Nuclear and coal, coal and nuclear - two sides of the same coin

[kristopher]

Nuclear Power Corp in talks with Coal India

Nuclear Power Corporation (NPC) is in talks with government-owned Coal India on the plans to enter the atomic power sector through a joint venture, according to a report.

The report stated that NPC has launched a programme to increase capacity to 63,000 Mw by 2032 and Coal India is expected to produce 460 mn tonnes coal yearly by March 2012.

NPC’s chairman has reportedly said that Coal India would pump in money towards equity with NPC for various nuclear projects and nuclear projects are developed on a 70:30 debt to equity ratio.

http://www.indiainfoline.com/Markets/News/Nuclear-Power-Corp-in-talks-with-Coal-India/5018000372

[Dogmudgeon]

1. Coal: The Destructive Side; Nuclear: The Safe Side.

The new cliché isn't quite the conversation-stopper that it first seemed to be.

And India? They're using coal money to bootstrap a nuclear build-out. That's bad? Only to nuke-phobes.

--d!

[kristopher]

7. Nope, sorry.

That is not only untrue, it is off the point of the OP. Please see posts 4 and 6 below.

[GliderGuider]

2. Boy, if only the wind industry would do the same thing!

We'd have that nuclear build-out done in no time at all!

[Dogmudgeon]

3. Big Wind is in bed with Big Gas

Why else would the AWEA hire petrobusiness lobbyist and Bush crony http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denise_Bode">Denise Bode as their CEO?

Funny how all those "watch" organizations and muckraking, firebrand investigative reporters have overlooked this.

--d!

[kristopher]

4. In the sense of the OP, yes, it is.

The idea of the OP is based on an anthropological perspective offered by Amory Lovins back in the 70s on the ramifications to our social order of centralized, large scale thermal energy sources such as coal and nuclear.

http://www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/E77-01_EnergyStrategyRoadNotTaken

In this landmark piece from 1976, Amory Lovins describes the two energy choices then facing the nation. There is the "hard path" and the "soft path". This path resembles federal policy of the time and is essentially an extrapolation of the recent past.

The hard path relies on rapid expansion of centralized high technologies to increase supplies of energy, especially in the form of electricity. The second path combines a prompt and serious commitment to efficient use of energy, rapid development of renewable energy sources matched in scale and in energy quality to end-use needs, and special transitional fossil-fuel technologies.

This path diverges radically from incremental past practices to pursue long-term goals.

Lovins argues that both paths present difficult—but very different—problems. The first path is convincingly familiar, but the economic and sociopolitical problems then facing the nation loomed large and insuperable.

The second path, though it represents a shift in direction, offers many social, economic and geopolitical advantages, including virtual elimination of nuclear proliferation from the world.

For Lovins, it is important to recognize that the two paths are mutually exclusive. Because commitments to the first may foreclose the second, Lovins argues that we must choose one or the other—before failure to stop nuclear proliferation has foreclosed both.

[NNadir]

5. Lovins told us "nuclear is dead" in 1980. One wonders we he and his fellow mystics are crying so

loudly now.

Could it be that they have some doubts about their religious faith?

I guess their solar and wind fantasy remains as stupid and as impractical as it was in 1976, when BP Lovins told us that we would have 16 quads of solar "by 2000."

Anti-science types are all the same: They elevate their dogmatic fantasies over observation.

The world doesn't give a shit what Lovins says. He's a senile gas bag with emphasis on the gas.

[kristopher]

6. That speaks not at all to the subject at hand. Try to focus...

You've probably never read anything actually written by Lovins, so here is a snip that captures the thesis:

...Perhaps the most profound difference between the soft and hard paths is their domestic sociopolitical impact. Both paths, like any 50-year energy path, entail significant social change. But the kinds of social change needed for a hard path are apt to be much less pleasant, less plausible, less compatible with social diversity and personal freedom of choice, and less consistent with traditional values than are the social changes that could make a soft path work.

It is often said that, on the contrary, a soft path must be repressive; and coercive paths to energy conservation and soft technologies can indeed be imagined. But coercion is not necessary and its use would signal a major failure of imagination, given the many policy instruments available to achieve a given technical end. Why use penal legislation to encourage roof insulation when tax incentives and education (leading to the sophisticated public understanding now being achieved in Canada and parts of Europe) will do? Policy tools need not harm lifestyles or liberties if chosen with reasonable sensitivity.

In contrast to the soft path's dependence on pluralistic consumer choice in deploying a myriad of small devices and refinements, the hard path depends on difficult, large-scale projects requiring a major social commitment under centralized management. We have noted in Section III the extraordinary capital intensity of centralized, electrified high technologies. Their similarly heavy demands on other scarce resources—skills, labor, materials, special sites—likewise cannot be met by market allocation, but require compulsory diversion from whatever priorities are backed by the weakest constituencies. Quasi-war powers legislation to this end has already been seriously proposed. The hard path, sometimes portrayed as the bastion of free enterprise and free markets, would instead be a world of subsidies, $100-billion bailouts, oligopolies, regulations, nationalization, eminent domain, corporate statism.

