

32. Frewer LJ, Scholderer J, Bredahl H. Communicating about
the risks and benefits of genetically modified food: The me-
diating role of trust. Risk Analysis, 2003; 23:1117-1133.

33. Greenberg M, Lowrie K, Burger J, Powers C, Gochfeld M,
Mayer H. Nuclear waste and public worries: Public percep-
tions of the United States’ major nuclear weapons legacy sites.
Human Ecology Review, 2007; 14:1-12.

34. Greenberg M, Lowrie K, Burger J, Powers C, Gochfeld M,
Mayer H. Preferences for alternative risk management poli-
cies at the United States major nuclear weapons legacy sites.
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 2007;
50:187-209.

35. Kasperson RE, Golding D, Kasperson JX. Risk, trust and
democratic theory. In Cvetkovich G, L ̈ofstedt RE (eds). Social
Trust and the Management of Risk. London: Earthscan,1999.

36. L ̈ofstedt RE, Rosa EA. The strength of trust in Sweden, UK
and the U.S.: Some hypotheses. Report of the 4th Seminar of
TRUSTNET, Paris, France, 2000.

37. Metlay D. Institutional trust and confidence: A journey into
a conceptual quagmire. In Cvetkovich G, L ̈ofstedt RE (eds).
Social Trust and the Management of Risk. London: Earthscan,
1999.

38. Poortinga W, Pidgeon NF. Exploring the dimensionality of
trust in risk regulation. Risk Analysis, 2003; 23:961-972.

39. Renn O, Levine D. Credibility and trust in risk communica-
tion. In Kasperson RE, Stallen PJM (eds). Communicating
Risks to the Public. The Hague: Kluwer, 1991.

40. Rosa EA, Clark DL, Jr. Historical routes to technologi-
cal gridlock: Nuclear technology as prototypical vehicle. Re-
search in Social Problems and Public Policy, 1999; 7:21-
57.

41. Siegrist M, Cvetkovich G. Perceptions of hazards: The role of
social trust and knowledge. Risk Analysis, 2000; 20:713-719.

42. Seigrist M, Cvetkovich G, Gutscher H. Shared values, social
trust, and the perception of geographic cancer clusters. Risk
Analysis, 2001; 21:1047-1053.

43. Seigrist M, Cvetkovich G, Roth C. Salient value similarity,
social trust, and risk/benefit perception. Risk Analysis, 2000;
20:353-362.

44. Slovic P. Trust, emotion, sex, politics, and science: Survey-
ing the risk-assessment battlefield. Risk Analysis, 1999; 19:689-
701.

45. Slovic P, Layman M, Clary BB. Perceived risk, trust and nu-
clear waste: Lessons from Yucca Mountain. In Dunlap RE,
Kraft ME, Rosa EA (eds). Public Reactions to Nuclear Waste:
Citizens’ Views of Repository Siting. Durham, NC: Duke Uni-
versity Press, 1993.

46. Earle TC, Siegrist M, Gutscher H. Trust, risk perception,
and the TCC model of cooperation. In Siegrist M, Earle
TC, Gutscher H (eds). Trust in Cooperative Risk Manage-
ment: Uncertainty and Skepticism in the Public Mind. London:
Earthscan, 2007.

47. Dillman D. Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design
Method. New York: Wiley, 1978.

48. U.S. Census Bureau. Table DP-2 (Profile of Selected So-
cial Characteristics: 2000), Geographical Area: United States,
2000. Available at: http://factfinder.census.gov/.

49. Schwartz SH. Universals in the content and structure of val-
ues: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries.
Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 1992; 25:1-65.

50. Stern PC, Dietz T, Guagnano GA. A brief inventory of values.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1998; 58:884-
1001.

51. Dunlap RE, Van Liere KD, Mertig AD, Jones RE. Measuring
endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: A revised NEP
scale. Social Science Quarterly, 2002; 56:425-442.

52. Dunlap RE, Van Liere KD. The “new environmental
paradigm:” A proposed measuring instrument and preliminary
results. Journal of Environmental Education, 1978; 9:10-19.

