Tom Blees’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  <!--StartFragment-->

  That would be all well and good if wind or solar could provide anywhere near the electricity and 24/7 reliability of a nuclear plant, which contrary to uninformed or misleading opinion can, have, and are being built in 3-4 years, not ten or more. As the new crop of Gen III and III+ reactors come online, you'll see three-year timelines as the norm except in places where political obstacles slow things down. It does no good to tout the benefits of one system that isn't comparable to another. Wind and solar simply cannot provide all the energy we need, and anyone who's done a serious study of the statistics can tell you that. See David MacKay's and Ted Trainer's books, among others, for a serious discussion of what wind and solar can and can't do.

  Look at Germany for a case study in the potential of renewables. For over 25 years Germany has had massive public subsidization of wind power to the point where 38% of the world's wind power is produced in Germany, and about half of all the world's solar power. The upshot? Subsidies for this "green" electricity of up to 7 times USA average rates, and Germany now produces about 7% of their energy from wind and a trivial 0.5% from solar (this from a pro-solar website, no less). Worse yet, most of that wind power is produced in a couple months during the winter, with long stretches of the rest of the year where wind turbines are operating at a tiny fraction of that capacity.

  If Germany can provide such an insignificant portion of their electricity needs now from their wind and solar, what happens as they switch to an all-electric future? The idea that Germany and the USA and other developed countries can provide all their energy needs from renewables strains credulity to the breaking point if you look at what Germany's done, and the fact that they've got over two dozen coal-fired power plants on the drawing board now is a damning testimony to the failure of their all-renewable fantasy. But even if, against all odds and at staggering cost, Germany and other developed countries could conceivably pull off an all-renewable energy future, would the entire world follow suit? It wouldn't matter a bit if Chinese and Indian coal-fired power plants continued to belch forth CO2. We'd all still be cooked (metaphorically if not literally).

  <!--EndFragment-->

   

  On Gore vs. Hansen: Enviros take sides in debate over House climate bill posted 5 months, 3 weeks ago 57 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

   

  Your three concerns, MWILDFIRE, are all dealt with at length in my book "Prescription for the Planet." You can read the first chapter online at my website and I've also posted a chapter on Integral Fast Reactor technology from the book that will answer most of your questions, though there's much more in the book on the topic. You can find that chapter here: http://tinyurl.com/cwvn8n

  Barry Brook's web site bravenewclimate.com has been having exhaustive conversations about Gen IV nuclear power for months now. It's a treasure trove of data and links and explanations for anyone who's truly open to considering the science. Ms. Salzman, alas, is not.

   

  Neither I nor any of the other "atomic proponents" I know who comment here are in any way connected with the nuclear industry, a baseless allegation meant as a handy slur by those who would seek to discredit anyone who contends that nuclear power should be used. I do, admittedly, know people who are involved in the nuclear industry and am proud to count them among my friends. They are not avaricious fiends out to destroy the world and poison your (and their) progeny.

   

  Nuclear power can be utilized safely, economically, and yes, quickly, provided anti-nuclear ideologues don't derail it. Ask your library to get my book, and you'll find a thorough discussion of the technology, economics, safety, history, and more.

   

  http://www.prescriptionfortheplanet.com

   

  On Gore vs. Hansen: Enviros take sides in debate over House climate bill posted 5 months, 4 weeks ago 57 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Putting eggs in the geothermal basket

  Geothermal is a lot trickier than many of its proponents make it out to be. There are precious few areas where it's been practical to tap up to now. It sounds great, but the many technical difficulties of tapping it for major amounts of our power generation have yet to be figured out. So banking on getting those problems solved is irresponsible in the face of galloping climate change. We have to figure out feasible plans utilizing technologies that we KNOW for a fact will work. If others like geothermal end up having major breakthroughs, all the better. But just saying that we have to produce all our energy from renewables (and in ten years, no less) is folly. Even if you include nuclear power as a renewable (which could justifiably be done if you consider Gen IV nuclear), the ten year target is still a pipe dream.

  Tom Blees, author of Prescription for the Planet. "Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts."

  On Alliance for Climate Protection ramps up calls for renewable-energy plan posted 1 year ago 17 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Sweden's energy mix

  Funny thing about the commenters' discussion about Sweden here: The word "nuclear" is never uttered. You'd hardly know that nuclear supplies as much energy in Sweden as hydropower. As for touting their renewable mix, 3% wind and 0.1% solar is hardly something to get excited about, and biomass must provide a very small fraction since hydro and nuclear provide about 95% between them.
  

  Tom Blees, author of Prescription for the Planet. "Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts."

  On Alliance for Climate Protection ramps up calls for renewable-energy plan posted 1 year ago 17 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Wishing won't make it so

  Remember, IT IS POSSIBLE to have a nationwide grid powered almost entirely by renewables.

  Possible and feasible are two different things. If you're going to argue against nuclear, first learn about Generation III and, most especially, Gen IV nuclear technology. It shoots virtually all the antinuke arguments down in flames. As for France, if nuclear power was such a loser why would they already be planning their next generation of power plants, why do they have one of the lowest electricity rates (and cleanest air) in Europe, and why would they build so many that electricity is their 4th largest export? Are the French just stupid?

  The irony of alleged environmentalists fighting against nuclear power will someday be seen for the absurdity that it is. Hopefully that day will come sooner rather than later, for global warming can be a harsh mistress.

  You can learn about real solutions to climate change in my book. Check out the first chapter at my website.

  Tom Blees, author of Prescription for the Planet. "Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts."

  On Three nuke-dependent communities vote for a nuclear phase-out posted 1 year ago 17 Responses