Such dirigiste autarchy is the first of many distortions of the political fabric. While soft technologies can match any settlement pattern, their diversity reflecting our own pluralism, centralized energy sources encourage industrial clustering and urbanization. While soft technologies give everyone the costs and benefits of the energy system he chooses, centralized systems allocate benefits to surburbanites and social costs to politically weaker rural agrarians. Siting big energy systems pits central authority against local autonomy in an increasingly divisive and wasteful form of centrifugal politics that is already proving one of the most potent constraints on expansion.

In an electrical world, your lifeline comes not from an understandable neighborhood technology run by people you know who are at your own social level, but rather from an alien, remote, and perhaps humiliatingly uncontrollable technology run by a faraway, bureaucratized, technical elite who have probably never heard of you. Decisions about who shall have how much energy at what price also become centralized—a politically dangerous trend because it divides those who use energy from those who supply and regulate it.

The scale and complexity of centralized grids not only make them politically inaccessible to the poor and weak, but also increase the likelihood and size of malfunctions, mistakes and deliberate disruptions. A small fault or a few discontented people become able to turn off a country. Even a single rifleman can probably black out a typical city instantaneously. Societies may therefore be tempted to discourage disruption through stringent controls akin to a garrison state. In times of social stress, when grids become a likely target for dissidents, the sector may be paramilitarized and further isolated from grass-roots politics.

If the technology used, like nuclear power, is subject to technical surprises and unique psychological handicaps, prudence or public clamor may require generic shutdowns in case of an unexpected type of malfunction: one may have to choose between turning off a country and persisting in potentially unsafe operation. Indeed, though many in the $100-billion quasi-civilian nuclear industry agree that it could be politically destroyed if a major accident occurred soon, few have considered the economic or political implications of putting at risk such a large fraction of societal capital. How far would governments go to protect against a threat—even a purely political threat—a basket full of such delicate, costly and essential eggs? Already in individual nuclear plants, the cost of a shutdown—often many dollars a second—weighs heavily, perhaps too heavily, in operating and safety decisions.

Any demanding high technology tends to develop influential and dedicated constituencies of those who link its commercial success with both the public welfare and their own. Such sincerely held beliefs, peer pressures, and the harsh demands that the work itself places on time and energy all tend to discourage such people from acquiring a similarly thorough knowledge of alternative policies and the need to discuss them.

Moreover, the money and talent invested in an electrical program tend to give it disproportionate influence in the counsels of government, often directly through staff-swapping between policy- and mission-oriented agencies. This incestuous position, now well developed in most industrial countries, distorts both social, and energy priorities in a lasting way that resists political remedy.

For all these reasons, if nuclear power were clean, safe, economic, assured of ample fuel, and socially benign per se, it would still be unattractive because of the political implications of the kind of energy economy it would lock us into. But fission technology also has unique sociopolitical side-effects arising from the impact of human fallibility and malice on the persistently toxic and explosive materials in the fuel cycle. For example, discouraging nuclear violence and coercion requires some abrogation of civil liberties34; guarding long-lived wastes against geological or social contingencies implies some form of hierarchical social rigidity or homogeneity to insulate the technological priesthood from social turbulence; and making political decisions about nuclear hazards which are compulsory, remote from social experience, disputed, unknown, or unknowable, may tempt governments to bypass democratic decision in favor of elitist technocracy.

Even now, the inability of our political institutions to cope with nuclear hazard is straining both their competence and their perceived legitimacy. There is no scientific basis for calculating the likelihood or the maximum long-term effects of nuclear mishaps, or for guaranteeing that those effects will not exceed a particular level; we know only that all precautions are, for fundamental reasons, inherently imperfect in essentially unknown degree....

Page 14
Energy Strategy: The Road Not Taken?
By Amory B. Lovins

Open Access document available in full at:
http://www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/E77-01_EnergyStrategyRoadNotTaken

[GliderGuider]

11. Even from a technical perspective this is true.

Every wind turbine that goes on line brings with it a new requirement for gas-turbine backup to enable the supply to meet the demand profile. Because of this, even if a wind farm replaces some coal generating capacity it doesn’t reduce the CO2 output as much as if the coal plant had been replace by a nuke.

The gas industry loves wind...

[kristopher]

12. The difference between centralized generation and distributed generation

Moving to a system of distributed generation based on renewables gives us a realistic avenue for eliminating ALL fossil fuels; making natural gas (as Lovins points out) a transitional fuel. The view you advocate is little more than a clumsy attempt to malign renewables.

There is a reason that NONE of the established environmental organizations back nuclear power, and it has nothing to do with anything except the poor performance of nuclear as a sustainable, non-polluting means of meeting our energy needs. One of the problems with the technology is that as the high grade uranium ore is depleted, the level of GHG production associated with the nuclear fuel cycle is set to rise to the same level as natural gas.

Nuclear sucks.

[GliderGuider]

13. Nucular sux?

Nice adult argumentation.