53. Peters E, Slovic P. The role of affect and worldviews as orient-
ing dispositions in the perception of nuclear power. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 1996; 26:1427-1453.

54. Arbuckle JL. Amos 5. Chicago, IL: Smallwater Corporation,
2003.

55. Gallup Poll. Expanding the Use of Nuclear Energy. Princeton,
NJ: Gallup Organization, 2007.

56. Dunlap RE, Kraft ME, Rosa EA. The Public and Nuclear
Waste: Citizen’s Views of Repository Siting. Durham, NC:
Duke University Press, 1993.

57. Flynn J, Slovic P, Mertz CK. Gender, race and perception of
environmental health risks. Risk Analysis, 1994; 14:1101-1108.

58. Kalof L, Dietz T, Guagnano GA, Stern PC. Race, gender
and environmentalism: the atypical values and beliefs of white
men. Race, Gender & Class, 2002; 9:1-19.

59. Mander J. Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television.
New York: William Morrow, 1978.

60. ABC/Time/Stanford University. Concern soars about global
warming as world’s top environmental threat. Department of
Political Science. Stanford, CA: Department of Political Sci-
ence, Stanford University, 2007.

61. Slovic P, Flynn JH, Layman M. Perceived risk, trust and the
politics of nuclear waste. Science, 1993; 254:1603-1607.

62. York R, Rosa E, Dietz T. Bridging environmental science with
environmental policy: Plasticity of population, affluence and
technology. Social Science Quarterly, 2002; 83:18-34.

63. Grewal D, Salovey P. Feeling smart: The science of emotional
intelligence. American Scientist, 2005; 93:330-339.

[DrGregory]

73. Then why do scientists support nuclear; scientists not altruistic?

This is drawn from published, peer reviewed research on the beliefs of the public and how those beliefs flow from values held.
=============================================

Nuclear power has overwhelming support among scientists:

http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=1550

"When it comes to nuclear power, the views of scientists are closer to those of Republicans than Democrats nationwide. Seven-in-ten scientists favor building more nuclear power plants to generate electricity, while 27% are opposed. Among scientists, majorities in every specialty favor building more nuclear power plants, but support is particularly widespread among physicists and astronomers (88% favor). As with the public, far more men (76%) than women (55%) support the expansion of nuclear power"

From my point of view, it looks like the more people KNOW
about nuclear power, the one's that REALLY understand it
like the physicists; the greater the support.

The ignorant that fall for all the "boogeymen" that the
anit-nuclear movement badgers the public with, are the
ones that oppose it.

That is in keeping with Dr. DuPont's observations.

So are scientists, especially physicists; not altruistic.

The OP study is SIMPLISTIC in the EXTREME.

Dr. Greg

[Confusious]

76. We find the article, find part of what you posted in the article,

the other part made up by you ( falsified as being part of the article ), and yet you continue to try and pass it off as real.

Is a wonder you get jeers when you post? I don't think you have any shame.

[kristopher]

149. kick

[Nihil]

150. Interesting ...

There are at least nine subthreads above that are waiting on you to provide
information/rebuttal/clarification yet all you can manage to post on this
subject is "kick".

:shrug:

[kristopher]

151. Thanks.

[Dead_Parrot]

154. That's a weird response. nt

[Name removed]

170. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kristopher]

171. So you want to continue to refer to me as non-human?

[Name removed]

172. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kristopher]

173. Kick

As an invitation for people to review the exchange. Note the manner of discussion of the participants, please.

[Dead_Parrot]

174. Duly noted. nt

[XemaSab]

175. .

[kristopher]

176. Poor little tyke just can't get over being called on telling tall tales...

We can translate your visuals into words -
"If he'd just leave I could make all the false statements about renewable energy I want and no one would call me on them. Shucks!"

[Dead_Parrot]

177. Should I note that response, too? nt.

[XemaSab]

178. Nestor,

I know you don't know what you're saying.

It's almost cute.

Almost.