Nuclear GHG production right now is just fine. As time goes on, if we truly want to save the ecosphere instead of just patting ourselves on the back over how green we are, we will move to Gen IV. That move will obviate any objections about high grade uranium ore (and waste storage into the bargain).

The reason "the established environmental organizations" don't back nuclear power is because they haven't figured out what the real global problem is yet, nor how serious our predicament already is. They are clueless panderers to the bourgeoisie - salesmen of a cake they tell us we can both have and eat.

The notion of a global electrical grid based entirely on variable power sources like wind and solar is an opium dream.

Wind doesn't blow... :hi:

[kristopher]

23. Yes, nuclear sucks.

The established environmental organizations have a great deal more credibility than either the nuclear INDUSTRY or those who love to share the propaganda of the nuclear INDUSTRY.

[joshcryer]

26. Yeah, the Union of Concerned Lobbiests really has my respect.

:sarcasm:

[kristopher]

28. You must be part of this effort...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x268468

[Nihil]

30. He (as an environmentalist) is on the receiving side ...

... whereas your friends David Barton & Dr. Richard Land seem to be
as determined as you are to blacken the name of anyone who dares to
oppose your own isolated gospel viewpoint.

[kristopher]

31. He isn't "an environmentalist"

You can be an environmentalist, or you can be a promoter of nuclear power; the nature of nuclear power means that you can't be both.

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.

[GliderGuider]

32. Do you know what the "No True Scotsman" fallacy is?

You're simply saying that no one can be an environmentalist if they don't follow your definitions. Why should we care who you do and do not call an environmentalist? If someone has global CO2 levels as their over-riding concern, they are an environmentalist in my books. It's kind of like the Sea Shepherds who have a single ecological issue on their agenda and pursue it by means others find unacceptable - they're also environmentalists as far as I'm concerned.

[kristopher]

33. Another nuclear power supporter

Promoting panic on climate change and then trying to capitalize on that fear in order to push nuclear power isn't "environmentalism". Both you and Josh routinely denigrate any environmental organization that rejects nuclear power (and that's all of them). Considering you also seem to be here specifically to promote nuclear power it isn't surprising you'd take exception to the findings of researchers on the topic. In that light it is clear that you are the one attempting to play with definitions.


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.

[GliderGuider]

34. Spam, spam, spam, spam. Here's my riposte.

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

True. However, risks do not exist in isolation. I perceive a risk in CO2 that outweighs everything else.

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.

False. I distrust the nuclear industry just as much as I do any other entrenched industry. I think that the global risk of CO2 outweighs my distrust.

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

False. I believe that another risk (CO2) is greater than the 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.

False. Lower CO2 output is the one factor that drives my positive attitude towards nuclear power.

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

True, but irrelevant. My values are highly non-traditional. I am non-patriotic, atheistic, anarchistic and have lived in a variety of highly unconventional "family" arrangements. I think whole idea of stability is an illusion.

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

Yes. So?

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

False. In my case it's precisely the "perceived risk from global environmental problems" that drive my attitude towards nuclear power.

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

False. My values are highly non-traditional, and I accept nuclerar power enthusiastically, given the current global probvlem with CO2.

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

True.

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

That may be true in general, but in my case it's irrelevant. I am highly non-traditional, and share all the goals of the traditional environmental movement except for one - my support for nuclear power.

Expect to see this again if you spam my posts with your bullying cut and paste.

[kristopher]

35. Peer reviewed objective science versus your unsubstantiated claims.

You are an entity on an internet forum making self serving claims -those claims have no weight and are disputed by the evidence of your past posts.

Your attempt is also completely nonsensical when examined closely -

You say you are NOT inclined to trust the nuclear industry, yet the ONLY source of positive argumentation regarding nuclear power and climate change IS the nuclear industry.

All of the independent, OBJECTIVE analysts that you REJECT dismiss nuclear power as a significant component of our response to climate change.

Therefore, even though you say you reject the nuclear industry the fact is that you parrot nuclear industry falsehoods - up to and including the unceasing attacks on renewable energy sources.

Your lone claim to environmental values is embodied in the claim that you are motivated by climate change, yet when looked at with the above points in the picture, your claim is obviously lacking credibility.

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.

[PamW]

46. Another "True Scotsman" fallacy

All of the independent, OBJECTIVE analysts that you REJECT dismiss nuclear power as a significant component of our response to climate change.
====================

Another example of the "True Scotsman" fallacy - some who think that they are
the true arbiter of what is true and objective.

Your contention above doesn't square with those of the scientific community.
Nuclear power is supported by the National Academy of Science and Engineering.
Nuclear power is supported by the American Institute of Physics.
Nuclear power is supported by the American Physical Society.

When the Department of Energy requested an analysis of energy options from
the scientists of our national laboratories, the result was the following
white paper signed by the directors of all the DOE national laboratories,
including the then director of Lawrence Berkeley, Dr. Steven Chu, who is
a Nobel Laureate in Physics and now President Obama's Secretary of Energy:

http://www.ne.doe.gov/pdffiles/rpt_sustainableenergyfuture_aug2008.pdf

Are all these scientists lacking objectivity and altruism? The DOE isn't
dependent on the health of the nuclear industry for its survival. It gets
its money from the federal treasury. Congress funds them to be an independent
source of scientific knowledge for the government. Yet these independent
scientists and engineers support nuclear power and in fact claim that it is an
"essential" for sustainability.

PamW

[GliderGuider]

47. Thanks Pam!

You've got a good handle on logical fallacies. :evilgrin:

And the linked white paper is a treasure. :thumbsup:

Welcome to DU. I you will make this an even more interesting place. :hi:

[Name removed]

48. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kristopher]

50. The DOE was created specifically to MARKET nuclear reactors.

The original "Dept of Energy" was called the "Atomic Energy Commission" and was created specifically to find civilian applications for the technology that had created nuclear weapons. The first director was the one that promised nuclear power would soon be "too cheap to meter".

There is no *research* showing that nuclear power is a necessary or even helpful component of efforts to provide a sustainable energy response to climate change. All that exists are presumptive claims from parties vested in more public spending on the nuclear boondoggle.

Origins & Evolution of the Department of Energy

President Harry S. Truman approving an Interim Committee to recommend wartime use of atomic weapons and a postwar policyThe origins of the Department of Energy can be traced to the Manhattan Project and the race to develop the atomic bomb during World War II. In 1942, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers established the Manhattan Engineer District to manage the project. Following the war, Congress engaged in a vigorous and contentious debate over civilian versus military control of the atom. The Atomic Energy Act of 1946 settled the debate by creating the Atomic Energy Commission, which took over the Manhattan Engineer District's sprawling scientific and industrial complex.

President Ronald Reagan Presents the 1983 Enrico Fermi Award to Seth H. Neddermeyer.The Atomic Energy Commission was specifically established to maintain civilian government control over the field of atomic research and development. During the early Cold War Years, the Commission focused on designing and producing nuclear weapons and developing nuclear reactors for naval propulsion. The Atomic Energy Act of 1954 ended exclusive government use of the atom and began the growth of the commercial nuclear power industry, giving the Atomic Energy Commission authority to regulate the new industry.

In response to changing needs in the mid 1970's, the Atomic Energy Commission was abolished and the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 created two new agencies: the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to regulate the nuclear power industry and the Energy Research and Development Administration to manage the nuclear weapon, naval reactor, and energy development program...

http://www.energy.gov/about/origins.htm

So yes, the DOE and the sections of the National Labs that they support are most definitely a part of the Nuclear Industry. They have a broader mission now, but they are STILL ground zero for pushing nuclear power as an energy source no matter the relative merits of nuclear in relation to other technologies.

[joshcryer]

51. That would explain why they are against nuclear technologies which are anti-nuclear industry.

Thanks for pointing that out.

[kristopher]

53. More accurately you could say there is competition *within* the nuclear industry...

There are always going to be those pursuing out-of-favor technologies so it isn't accurate to attempt to whitewash them by saying they are not part of the nuclear industry.

And just because they are not favored doesn't mean that they are better than the ones the industry is pushing. All you are doing is going down the nuclear-circle-jerk road where insurmountable obstacles posed by one particular technology are met with the claim that "Well, we could use this OTHER technology..." while ignoring/hiding the fatal flaws of the OTHER technology. If one pursues the circle long enough, the claim eventually returns back to its starting point.

[joshcryer]

54. No, there is no competition for technologies that break how the nuclear industry functions.

The nuclear industry makes its money making fuel rods and leaving behind lots of waste that the rate payers have to pay for. Take that out of the equation, and you are no longer functioning within the confines of the nuclear industry. It's a no brainer, if the technology existed the nuclear industry, as it stands now, would be turned upside down on its head. The industry does not want it. I even tested this theory, I googled NEI and LFTR or IFR. There are hardly any posts about it, and the two I did find about LFTR were stupid ass posts that were talking about Kirk Sorenson's kids or something (it basically had nothing to do with supporting LFTR in any serious way).

Yes, the nuclear industry, and some nuclear advocates use Gen IV as a way to muster support for archaic Gen III/III+, however, I am not one of those people because I do not believe Gen III is adequate and do not believe any more should be built beyond those already being built or mostly planned out. End Gen III reactor buildout by the end of the decade. Period.

[GliderGuider]

36. Ah. I figured out the actual fallacy in play here.

It's called Affirming the consequent.

The fallacy goes like this:

(1) If Fred wanted to get me sacked then he’d go and have a word with the boss.
(2) There goes Fred to have a word with the boss.
Therefore:
(3) Fred wants to get me sacked.

or more formally

If P then Q;
Q;
Therefore P.

The way it's in play here is:

If someone has a traditionalist, non-altruistic personality the one is more likely to support nuclear power;
Someone supports nuclear power; therefore they have a traditionalist, non-altruistic personality.

It's basically an attempt to imply that anyone who supports nuclear power for any reason is right-wing.
I know you hate nuclear power, and everything and everyone associated with it. But it's still a fallacy.

[kristopher]

38. Sorry that doesn't work.

This is my statement:
"He isn't "an environmentalist" You can be an environmentalist, or you can be a promoter of nuclear power; the nature of nuclear power means that you can't be both."

There is little empirical basis for claims that nuclear power is preferred over renewables or even of any benefit for meeting our climate change, energy supply and air pollution mortality problems. Yet, those are precisely the claims made by proponents of nuclear power. That support for nuclear can ONLY be framed as "environmental" by pretending the extremely high opportunity and external costs associated with dramatic expansion of the use of nuclear do not exist.

The ACT of making such an argument in the face of the abundant data showing these opportunity and environmental costs is proof that the motivation of those engaging in that act cannot be "environmental" as that word is commonly used.

It is, however, an argument that supporters of nuclear power are encouraged to repeat as often as possible:

Messaging strategy for nuclear power (in their own words)

I'm sure this "message" is a familiar one to DU/EE readers. This comes on the tail end of a rather dismal assessment of public support for nuclear power. It is a given that by "sensible energy policy" the author is referring to one that includes the nuclear power that will produce the waste his company can profit from.

...how do we use the results of public opinion to develop a sensible energy policy

• Leadership and unity of message need to be the top priority.
• Acceptable messages need to cover the diversity of group thinking.
• Developing confidence on having a solution to nuclear waste issues and non-proliferation requires leadership messages and social support more than scientific support.

And what are those "acceptable messages"?

Energy Messages
• Nuclear and renewable energy need to be tied into a combined offering.
• Concerns regarding energy security and energy independence can only be solved through the combination of energy efficiency, renewable standards, and nuclear energy.

From presentation:
"Understanding Public Opinion: A Key to the Nuclear Renaissance"
Dr. Raul A. Deju Sept. 2009
Chief Operating Officer
EnergySolutions, Inc.

EnergySolutions is one of the world’s largest processors of low level waste (LLW), and is the largest nuclear waste company in the United States...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EnergySolutions

[txlibdem]

39. Nuclear power proponents can't be environmentalists? Don't tell the EFN

Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy (EFN) is a pro-nuclear power non-profit organization. Their website (ecolo.org) states that environmental opposition to nuclear energy is the "greatest misunderstanding and mistake of the century".

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

Here is the group's website:
http://www.ecolo.org/

Their tagline: "For complete and factual information on energy and the environment"

[kristopher]

40. Nuclear and coal, coal and nuclear - two sides of the same coin

Nuclear power is less environmentally "friendly" than coal with carbon capture and storage.

Do you consider those who want to address climate change with coal to be exhibiting environmental values? Or, when you hear them promoting how "green" clean coal is, do you suspect that they are motivated by concerns for things like energy security to a much greater degree than they are admitting?

[txlibdem]

41. You can't possibly be serious in supporting Coal and carbon capture

CCS (Carbon Capture and Sequestration) is a smokescreen to allow the coal industry to continue burning their dirty fuel. The coal industry keeps dangling that carrot in front of our faces while at the same time they shut down the only CCS coal plant in the country. How are they going to perfect CCS when they shut down their testbed plant. Let's look at the realities of CCS.

The cost is higher:

Capturing and compressing CO2 requires much energy and would increase the fuel needs of a coal-fired plant with CCS by 25%-40%.<2> These and other system costs are estimated to increase the cost of energy from a new power plant with CCS by 21-91%.<2> These estimates apply to purpose-built plants near a storage location; applying the technology to preexisting plants or plants far from a storage location will be more expensive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_capture_and_storage
(note, the article goes on to say that the coal industry estimates the costs will come down... how? They closed down their testing facility)

It makes coal power much more expensive. Concentrated Solar Power is already cost competitive with non-CCS coal

The DOE estimates that only 1% to 4% of the nations potential CO2 geological storage sites would be stable storage for CO2:

The potential capacity of these rock formations at first seems staggering. According to the most conservative estimate presented in DOE's Carbon Sequestration Atlas, a maximum of some 3,300 billion metric tons of storage is available, 23 times the capacity of depleted oil and gas reservoirs.

However, the DOE estimate for saline aquifers hinges on one poorly understood variable: the percentage of space in the rock formation that will hold CO2 for 1,000 years or more, a term known as storage efficiency. Given this uncertainty, DOE has been conservative in its estimates, using an efficiency rate of 1 percent to 4 percent, even though some natural gas formations, also often found in sandstone, have efficiencies as high as 80 percent.

The fickle nature of storage efficiency reflects a fundamental scientific question. Most saline aquifers are not the perfect, bubble-like formations that trap natural gas beneath a caprock. Instead, the CO2 plume is likely to have some space to slide around under the caprock. While it sashays, geologists expect bits of the gas to be trapped behind in the rock pores, a mechanism called capillary trapping.

With only a few CO2 injection projects operating, so far storage efficiency is a "number we don't have a lot of control over, in terms of actual measured behavior," Burruss said. At individual sites, it could vary from 0.01 to 10 percent.

...

the lifetime emissions from one large coal-fired power plant would displace water equal to the volume of about 4.1 billion oil barrels -- the size of a "giant" oil field. Few formations, he said, can easily handle such displacement.

http://www.eenews.net/public/Greenwire/2010/04/28/3

There is no easy answer to the CO2 problem with burning coal but even if they solve that issue there still remains the toxic lead, arsenic, mercury, etc., that comes out of burning coal and let's not forget that each coal power plant spews out 5 tons of Uranium and about 3 times that amount of Thorium each year.

[kristopher]

42. Stop using bogus nuclear industry arguments - coal and nuclear are about equal

I didn't say coal was good; I said coal and nuclear are basically equivalent as a sustainable response to climate change, energy security and air pollution - and they are.

They both suck.

[txlibdem]

43. Stop using bogus Coal Industry arguments

Elevating the expensive, unworkable fantasy that is CCS to the same place as clean, carbon free nuclear power is almost as ridiculous as saying we'll be getting our energy from magic fairy dust.

Once you add in the extra costs, the constant danger of containment rupture and the expensive monitoring and mitigation efforts that entails, the increased fuel use of 30%, that either reduces the number of viable CCS coal plant locations in the US down to statistical insignificance or would require (expensive) pipelines to transport the CO2 from the CCS-equipped coal plant to locations where stable geology exists.

Any of these makes CCS coal power more expensive than the alternatives, including nuclear. Your continued support of the coal industry will not sway any opinions here on DU, I assure you. The facts just keep getting in your way.

[kristopher]

44. See post #7 evaluation showing nuclear power and coal ccs as same score

You haven't got a leg to stand on. There are only a few explanations for why one would support one of these environmentally unfriendly technologies while poo-pooing the other, and concern about climate change isn't on the list.
http://pubs.rsc.org/services/images/RSCpubs.ePlatform.Service.FreeContent.ImageService.svc/ImageService/image/GA?id=B809990C

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=268034&mesg_id=268151

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.

...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.

...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.

[joshcryer]

55. Oh, I completely overlooked this lie, how quaint.

[kristopher]

56. There is no logical consistency between your stated beliefs and your actions here.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x268571

Playing Chicken Little doesn't make you an environmentalist. It is abundantly clear that you pick and choose your positions based on their effects on the nuclear industry. If it enhances the Temple of Uranus, then you laud it as environmental, if it is a threat to the Temple then you do everything you can to bash it.
For example, if your motives for supporting nuclear were as you say, then you would be pressing for coal/CCS and ALL renewables with every bit as much vigor as you reserve for your preccccccciousssssss....

Instead you spend 90% of your time trying to discredit the best solutions for addressing climate change.

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/Articles/I/revsolglobwarmairpol.htm

http://pubs.rsc.org/services/images/RSCpubs.ePlatform.Service.FreeContent.ImageService.svc/ImageService/image/GA?id=B809990C


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.

[joshcryer]

57. I hold the same exact position as James Hansen, are you going to call him not an environmentalist?

[joshcryer]

58. James Hansen holds his position precisely because renewables are not or may not be cutting it.

[joshcryer]

59. I hold my position because renewables are not cutting it from the information I receive from you.

[joshcryer]

60. You would prefer your dishonest characterizations about renewables make it out to be better.

[joshcryer]

61. It ain't working with me, sonny. And James Hansen still believes nuclear should be a backup.

[joshcryer]

62. Both James and I are logically consistent in our beliefs. Read my sig.

[kristopher]

63. I've read your sig; I've also read thousands of antirenewable/pronuclear posts by you.

Anyone can claim to be anything, but the proof of what you think and believe is revealed with far greater accuracy by your ACTIONS. Posting is an act; selecting a topic to write about is an act; selecting a position to encourage or discourage is also an act.

Your *actions* are not consistent with your stated beliefs - they are not even close. The problem confronting you is that you are here with a specific agenda - promoting nuclear and discrediting renewables.

If you adhere to your apparent agenda, you are easy to identify as someone that has little real regard for the actual environmental impacts of the policies you endorse. However, if you conform to your stated beliefs you must abandon your agenda.

It is your choice as to which path you choose to pursue, but knowing what you are *doing* is as easy as reading your posts.

[joshcryer]

64. My actions are entirely consistent with an environmentalist.

An environmentalist says when http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/TargetCO2_20080407.pdf">we're not doing enough, they don't put their head in the sand and http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x268146">pretend that we are. An environmentalist wants low impact energy sources and adds moderation to a discussion that claims that certain energy sources are low impact just because they're renewable.

An environmentalist http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x228692">defends rigorously the science behind climate change.

A non-environmentalist wind industry shill is http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x208065">dishonest about the contribution of CO2 in the atmosphere. A non-environmentalist natural gas shill will http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=207825&mesg_id=207825">argue for and defend crack pottery theories no better than Roy Spencer.

Spare me the bullshit.

[NickB79]

19. How do massive Plains and offshore wind farms and desert-spanning solar farms fit

Into "a system of distributed generation based on renewables"?

[kristopher]

20. Did you read the paper?

[NickB79]

21. Yep

And my question remains: how do decidely non-distributed systems like wind farms and solar farms qualify as a way forward towards a distributed system of energy generation? I'm not arguing against building said renewable infrastructure; I just don't see how you can talk about a national distributed energy grid when that grid would be heavily dependent upon centralized renewable energy.

[kristopher]

22. They are not centralized generating systems.

Even the largest are small by the standards of centralized thermal. Don't believe me, just ask anyone pushing nuclear or coal; it is the first thing they attack about renewable projects.

"That project is trivial" is said in a hundred different ways in an attempt to exploit as a weakness the distributed nature of the *raw resources*. I always sigh when I hear it because that understanding is a dead giveaway that the person making it has no idea of the constituent elements of the problem they are attempting to deal with.

Now here you are trying to stand that on it's head by claiming large scale development of wind and solar is the same as centralized thermal.

It is actually enlightening when you read what Lovins actually wrote; you should try it.

[Confusious]

25. Small as in small power generation

With a large land mass for solar, or large noise generation for wind.

Even SEGS, the largest operating solar plant in the world--also located in the Mojave Desert (fancy that)--which uses nine solar arrays with over 1,000,000 sun-tracking parabolic mirrors to concentrate solar energy, is not a wonder of efficiency. As advertised, the facility sounds great. It is rated at 354,000 kW of electrical output, roughly one-third the output of a major nuclear power plant. But its real average power is 77,000 kW--which means that the plant, which takes up a 1,600-acre site--generates 48 kW per acre and requires a natural gas boiler that contributes about 25 percent to its output.

Doesn't sound so decentralized to me. Even those wind farms are being put in by power companies. We're breaking the corporate back we are!

[NickB79]

37. The largest renewable projects TODAY are small in comparison to centralized thermal

But they also supply a very small portion of the nation's overall energy demands.

It will be interesting to see how renewable projects evolve in size as we stop nibbling around the edges and start pushing for 10%, 20%, 30% or more of our total energy demand in the years to come. I have a feeling they won't remain so small and distributed if we are truly interesting in scaling them up to the point we can start taking coal and nuke plants offline.

[kristopher]

45. Do you even understand what "distributed" means?

Your remarks indicate you haven't really wrapped your head around what the essence of a distributed grid is.

[diane in sf]

8. Thank you for all the great information on this thread, particularly the hard path/soft path

info from Lovins.

[Nihil]

9. Nothing says "Current events" like an opinion piece from 34 years ago ...

... especially when the author has gained much (most?) of his income
since then from the very fossil fuel, polluting & exploitative companies
that are behind the environmental problems we see today (and have been
seeing for the last 34 years or more).

:eyes:

[madokie]

10. Lovins was right back then

and he's right today. He's helped us in our quest to cut down on atmospheric co2 more than any one other person has. The reason he is making money from the fossil fuel industry today is because he is helping companies to better utilize their energy usage, a good thing. Ronald Reagan is the culprit here not Amory Lovins. First thing the pukes done when they took over in '81 was dismantle all the good hard work that President Carter had done in setting us on a path of energy independence.

:eyes:
:hi:

[NNadir]

14. Um...um...um...you obviously didn't read Lovins stupid paper and have no idea

of the contents.

That is hardly a surprise, of course.

[madokie]

15. Yeah yeah we know

no one but you knows anything about anything.
sleep tight in your small world big guy

PS if you don't drink so much tonight you won't get so stupid on the board plus you'll feel much better in the morning. Oh and don't forget to take your aspirin either.
peace and :hug:

[NNadir]

17. All I said, Inhofe land boy, is that YOU didn't Lovins stupid paper.

And um, you didn't.

I didn't say anything at all about myself, and your comments about ME have nothing to do with the fact that YOU didn't read Lovins stupid paper.

That said, I have always felt that the backwoods anti-science anti-nuke hicks who write here love Lovins so much because, like them, he's a wild cat coal freak.

Here's Lovins remarks, in his very stupid high school level line of trash from 1976:

Perhaps the most exciting current development is the so-called fluidized-bed system for burning coal (or virtually any other combustible material). Fluidized beds are simple, versatile devices that add the fuel a little at a time to a much larger mass of small, inert, redhot particles—sand or ceramic pellets—kept suspended as an agitated fluid by a stream of air continuously blown up through it from below.

-Amory Lovins, "The Road Not Taken," Foreign Affairs October 1976, page 85.

The bold is mine.

I have not met ONE anti-nuke - all of whom prove be at, best, semi-literate - who is NOT an apologist for coal.

No wonder all the stupidos here stop in to worship the little mindless fucker.

I've been to India. Unlike the Snowmass paid off dangerous fossil fuel apologist Lovins, I give a fuck about poverty, and no, I don't think that maintaining poverty in India in the name of some conservation horseshit - even with horseshit to gasoline fantasies the dipshits here like to hype - is a wise or ethical pastime, because I've seen in India the wild cat coal that all the hicks, including the hick Lovins, are so fond of.

Have a nice unlettered day, Inhofe boy.

[kristopher]

18. Again you misrepresent the content of what you cite...

For reader reference, that is is a habit you embrace; it is not just poor scholarship.
Your false statement:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=261737&mesg_id=262014

Another poster's rebuttal:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x261737#262053
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x261737#262052


Now, what is Lovins really saying?

He is "outlining and contrasting two energy paths that the United States might follow over the next 50 years..." The one YOU endorse, which is centralized generation based on coal AND nuclear, compared to a highly efficient distributed energy system.

The first path ...relies on rapid expansion of centralized high technologies to increase supplies of energy, especially in the form of electricity. The second path combines a prompt and serious commitment to efficient use of energy, rapid development of renewable energy sources matched in scale and in energy quality to end-use needs, and special transitional fossil-fuel technologies.
The second path... represents a shift in direction, offers many social, economic and geopolitical advantages, including virtual elimination of nuclear proliferation from the world. It is important to recognize that the two paths are mutually exclusive.

... Massive electrification...is largely responsible for the release of waste heat sufficient to warm the entire freshwater runoff of the contiguous 48 states by 34–49°F.

Mining coal and uranium, increasingly in the arid West, entails inverting thousands of communities and millions of acres, often with little hope of effective restoration. The commitment to a long-term coal economy many times the scale of today's makes the doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration early in the next century virtually unavoidable, with the prospect then or soon thereafter of substantial and perhaps irreversible changes in global climate. Only the exact date of such changes is in question...

In 1976, long before it was a blip on the radar of nuclear industry enthusiasts, Lovins was ALREADY committed to working against climate change and the expanded use of coal. His recommendation about using coal at the point of energy consumption is part of a picture of a highly efficient energy economy built around closely matching the demand with the on-site production of energy to meet that demand.

The main threat existing at the time was an energy shortage. What Lovins was attempting to do was set us on a path to address our immediate energy needs while positioning us to achieve a sustainable energy path based on renewable energy sources:

...the two paths differ even more in risks than in costs. The hard path entails serious environmental risks, many of which are poorly understood and some of which have probably not yet been thought of. Perhaps the most awkward risk is that late in this century, when it is too late to do much about it, we may well find climatic constraints on coal combustion about to become acute in a few more decades: for it now takes us only that long, not centuries or millennia, to approach such outer limits. The soft path, by minimizing all fossil-fuel combustion, hedges our bets. Its environmental impacts are relatively small, tractable and reversible.3

The hard path, further, relies on a very few high technologies whose success is by no means assured. The soft path distributes the technical risk among very many diverse low technologies, most of which are already known to work well. They do need sound engineering—a solar collector or heat pump can be worthless if badly designed—but the engineering is of an altogether different and more forgiving order than the hard path requires, and the cost of failure is much lower both in potential consequences and in number of people affected. The soft path also minimizes the economic risks to capital in case of error, accident or sabotage; the hard path effectively maximizes those risks by relying on vulnerable high-technology devices each costing more than the endowment of Harvard University. Finally, the soft path appears generally more flexible — and thus robust. Its technical diversity, adaptability, and geographic dispersion make it resilient and offer a good prospect of stability under a wide range of conditions, foreseen or not. The hard path, however, is brittle; it must fail, with widespread and serious disruption, if any of its exacting technical and social conditions is not satisfied continuously and indefinitely.

What were YOU doing about climate change in 1976?

[Confusious]

24. Still pushing that to say he's dishonest?

Haven't you got anything newer? Or maybe even older? Something different even?

Yeesh, back in the beginning of october even.

[kristopher]

27. His posts do that for him...

As yours do for you.

[Confusious]

29. Projection.

[NNadir]

49. Um, um, um...kiddie...

In 1976, if you must know, I was a stupid ignorant anti-nuke, just like the stupid ignorant anti-nukes here today.

Then I got an education.

The fact is, kiddie, that a conservative is, by definition, a person who refuses to change his or her mind about anything.

Getting a lecture from a dumb anti-nuke who uncritically repeats 35 year old horseshit, is like getting a lecture from George Wallace on the civil rights.

Last week Switzerland announced a consortium of its utilities intend to build new nuclear power plants. China began to manufacture components for AP-1000's indigenously. Finland announced plans to build new reactors.

They don't care what conservatives think about 35 year old horseshit from dumb guys who repeat cant year after year after year after year after year about their solar and wind fantasies.

Lovins advocated wildcat coal. I quoted the reference. Neither he nor any of the coal greenwashing anti-nukes here give a fuck about climate change. If they did, they wouldn't have the ignorance to come here, in 2011 and rail mindlessly against the world's largest, by far, source of climate change gas free energy.

Here's what I predict for the coming year. It will pass, and 2012 will come, and we'll still be hearing mindless anti-nuke bull. Solar will still not produce an exajoule in this country. The gas interests that pay Lovins salary so he can live in Snowmass will still be fracking. And serious people - who don't hate nuclear science out of ignorance much as creationists who hate molecular biology out of ignorance - will still be announcing new nuclear capacity.

Have a nice cut and paste 2011.

[kristopher]

52. Still the same

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=268034&mesg_id=268266

[Nihil]

16. I don't disagree with you about Reagan ...

... but I don't agree with you about Lovins.

We might as well leave it there for now.
:hi: