Comments Charles Barton has made

No Nuclear Waste

Hay no nuclear waste was released!  We have nuclear critics like Amory Lovins, Ralph Nader, David Roberts, and Joe Romm to thank  for the release of toxic coal waste from the Kingston Steam Plant.  Great work boys!  Keep up your opposition to nuclear power no matter how horrifying the environmental consequences.  

Charles Barton

David who rants?

David it would npot make one bet of difference with you if i argued in a reasonable fashion or if I ranted.  You never listen to the views of nuclear supporters, you never acknowledge that they might be making a point.  No matter how many times you have it demonstrated to you that hou have based an argument on mis information or that your logic is flawed, you continue to make the same mistaken points in the same mistaken way, time after time.  Grow up David.  Learn to act like a man.  Learn tp listen instead of being an ill informed, self righteous prig.

Charles Barton

Solar as a supplement to wind

Jon Rynn, My primary case study is of the Texas grid.  The problem with a combination of solar and wind, is that there will be hours of peak summer demand in the late afternoon and early evening that are not covered by either,  Your options would be to either stave the grid, or get your power from another source.  There is a second line of criticism, namely that your wind component will already cost significantly more than the nuclear alternative, and by adding a costly solar peak power component, you are simply adding to to the excessive cost of the renewables system.    

Charles Barton

Lovins blunders

Some time ago, Malcolm Slesser pointed out that the foundation for Amory Lovins' world view lay on on two enormous intellectual blunders.  In a review of Natural Capitalism Slesser points to one by asking:

"How is the reader to interpret hyperbole like '92% less energy use ' or '100% saving', or the claim that electricity from photo-voltaic devices is of 'higher quality' (p97), or that 'combined cycle gas turbines are not subject to Carnot's Law', or phrases like 'useful work extracted ... to more than 90% of the original fuel energy'? One should not lightly buck the second law of thermodynamics, for no-one has yet succeeded. Amory Lovins has a degree in physics. He should know better.

Then Slesser points to Lovins' second error:

Here is a quote from page 244:

"Over the next half-century, even if global economy expanded by 6 - 8 fold, the rate of releasing carbon by burning of fossil fuels could simultaneously decrease by anywhere from one third to nine-tenths below current rate. This is because of the multiplicative effect of four kinds of actions. Switching to natural gas and renewable energy, as fast as Shell Oil planners consider likely, would cut by one half to three quarters the fossil-fuel carbon in each unit of energy consumed."

They continue: 'The efficiency of converting that energy into delivered forms, notably electricity, could meanwhile rise by at least half, thanks to modern power plants and recapturing waste heat. The efficiency of converting delivered energy into desired services would also increase by about 4-6 fold' (Why?, How?) '. 'Finally the amount of satisfaction derived from each unit of energy might perhaps be doubled by delivering higher-quality services and fewer unwanted ones.'

The allure of this argument is indeed compelling for it banishes the doom and gloom merchants to their dismal cellars; but it is misleading, for there is one thing they have over-looked: human greed. The evidence is that when you get more from less, you just take advantage of the slack. Economists call this the 'rebound effect', and it is well documented. Is it significant that neither 'rebound effect' nor 'thermodynamics' appear in the index of a book that is astonishingly rich in allusions to energy?

Slesser got one thing wrong.  Lovins never earned a degree in physics, in fact he never earned any university degree at all, although he sometimes styles himself Dr. Lovins is only a honorary doctor.  His claim to be the Chief Scientist of the Rocky Mountain Institute is a big put on.  Lovins controls the RMI, and he can call himself anything he wants, but that does not make him a scientist.  

Lovins has founded an American cargo cult, and as Erric Hoffer once wrote:

Mass movements can rise and spread without belief in a god, but never without belief in a devil.

Lester Brown,  David Roberts, and Joe Romm are Lovins' cargo  cult's evangelists, spreading the word to that if we only worship the sun and the wind, and abjure the satanic reactors, abundant electricity will be ours.  

Charles Barton

The action on climate change

The action on climate change will begin after Obama enters off next January.  It will mainly be confined to fact finding at first, but with very good people doing the fact finding.  The results of the fact finding will please neither the anti-nuclear greens nor the coal lobby.  The facts to be found are these, clean coal is far to expensive to to serve as our base energy resource, and renewable energy sources are too hampered by intermittency to be reliable electrical sources.  The fact finders will also find that no one knows the consequences of sequestering a great deal of CO2, and that the more reliable a wind generated electrical system is, the more expensive it will be.  They will also find that American wind resources are most lacking in the summer, when power demands are at their highest.  So guess what the fact finders are going to find is the best source of electrical energy for the 21st century?  

Charles Barton

nuclear subsidy?

GreenEngineer, it strikes me that your arguments for PV subsidies would apply at least as well to the case for subsidizing new nuclear power plants.  The one could argue that the retail cost for power is artificially low, given how much new nuclear plants cost.  A nuclear plant would of course not only provide relief during periods of peak demand but also all day long.  Thus unlike PVs a nuclear plant would provide peak output during all hours of peak demand.  You argue "the cost of PV has dropped as they are more widely adopted, and will continue to do so".  Is that so?  Solar Buzz states that the price of PV modules stood at $4.49  per watt in March of 2005, and for Oct. 2008 the price stood at $4.85  per watt.  Thus there has been a 7.5% price increase in the cost of PV modules during the last four and a half years.  The price of PV modules has demonstrated no tendency to decline.  Indeed the price of PV modules has hovered around $4.85, since July of 2006.  

You argue that PV subsidies are not needed to make PV profitable, but that an unsubsidized PV installation would require 25 years to repay investment costs, and thgis is unattractive to investors.  A similar argument could be used to make a case for similar subsidies for nuclear power.  Were nuclear power subsidized at the the same level as PVs, there is little doubt that nuclear power would be understood to be a far superior investment.

PV technology is a pathetical power generation technology that produces electricity only a few hours a day.  In contrast nuclear power generators produce power over 90% of the time.  If any power generation technology deserves a subsidy it would be nuclear.   I am not, however, arguing for a nuclear subsidy.  My purpose is to demonstrate exactly how weak the case you argue is.

Charles Barton

Hoexter chooses the path of misinformation

Hoexter assess four energy alternatives. They are carbon capture and storage, Light Water Reactors, "Future Fuel-Reprocessing or Thorium-based Nuclear Power System", and the ever beloved renewables including aoler. We of course know already which energy system Hoexter is going to favor.

Lets first examine Hoxter's views on conventional nuclear power. He lists the pros and cons as:

    Pro
    * Carbon neutral under operation
    * Established technology with track record of producing electricity with few safety incidents
    * Produce power in the same profile as most coal generation plants (a constant baseload); can be used as a coal substitute
    * Remaining Uranium 235 supply functions as an energy store that can be tapped into at will
    * Nuclear power enables power production in areas with poor natural and renewable resources
    * Nuclear fuel is compact and highly energy dense

    Con:
    * Produces large amounts of highly radioactive nuclear waste that will need to be stored for millenia in isolation from the biosphere.
    * The uranium enrichment process can also produce higher concentrations of U235 suitable for nuclear weapons.
    * The Chernobyl reactors were pressurized light water reactors; accidents and assaults on these plants have a chance of resulting in catastrophic releases of radioactive materials
    * Naturally occurring, economically extractable U235 will run out sometime in the latter half of the 21st century, especially if new nuclear plants are built out aggressively.
    * Constructing nuclear power stations takes over 5 years making them ineffective in a crucial period of climate change
    * Inclusive of insurance costs, which are so high that they must be assumed by governments and therefore taxpayers, nuclear power stations are very expensive.

We see in the cons express standard anti-nuclear myths. Thus of several potential uses of nuclear waste, only approach usually targeted by the anti-nukes - long term storage - is mentioned.  Thus the problem is expressed without noting all of the options.  The second con is an attempt to tie reactors to nuclear weapons.  This is typical anti-nuclear trick.  In fact two 1953 British nuclear test showed that plutonium produced in civilian reactors was not satisfactory for weapons. The third con is reflects either Hoexter's ignorance or his dishonesty. The Chernobyl reactors are not pressurized light water reactors. In fact they are water cooled, graphite moderated reactors. This is a very differ reactor technology, a type of technology that has unique safety problems, that it does not share with light water reactors. The unique safety issues of the Chernobyl type reactor played a critical role in the infamous Chernobyl accident. U-235, contrary to Hoexter's claim is not about to runout. There are four and one half billion toms of Uranium in the oceans, and it is recoverable using low cost, unsophisticated technology. Because renewables produce electricity intermittently, standard reactor produce from 2 to four times as much electricity as renewable power generators that claim equivalent power outputs.  Thus a billion watt reactor produces the equivalent of a 2, 3 or even 4 billion watt renewabls generating facility.    ectricity. The alleged insurance cost of nuclear power are in fact not paid by the tax payers. Instead they are theoretical obligations of the government in the event of a very large and very improbable reactor accident. In fact insurance premiums on new and highly safe nuclear plants would not be excessive, and well within the reach of plant owners.  Thus Hoaxter offers a weak case  against conventional nuclear power

Hoexter continues by offering an assessment of the risks and disadvantages (of alternative nuclear power)

    * The described future nuclear system is more than a decade and perhaps decades away. Climate change is upon us now.
    * All nuclear power irreversibly transforms its fuel into less energetic fuels; even after thousands of years it will run out
    * The promised benefits may not materialize.
    * The complexity of these proposed systems is very high, making oversight difficult and increasing the potential for unforeseen difficulties and consequences
    * As yet uncharted safety issues will emerge with new radioactive fuels or coolants like liquid fluorine.
    * Developing these systems would be a major expense drawing on government research funds diverted from less elaborate technological systems like renewable energy and energy storage.
    * Existing fuel reprocessing systems have proliferation risks attached; they isolate plutonium.
    * The compact power of fissionable elements may have more appropriate uses in some future technology (spaceships?) other than power generation for daily use.

Of course it is a technological possible to build conventional nuclear power plants until alternative technology plants are ready. The notion that we will run out of nuclear fuel even after thousands of years is a myth. Sufficient recoverable nuclear fuels exist in the crust of the earth that nuclear power can be used for millions of years with the use of alternative nuclear power. LFTRs represent largely proven technologies. Thus the prospect for successful development are excellent. LFTRs are not highly complex. They are indeed less complex than light water reactors. Radiation safety issues in relation to the thorium fuel cycle are well understood, have been tested. Fluoride salts as reactor coolants and fuel carriers have been well tested in two prototype reactors, and have been investigated by nuclear chemists for years. The chemistry of fluorides are well understood. One reason for choosing liquid fluorides as coolant/fuel carriers is their high level of safety. Much of the basic research on LFTRs were completed between 1950 and 1976, in addition many other issues related to the LFTR have been the subject of unrelated technical research and development, and thus now technologies are available without added research costs. The IAEA has designated thorium cycle LFTRs as a proliferation resistant technology. Thorium fuel cycles reactors produce minimal amounts of plutonium. The Hoexter's notion that the power of uranium and thorium can be used without fission reflects a complete lack of understanding of nuclear science.

Now we come to Hoxter's account of renewables. In this case I will look at both the Pros and the cons:

    Pro:
    * Carbon neutral or negative (in certain conditions) under operation
    * Primary energy (fuel) is free
    * Generators can be scaled from very small to very large; investment amounts can range from a few hundred dollars to several billion dollars.
    * Primary energy is virtually endless
    * With the exception of biomass and certain geothermal wells, have no non carbon emissions
    * Mature or rapidly maturing technologies in most categories of renewable generator.
    * Deployable within a few months to a few years for most technologies (within critical period to reverse emissions trends)
    * Dependent upon a diversity of primary energies

    Con:
    * Many renewable energies are periodic or intermittent
    * Renewable energies occur naturally as energy flows rather than energy stores or stocks (with the exception of biomass); an all-renewable grid needs to build up and carefully manage stored energy.
    * Overreliance on biomass, the primary natural energy storage medium, may tax soil and the biosphere.
    * The reduction in solar energy around the winter solstice may present challenges for a solar-dominant all-renewable grid especially during times of low wind.
    * Catastrophic reductions of solar radiation (i.e. volcanic eruptions) can reduce the main energy in-flows; solar radiation is important to both solar and wind generators.

These list are deceptive, and hide significant problems. For example there are significant seasonable and day night variations in winds in many parts of the United States. Summer winds are much weaker than winter winds, thus little wind generated electricity may be available during periods of peak summer demand. While sun light is available during 8 hours a day in the Southwest, in much of the rest of the United States only an average of 5 1/2 hours of sunlight a day is available. The mass energy storage technologies required by an all renewable grid not been developed to the point of economically viability, and expectations that they will be developed in the next 10 years may not be realistic. Indeed it would be much more expensive to develop energy storage technologies, than to develop alternative nuclear technology.  In addition the cost of mass building of renewables may be as expensive as alternative nuclear power, with out the advantaged of assured 24 hour a day power.

Thus Hoexter makes his case against nuclear and alternative nuclear power by manipulating information. He also attempts to make the case for renewables stronger by similar methods. Thus Hoexter does not offer us strong arguments in support of his contention, rather he chooses the path of misinformation to support his claims.

Charles Barton

Electrification Only Works with Nuclear Power

My head says it all.  The electrification of transportation, will require reliable and a massive in electrical generation.  All of the talk about efficiency doing the trick is RMI BS.  Without the 7 days and nights a week reliability of nuclear energy, electrified trains, rapid transit systems, are going to grind to a halt when the sun goes down and and the wind stops blowing.  EVs are going to gobble up more power than CST and PV systems will be able to produce during the day.  

Clearly then if California wants to electrify transportation, it is going  to adopt the nuclear option.

Charles Barton

Lovins "chickened out"

Karen, Amory Lovins was loosing the debate, and quite badly.  continuing the debate could only expose the multiple errors that lie at the heart of Lovins' thinking on nuclear power.  In addition to David Bradish other several other bloggers posted criticisms of various aspects of Lovins essay.  Bradish's last post on Lovens takes note of these other bloggers and provides links to some their critiques of Lovins.   Lovins facing a tsunami of criticism decided to take shelter at RMI, and in the uncritical Democracy Now! which does not provide opportunities for critical comments.  Lovins "chickened out".

Charles Barton

Just how stupid are solar advocates?

Ted Nace, claims "Just 100 square miles of CSP installations would supply 100 percent of the U.S. electric grid."   Wow. and to think That Scientific American was talking about thousands of square miles of PV installations only in January.  Nace is either bucking to be world champion lier for 2008, or he does not understand the difference between 100 square miles, and a 100 mile by 100 mile square.   Rest assured Ausra's chairman David Mills talked about 92 miles by 92 miles which equals 8464 square miles not 92 square miles as Nace claims.  

Charles Barton

A model society?

Great, Gristmill now thinks that Communist Cuba is a model society whose example we should emulate.  

Charles Barton

The myth of unsolvable problems with nuclear power

David Roberts, trots out his tired old slogan, "Save the world from global warming, no nuclear power!"  I wonder if the fellow is really a stooge of the coal industry, despite all his anti-coal protestations.  Roberts recites the same tired old anti-nuclear lines he was chanting a year ago.   Meanwhile thinking among pro-nuclear advocates has increasingly been directed to solving the problems, but Roberts, with his fanatic opposition to nuclear power, does not want the problems to be solved.    

In my blog "Nuclear Green",  I recently concluded a series, "The Keys to Lowering Reactor Cost."  http://nucleargreen.blogspot.com/2008_05_01_archive.html
In this series I demonstrate that reactor construction costs can be dramatically lowered, that new materials derived from common and plentiful resources, can replace expensive metals in reactor structures.  That reactors can be built in far shorter times than the current manufacturing method allows, that reactor construction costs can be dramatically lowered by use of well understood manufacturing techniques, that new approaches to financing reactor construction are in the interest of society, that now approaches to reactor siting can lower construction cost, make reactors safer,  and protect reactors from aircraft, and other terrorist attacks.  I also demonstrate that the problem of "nuclear waste" can be solved by well understood changes in the nuclear fuel cycle, that inherently safe reactors are possible and that the construction of inherently safe reactors would lower the cost of reactor construction.   It is my conclusion that if policy makers start thinking outside the box, all the problems of nuclear power can be solved.

Charles Barton

elp destroy a planet, erect wind generators in Tex

In the panhandle and south plains regions of Texas (where most of the wind farms are located), winds measure more than 10 mph for more than 300 days outta the year.  Days without wind are very rare, even in summer, which is why this area is so great for wind power. - Tasermons Partner

There are several problems with this account.

1. Summer winds in Texas tend to blow at lower speeds than during the rest of the year.
   
2. During the summer daytime wind speeds drop during midday.  
   
3. The hotter the day, the more likely that winds will stop blowing all over the state.
   
4. The capacity factor for summer wind generation in Texas is some what less than 17%.

Charles Barton

wind or hot air?

Loss of wind causes Texas power grid emergency
Wed Feb 27, 2008 8:11pm EST

HOUSTON (Reuters) - A drop in wind generation late on Tuesday, coupled with colder weather, triggered an electric emergency that caused the Texas grid operator to cut service to some large customers, the grid agency said on Wednesday.

Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) said a decline in wind energy production in west Texas occurred at the same time evening electric demand was building as colder temperatures moved into the state.

The grid operator went directly to the second stage of an emergency plan at 6:41 PM CST (0041 GMT), ERCOT said in a statement.

System operators curtailed power to interruptible customers to shave 1,100 megawatts of demand within 10 minutes, ERCOT said. Interruptible customers are generally large industrial customers who are paid to reduce power use when emergencies occur.

No other customers lost power during the emergency, ERCOT said. Interruptible customers were restored in about 90 minutes and the emergency was over in three hours.

ERCOT said the grid's frequency dropped suddenly when wind production fell from more than 1,700 megawatts, before the event, to 300 MW when the emergency was declared.

In addition, ERCOT said multiple power suppliers fell below the amount of power they were scheduled to produce on Tuesday. That, coupled with the loss of wind generated in West Texas, created problems moving power to the west from North Texas.

ERCOT declares a stage 1 emergency when power reserves fall below 2,300 MW. A stage 2 emergency is called when reserves fall below 1,750 MW.

At the time of the emergency, ERCOT demand increased from 31,200 MW to a peak of 35,612 MW, about half the total generating capacity in the region, according to the agency's Web site.

Texas produces the most wind power of any state and the number of wind farms is expected to increase dramatically as new transmission lines are built to transfer power from the western half of the state to more populated areas in the north.

Earlier on Tuesday, grid problems led to a blackout in Florida that cut power to about 1 million electric customers across that state for as much as four hours.

Charles Barton

Nuclear alternative

Why not 10 100 MW back up nuks?  It is quite possible, and some reactors types can run up quickly form from low power levels.  

Charles Barton

Shallow Greens

inel,  People are beginning to stave, becouse of crop diversion into biofuel.  Does Greenpeace care?  Do those self centered grandstanding @#&#@ give a single #@& &#@# about the food of the worlds poor?  #@&% no!  It is much more fun getting their pictures taken at Heathrow, after driving to the airport in bio-fueled powered SUV's.  Of course shallow shallow greens eat up the publicity stunts up without realizing what a profound waste of time and energy they are.  Shallow greens of course still think it is ok to take the food of the world's poor to run their SUV's.  Shallow greens are all about their own appearance of being pro-environment, without ever looking beneath the surface.  

Charles Barton

Ralph Nader run?

Ralph Nader run?  How can he run?  The only thing Nader can do is slide on on his belly.  That is what he did in 2000, and 2004.  Ralph can't help it.  He was born a snake.  

Charles Barton

Distribution of permits

Carbon taxes will fall disproportionately on the poor, and congress will be unable to leave the revenue from those taxes alone.  A better plan would be to distribute carbon use permits to citizens equally, and let them buy and sell them.  Carbon use permits would be required for the purchase of any carbon based fuel.  This would produce a redistribution of income, without the money stream passing through governmental hands.    If only citizens of the United States could receive carbon use permits, businesses would have to purchase permits from private individuals.  The carbon value of the permits could be lowered annually.  

Charles Barton

The bigger they are

Solar voltaic technology is still very immature.  It is far over hyped.   Inevitably there will be disappointment in when they discover that their PV system only produces electricity for five and a half hours a day.  Homeowners would be far better off investing in solar water heaters, and ground source heating and cooling systems, that will deliver real real efficiency, and CO2 savings.  

Eventually the limitation of PV will become obvious, and people will be disappointed, and PV will take a hard tumble.  The bigger they are, the harder they fall.

Charles Barton

GreyFlcn's folly

GreyFlcn, the North Koreans were able to obtained atomic bombs by replicating a primitive post World War II, British reactor, that was not difficult to build, and could easily be built in other countries.  They did not need to buy a modern power reactor.  There is nothing that would prevent any one of several dozen nations which possess to capacity to do so, from duplicating North Korea's feat.   Light water reactors do not produce bomb grade plutonium.  They do produce reactor grade plutonium, which for a number of reasons cannot be  be used to manufacture nuclear weapons.  Weapons made with reactor grade plutonium are far more likely to explode in the hands of their makers.  Reactor grade plutonium is so radioactive, that special bomb making technology, and special and very expensive equipment would be required to circumvent the radiation.  Technical problems in making an explosive device from reactor grade plutonium would require the technical skills of places like Los Alamos to overcome.  It is very silly to argue that building reactor in the United States, caused states like North Korea to acquire nuclear weapons.

Geothermal reportedly has a good capacity factor,  However, geothermal technology is currently limited to places like california, and the Yellowstone basin.   I certainly would be in favor of using geothermal power where it is technologically possible to do so.  But the current status of geothermal technology would exclude most of the country.

At present not only do no matter how many times rated solar and wind capacity you install, you do not eliminate the need for fossil fuel backup.  Thus wind and solar can never eliminate CO2 emissions, and require the the continued use of expensive and polluting back up plants.  Wind power is especially impotent on hot summer days, when electricity demand is at its peak.  

Solar power drops to nothing as soon as the sun goes down and no technology has been shown to provide cost effective night time power backup for solar power.

R&D advances have been promised for over a generation.  So far those promises have not been fulfilled.  Economies of scale actually work against price lowering, as demand for materials like steel, concrete and copper increase, so will prices of solar and wind facilities.

Demandside efficiencies can advantage nuclear power as much renewables, indeed nuclear power plants have their own efficiency technology, which allow owners to get more and more power out of the same plant, without compromising safety.

You speak of the "massive build schedules" of new nuclear plants.  In fact new plant designs and technologies shorten building times to three years, while lowering steel requirements for reactor construction to as little as 1/10th that required to build name plate equivalent wind and solar generation facilities.  Building capacity factor equivalents could require 50 times more steel for solar and wind.  Wind facilities also require up to 6 times as much concrete by name plate capacity as nuclear, and up to 30 tines more per capacity factor equivalent.  Wind and solar also consume much more increasingly rare copper.

You speak of "the nasty side effects," of nuclear.  However, you do not state what that means.  The death rate associated with wind power is far higher than that of nuclear.  The production of solar modules involves the use of dangerous and highly polluting chemicals, and create serious hazards to human health.  Supporters of renewable power are, in effect, covering up its environmental, health and safety hazards of renewables.

You state:  "Nuclear doesn't bode so well with demand reduction efficiencies.  Since the power plant has to run 24/7 for decades to begin to pay itself off."  In effect you acknowledge that nuclear power will be successful and and supply Americans all the power the want, as if those is a bad thing.        

Finally you assert, "the average American uses 2x as much electricity than the average California.  So what?  There is nothing wrong with using electrical power provided its generation its generation does not lead to CO2 aqnd other greenhouse gas emissions.  

Charles Barton

Grow up

You Greens need to give up your ignorant, silly and childish opposition to nuclear power.  Grow up for the sake of the planet.  Stop acting like members of a cult.

Charles Barton

green hysteria

Despite their alleged decline due to water shortages, American nuclear plants set a new all time record for their average capacity factor in 2007 of 91.9%.  The problems with water shortages at nuclear plants have been desperately overblown by desperate and hysterical members of the "Green" anti nuclear cult.  The wind and the solar industries have yet to announce their average capacity factor for 2007.

Charles Barton

Israeli agriculture

Actually Israeli agricultural techniques represent a major advance in protecting soil fertility from the adverse impact of irrigation.  Salt build up is major problem of with irrigation of desert soils.  By carefully controlling water deliveries, the Israelis have developed a useful soil conservation technique.  Now in my book that is soil conservation, a pro-environmental activity.  But of course Greens don't think soil conservation is nearly as important as opposing nuclear power.  

Charles Barton

What no nuks?

David, what to think?  Those bankers and utility executives are not going to talk about nuks?  Of course not!  

Charles Barton

bankruptcy

My read on the problem is somewhat different.  Jobs producing goods and services for the United States have become a principle American export, rather than American originated goods and services.  We as a nation have bought enormously on credit, and have nothing to sell in return, to pay off our debts.  As a result the dollar is losing value as foreign holders of American IOUs can't figure out what to do with them.

If there is no fundamental change in the pattern, the nation is headed for default on its international debt. Default is another word for bankruptcy.  Investments in the United States cannot be repatriated.  

There is a long history of foreigners investing in fraudulent or  poorly planned investment schemes in the United States.  
   

Charles Barton

The cost of food

Headlines from today's Daily Telegraph:    

Food cost increase adds £750 to annual bill

Lets hear it for biofuels and mass starvation.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=0US ...

Charles Barton

Costs

Actually maintenance of off shore wind farms is quite expensive, and fuel and operating costs of reactors is low.  Plus reactors last 60 years verses 20 years for wind towers.  Also there are more fatal accidents with wind. Base power wind can never overcome its original cost disadvantage to nuclear.  

Charles Barton

Cape wind

The Cape is abn expensive place to build a house, but that is nothing compared to how much how much off shore wind towers cost to build there.  Last I heard it was running something like $1.7 billion for under half a GW of nominal power.  Figure the real power output is not going to average more that 150 MWs.  I am probably being generous here.  Lets see that gives us $11 billion + per GW.  How many Nuclear power plants can we build with that?  Art least3.  Figure 4 GW of reliable power for the same price that will get you 150 Mw of good old clean renewable energy.  And exactly why do the Greens call nuclear power expensive?

Charles Barton

The Laugh of the Day

With the combative, Judaophobic, Cynthia McKinney running as the Green candidate, there is no way in hell that the Greens are going to captrue many votes.  McKinney is aligned with "The New Black Panther Party," which Shelley Rose, the ADL's Southeast Region Associate Director, describes as "the largest organized anti-Semitic and racist Black hate group in America . . ."

After McKinney lost a primary election to another Afro-American candidates, her supporters publicly and in her presence, blaimed her defeat of Jewish support for her opponany.  McKinney's father Billy McKinney was asked why he thought Andrew Young and other Afro-American leader had not endorsed his daughter, he said,

"That ain't nothing. That's nothing. Jews have bought everybody. Jews... J-E-W-S."

Cynthia McKinney did not disassociate herself from the quote.  

I wonder if Cynthia McKinney cozy relationship with the late Black Muslim leader, Louis Farrakhan will sit well with either white or black voters, and I wonder if McKinney will loss votes every time a member of her inner circle publicly refer to white voters as crackers.  Ya, Mckinney is obnoxious enough to pass the green smell test.  I am sure that all of the Greens will be real happy to have her.

Charles Barton

A Plan for Destroying the Human Race

"Suspension of licensing for new nuclear power plants until the problems of nonproliferation, protection from domestic attack, and permanent waste storage have been adequately addressed." - Joseph Romm

Utterly insane!

Charles Barton

That the Australian Greens actually say

On October 10, The Sidney Morning Harold reported on a study commissioned by the Australian Greens and written by Dr Mark Diesendorf found that drastic steps to obtain greater energy efficiency by 2020 would only cut emissions to 13 per cent below 1990 level.  To achieve the 30 per cent cut, more controversial measures such as an end to land clearing, a 20 per cent cut in beef production to reduce the effect of methane from cattle, a 50 per cent cut in business and professional immigration, and the elimination or offset of emissions from aluminium smelting would be needed.

"One possible response for the aluminium industry would be to move offshore," Diesendorf stated.

Charles Barton

How much does in cost to build a new Nuk in Texas?

Amazingdrx and Nucbuddy, I may be almost 65, but I know how to Google.  Why don't you guiys try it?  It is really a lot of fun and an exceltent way to find current information.  Do we have to base everything on old information?  Arn't you guys smart enough to to Google current reactor costs?  TXU has contracted with Mitsubishi for two plants that will produce 3.4 MW at 5.2 billion dollars.  If TXU is smart, they locked the price into the contract.  If they did and the construction is over budget, then the Japanese Investors, rather than Texas rate payers, will bare the cost over run.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/bus/stories/D ...  

Charles Barton

Morning responses

Mr. Cowan, As I have stated I am not in a position to comment on Molten Salt shielding, I lack the technical knowledge required.  I have seen a proposal for a Molten Salt Reactor that had no less than 3 blankets, including an outer blanket of lead.  (I believe it may be molten lead.)

amazngdrx, I would request that you follow the links I provided, and read everything.  The links will provide you with considerable information on Molten Salt Reactor safety.  If after you have read the information on the links you still have questions, I will be happy to attempt to provide answers.  I am not trying to put you off, but I think if you are better informed, it would be easier to talk with you.

Charles Barton

containment and shielding

Mr. Cowan, your description of the reactor vessal size sounds about right.  Because of the inherant safety of Molten Salt Reactors they do not require a concrete containment structures.  Part of the elegance of the Molten Salt concept is that a blanket of thorium containing Molten Salts surrounds the reactor,  Neutrons entering the blanket strike thorium atoms, setting up the transmuastion process.  Radiation is at least partially shielded by the blanket.  Discussions of ORNL's Molten Salt Reactors are not clear about its exact shielding.  However ORNL was remarkable eclectic about shielding.  One ORNL reactor was simply submerged in a pool of water.  It was named the Swimming Pool Reactor.  Another reactor was suspended without any other shielding from a tower.  It was called the Tower Shielding Facility.  

Charles Barton

Fast to build and cheap

First to respond to GreyFlcn's and kevcon complaint that nuclear construction is too slow.  But there have been breakthroughs in the last five years that will increase the speed and lower the costs of reactor construction.  Mass production and modular construction techniques will reduce reactor construction costs.  There have been radical advances advances that can be attributed to the use of computer aided designs in reactor planning.  

These advances have enabled reactor engineers to substantially simplify reactor design, while substantially improving reactor saftey.  Recent light water reactor designs, requite significantly fewer pipes and joints, fewer valves, fewer pumps and much less concrete than reactors built in the 1970's and 1980's.  Rather than using pumps, reactor designers use passive water circulation systems.  Saftey systems use gravity feed rather than pumped water.  Thus pumps are eliminated from the saftey system.  Since it is no longer necessicary to pump back up wanter into a reactor in the event of a power outage, back up electrical systems can be eliminated as well.  

kevcon The conclusions of the studies you discuss are not true in Texas.  TXU recently announced a $5 billion contract with Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd to build two heavy-duty 1700MW reactors.  That is about what a new coal fired electrical plant costs little less than the adverage  nuclear reactors.  Current estimates place the costs of mass produced reactors as low as $450 million dollars, and as high as $1.5 billion a unit.  Westinghouse reports that construction time for the AP-1000 will be under 3 years.  kevcon the studies you report are already out dated.  The current generation of reactor design uses less marerial, can be mass produced, is much simpler, and quicker to produce than reactors produced in the past.  

It is unfortunate that the hot air generated by the Grist anti-nuk crowd cannot be captured by wind turbines.  We could virtually solve our national energy needs if only we could.

I have pointed to the AP-1000, which was approved by the NRC at the beginning of 2006, At least 5 AP-1000s are on order, and many more are in the planning stage.  

kevcon if reactors are so impractical to build and as expensive as you claim, why are so many utilities rushing to plan and order them?

Charles Barton

My spelling skills

I have been cursed throughout my life with a minor learning disorder that effects my spelling.  When I was in the 7th grade, my teacher assigned me special spelling exercises, for an hour every day, for a whole semester.  At the end of that semester, my spelling had not improved.  The only thing that has helped is a computerized spelling checker, but that is not a perfect solution.  My current computer a Mac Mini has no port for a mic, unfortunately.  

Charles Barton

chicken little strikes again

Every time David Roberts opens his mouth on nuclear power, he plays Chicken Little.

David argues that nuclear plants are expensive, but global warming is going to be far more expensive.  Simpler reactor design, mass production, the use of modular construction techniques will inevitably drive the cost of reactor construction down.  I have brought this to David's attintion, but he ignores the information.

Chicken Little David argues that that the nuclear waist problem cannot be over come, yet it has been established that reactor waste can be sucessfully stored for periods of one and a half billion years, a fact that David knows because I have brought it to his attention.  The technologies  to store or dispose of nuclear waste exists.  What is laking is a political will to implement the technology.  

Chicken Little David worries about nuclear proliferation.  David in 1985 the worlds nuclear powers had stockpiles of 65,000 nuclear weapons.    The U235 and Pu239 in these weapons still exist.  In fact there is only one way to dispose of this material, in reactors.  It is possible for any third rate country with access to Uranium to build a Hanford type pile reactor.  Virtually any state that possess a modest industrial base, and a University where chemistry, physics and engineering are taught, and a couple of billion dollars to spend can put together a nuclear weapon.  It is more that irrational, it is just plane crazy to think that not building new reactors in the United States is going to stop Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, Mynamar, The Philippines, Sir Lanka  or Lybia from building nuclear weapons, if they chose too.  

David reactor scientist have known for over 50 years that breeding thorium rather than U238 would have a powerful anti-proliferation impact.  With all your sleepless nights spent worrying about proliferation, why did you never spend 30 minutes on the Internet finding this out?  I have provided you with this information before.  Why have you ignored me?  Why haven't you checked this information out?    

Charles Barton

the usual pessimism

Psychologists are familiar with a typr of thinking called catrostophizing.  That is seeing the most likely outcome of a practical solution will be that terrible things will happen.  

Thus if we solve our problems CO2 emission problems with Nuks, the sky will fall at the very least.  Well shit, North Korea might even acquire an atomic bomb if we build more nuks.  Human sociiety is incapable of building 4 nujs a month, and thorium will mysteriously disapear from the face of the earth.  Thorium?  Yes.  Thorium is the key to making sure that nuks don't fall into the hands of bad people like the North Korea.  

But there is no reason why we can't mass production of reactors.  Henry Ford told us about mass production.  If we can mass produce cars, why not reactors?  It is certainly possible to train hundreds of thousands of people in technical skills.  

Yet for the nuclear catarophizer, where nuclear power is concerned there is no problem so small that it can be solved.  And even if we do train talented and intelligent people in the design, production and management of reactors, we hsve the wise words of Paraguin, "I think reactors DO turn highly intelligent engineers into gibbering idiots." You see, we have it.  The cause of reactors is hopeless.  Of course if such thinking were also applied to renewables, we can clearly demonstrate that the future of the Human race is hopeless.    

Charles Barton

TVA and renewable energy

TVA long ago maxed out the hydroelectric potential of the Tennessee River Valley.  There are limited renewable energy resources in the Tennessee Valley.  The Valley along with the entire Southeastern United States, is very unsuited for Wind generated electricity.  The Tennessee Valley lacks geothermal resources.  TVA's Wind generating farm is located on Buffalo Mountain, one of the windiest spots in Tennessee.  During August, there is enough wind on Buffalo Mountain to generate electricity 7% of the time.  Some months there is more wind, but at most Buffalo Mountain generates electricity less than a quarter of the time.  This is by the way, tipical of the south east.  Solar may some day provide cheap electricity, but that day is not now.  TVA does generate 36 percent of its power from green sources, and plans to bring 3 new reactors online in the next 12 years, replacing more coal fired generating plants.  

So why beat up TVA simply because the Southeast lacks Renewable power generating resources?    

Charles Barton

A more radical approach

It would be simpler to mandate, a shut down date for coal, oil, and natural gas fueled power plants, and allow the electric utilities figure out how they are going to replace them, than to a carbon tax, or cap and trade deal.  For autos, we are going to have to sell the public on drastic changes.  

Anthropgenic global warming is a challenge to our society similar to World War II.  During WW II, people were willing to do what ever it took to win the war, and they largely left iy up to the governm4nt to decide what that would be.  It took the attack on Pearl Harbor, to create the popular mentality that accepted war related sacrifices.      

An example of the sacrifice was gasoline rationing.  Because of a rubber scarcity, gasoline was rationed in order to conserve tires.  Most drivers were allowed only 4 gallons of gas a week.  The system worked.  At present, such rationing is not possible, but you can do quite a lot of driving with a plug in hybrid, on 4 gallons a week.  Given increased public awareness of what is at stake could the public be sold on a rationing system?  The answer is probably not over night.  The plug in hybrids would have to be here first, and we really don't do much to control CO2 emissions unless the plugins get electricity from CO2 free sources.  

There you have it.  Public acceptance is the big deal.  Once the public understands what is at stake, they will accept a radical course, that will allow target reductions of CO2 emissions.  In exchange, the public gets to keep their way of life largely intact, including their trips to WalMart.  

Charles Barton

the power of reason

Pangolin I doubt that it is within the power of reason to convince you of the value of the nuclear potion.  People who believe in nuclear power are same, rational. well informed, and concerned about the bigger picture.  Many of us believe that reactors will play a major and essential role in the future control of CO2 emissions.  

There are ongoing discussions about both short and long term potential reactor designs.  I have pointed to the AP-1000 as one example of the short term potential.  I have no stake in this.  I do not expect to live long, but I would like to think that the world I leave will be headed on the right path.  7 AP-1000 are already on order, and a number more are in the planning stage.  Each reactor completed means that there will be one less coal fired steam plant emitting CO2. To me this is what the argument is all about.  Some of us want to save the planet, and some of us want to stand on our soapboxes and preach anti-nuclear rightousness.  

The Molton Salt Reactor represents technology that will not mature in less than 20 years.  

I point it out, because if you will read discussions of what has already been proven about the Molten Salt Reactor.  Virtually every objection you raise against the use of reactors can be solved through use of Molten Salt Thorium breeder technology.  Molten salt technology is not the only solution, but it represents an extremely elegant solution to many problems.            

Charles Barton

Molten Salt Reactors

GreyFlcn, If you review these discussions, you will find that your objections to nuclear power can be answered if a thorium breeding molten salt reactor is used to generate electricity.  

http://www.energyfromthorium.com/forum/index.php

Charles Barton

silly, unrealistic anti-nuke fruitcakes!

David, a silly, unrealistic anti-nuke fruitcakes is someone who thinks that no problem with nuclear power is so small that it can be solved, and that now problem with renewables is so big that it hasn't been solved already.

Charles Barton

further comments

I have further comments under: Renewable energy: not flaccid

Charles Barton

My father, the reactor scienist

I think reactors DO turn highly intelligent engineers into gibbering idiots. They all seem to believe that what happens at the nuclear power plant is the whole story of nuclear power. - Pangolin

Pangolin, You do not know what you are talking about.  My father was until his retirement a member of the Reactor Chemistry Devision at Oak Ridge National Laboratory.  Among his notable accomplishments were his contributions to the development of the atomic submarine, and his research on environmental safety issues related to nuclear power.  At the age of 95 he is still a brilliant man, who knows far more than you and David Roberts do about the whole story of nuclear power.  Your remark was profoundly silly and stupid, and totally unworthy of a man of your intelligence.  Get of your anti-nuk soapbox, and find out what you are talking about.

The problems with water for French reactors in the summer include ambient heat of river water and low river flow.  Water can be stored in reervoirs, of course.  It can also be drawn from underground sources.  This is not energy free, but it certainly does not require a lot of energy, and we are talking about a few days a year.  Water can be chilled in cooling towers.  http://naturaledgeproject.net/images/d3ee2.jpg
or by mixing it with cool ground water, or from some other cool water source.  

The French experience does have lessons to teach us.  Current reactor design concepts leaves us with a useful, but untapped resource, unused heat.  The challenge is to find a use for that heat, rather than simply dumping it into the environment.  

Pangolin, you ask, "Using what perpetual motion device do you believe that you can chill cooling water for free in order to heat it up again for an energy gain?"  This is a very good question.  My answer is, of course, Stirling Engines, which can be run for free from the unused reactor heat.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stirling_engine
Sterling Engines can be put to work generating more electricity, boosting reactor efficiency, while chilling the output water from reactors.    

Charles Barton

The economics of new nucs

Daved, If you have read my comments, you will note that with nass production, the AP-1000 can be constructed for one billion dollars.  That is less than the current price for a coal fired plant.  At that price, no subsidy is required.  Apparently subsidies are still required for renewables.  

Charles Barton

TVA and the Nuk solution

JMG, I have seen this coming since since 1971.  That is a long time to watch human stupidity.  Excuse my impatience, but I am tired of watching it.  I have been berating global warming skeptics for the last year, it is time to kick the believers who do not have a realist plan in the ass and tell them to get real and get on with it.  I do believe that the since of urgency will be general within two years, and a lot of the stupidity will fall by the waist side, once the urgency becomes clear.  But two years is a long time when the problem is already out of control.

I am making a case study of TVA, because I have a long familiarity with the organization - my father went to work for them in 1934.  TVA currently receives 29% of its power from Nuks, but has opened up a reconstructed reactor, and is in the process of completing a long delayed, partially complete reactor.  In addition TVA has an AP-1000 on order and an option for another.  TVA also has two more incomplete units, one which is 88% complete, and a second which is 58% complete.  

At most TVA would need ten more AP-1000s to replace coal.  If TVA decided to buy 12 AP-1000's they could use mass production, lowering pre-unit construction costs to no more that a billion a MW.  TVA could easily finish the conversion by 2030, with no compromise on power production.  We are going to need a lot of electricity to power plug-in hybreds.  TVA has maxed out its hydro potential, wind is not really an option.  Tennessee has a lot of cloudy days.  It is not optimal for solar.  I suspect that TVA has looked at geothermal, and decided that it is not a realistic option.  That leaves the nuclear option or stick with coal.  

I am glad you see the logic of this situation.  The solution then is get a bill before Congress mandating the TVA switch to nuclear, and waving TVA's debt limit, although it might be possible for TVA to build new nuks without busting its present cap.    

Oh, compensate the coal mine owners and the miners for their loss of contracts and wages, and for putting them out of business.  This is a compromise that would make the whole business easier. You can't solve big problems without greasing a few palms.

Charles Barton

Shutting down cheap coal

Coal is not cheap if the social cost of coal is included in generating costs.  The spocial costs of coal would include the environmental costs, the added health care costs caused by coal derived pollutants, and the costs associated with coals share in global warming.  Coal is cheap because third party victims will be paying part of its real costs.  

Charles Barton

CCS and Coal

Carbon capture and storage is pure and unmittigated crap.  Coal should be banned.

Charles Barton

Geothermal

GreyFlcn, Geothermal, at 20,000 to 30,000 feet down in most of the country, is untested technology.  Westinghouse states AP 1000 overall plant availability is expected to be greater than 93%.  No advantage to untested deep geothermal.  GreyFlcn if you can come up with a sound, fact based argument let us know.

Charles Barton

Geothermal for baseload,

Geothermal for baseload,
Solar for daytime,
And Biogas, Hydro and other Storage for peaking.
(Wind powered pumped hydro for instance) - GreyFlcn

GreyFlcn, I would like to try some of what ever it is that you have been smoking.  

Charles Barton

Are you suggesting that all paths point to nuclear

All paths suggest that if we do not accept the use of nuclear power as a significant part of our solution, we will be very very foolish.  Unfortunately there are people on Grist who are advocating this profoundly foolish course.  They imagine that they are fighting a largely imaginary evil in the name of environmental purity.  We all hope they will find their way to sanity, and learn to hug reactors.

Charles Barton

How long to new nuks?

GreyFlcn, If you look at the AP 1000, you will realized that Nuks can be brought on line within 3 years of turning the first spade of earth.  Actually one "New" Nuk is coming online this year.  It is a TVA unit that had been mothballed.  Your pessimism is totally unjustified, and dozens of nuks will be online before the first reliable cost competitive 24 hour a day wind or solar power system starts generating, if that ever happens.  

Charles Barton

How many Nuclear plants were newly built in 2007

As of May 1 2007, one reactor was under construction, at least 5 were on order, and 21 more were under consideration in the United States.  World wide at least 30 power reactors were under construction, at least 74 were under order, and 182 were under construction.  China is reported o have 4 reactors under construction, 23 on order, and 54 more under consideration.  All these figures must be considered approximate.  

Charles Barton

David Robert sticks his head in the sand again

David, Solar is still too expensive, and the sun still sets for 12 hours a day.  Wind power is even more unreliable.  When are you going to join the reality based community and give nuclear power a fair hearing?  When are you going to decide that that the CO2 is really worth solving?  When are you going to stop playing your silly anti-Nuk games?  

Charles Barton

False Dichotomy or an indispensable part of the so

Thinking in terms of False Dichotomy is part of the problem.  It is so irrational to compare nuclear power to invading Iraq.  It is just so insane.  

Charles Barton

Smart grid and reliability,

Patrick, The smart grid is an unproven technology.  If it is viable, it might provide us with a solution of part of a solution,  We ought not to count on unproven technologies for our solutions.  Proven technologies should get preference until new technologies have proven reliability.  

Charles Barton

The cataetrophe and the anti-Nuk Chicken Littles

David, if you and your fellow environmentalist anti-Nuk Chicken Littles would introduce yourselves to the world of sanity, we might find a solution.  Every second you waist fighting nuclear power plays directly into the coal industry's hands.  Grow up, and stop serving coal interests.

Charles Barton

Generation IV reactors do exist

"Generation IV reactors do not exist."

Depending on how you look at it, the Westinghouse AP 1000 is either an advanced generation III reactor, or a true generation IV reactor, with generation III roots.  The simplisity of the design, coupled with greatly improved safety features, makes the AP 1000 a true breakthrough in reactor design.  The AP 1000 can be mass produced, and using modular construction techniques, it can be constructed within 36 months.  The NRC has approved the final design certification the AP1000.  Mass produced the AP 1000 will cost one billion dollars or less.

http://www.westinghousenuclear.com/AP1000/index.shtm

It would be criminal if the environmental community did not push for the replacement of coal fired power plants, with highly sophisticated and safe reactors like the AP 1000.

It is also acknowledged that the Molten Salt reactor is a generation IV product, yet three generations of Molten Salt reactor were designed and produced by ORNL in the 1950's and 60's.

Charles Barton

A reasonable defense of LCT

Let me say first that I am not a shill of big coal.  In fact I would like to see all coal fired steam plants shut down as quickly as possible.  Coal is dirty and polluting even if we did not have the CO2 factor.  

However, we still need some liquid fossil fuels in transportation.   ANP was investigated in the 50's and 60's, and was a non-starter.  For the near future, we will need liquid fossil fuels for the aircraft industry.  Ditto for ocean born long range shipping.  The advantage of coal is that it is here, and we are not dependent on unstable states for it.  It is probably economically possible to extract LC at current market prices for oil.  Subsidies should not be needed, but the capital involved to construct he industry would be at considerable risk.  

The coasts are of course the social costs of coal production, plus the added CO2 from the liquification process.  The benefit would be a reliable source of carbon based liquid fuels, for transportation needs for which non-carbon based energy sources are not now possible.  Would this deal with the devil be worth it?  I really don't know.      

Charles Barton

learning from failure

David, Rather loosing patience with congress, we ought to focus on what can be learned from this fiasco.  First we ought to recognize who we are.  There are two different constituencies that are concerned about the CO2/Global warming problem.  One might be called the post-carbon based economy constituency.  The post-carbon based view wants practical solutions for transferring the energy economy from carbon-based fuels, to non-carbon based fuels.  The post-carbon view holds that environmentalist goals like habitat and species diversity preservation are likely to be untenable if there is significant global climate change.  The post-carbon view is that priority should be given to proven solutions to the carbon-fuel replacement problem.    The post-carbon viewpoint is not opposed to alternative energy sources, including wind, tidal, solar generation of electricity.  But the post-carbon perspective harbors serious doubts that a successful transition to a post carbon economy can occur without a replacement of coal fired electrical generating plants by nuclear reactor generated electricity.  

The second constituency is the environmentalist community.  To say the least, environmentalists seem to be confused.  I have pointed out that global warming will defeat many environmentalists' goals.  Environmentalists have traditionally opposed Nuclear power.  In light of the CO2/Global warming crisis, continuing this opposition seems highly irrational.  Environmentalists seem to think that nothing has changed since Three Mile Island.  We are now a generation later.  There have been a lot of changes in thinking about nuclear safety.  New reactor designs are both safer and cheaper to build.   Practical solutions for the disposal of nuclear waste are available as well.  In light of these developments, environmentalists ought to rethink their opposition to nuclear power.  Some have.  But many have not.  

We see coming from the environmentalist community proposals that we turn to unproven technologies as replacements for carbon-based technologies.  Thus we see claims being made for geothermal power that are quite unrealizable with current technology.  We see questionable claims being made about the potential for biomass energy sources.  We see claims about the cost of wind power, that reflect the costs of wind power as a part time supplement to coal based power generation.  The basic problem with wind that in most places the wind only blows part of the time.  To have electrical power available when the wind is not blowing is going to be very expensive.  

The problem with the part of the environmentalist community that opposes nuclear is that their thinking about other power options is weak.  What seems clear is that the anti nuk environmentalist community has no practical alternative to coal.  Thus the anti-nuk message of environmentalist like you David, serves the interest of the coal industry.    People who are concerned about global warming need to get their message straight.  They need to focus on practical solutions.  They need to speak with a single rational voice.

Charles Barton

count on amazngdrx

Count on amazngdrx to live in his own world, untroubled by the realities that the rest of us face.

Charles Barton

Revisionist history or cover up?

In my revisionist history of Enron, they were thwarted no so much because they cheated people -- but because their paradigms were a big threat to the energy companies and electrical companies whose profits are based on fixed markets, monopolies and lock ins. - John Bailo

John, Come on, get real.  Enron was corrupt, and their internet energy management system opened of vast opportunities to make crooked bucks.  The standard Enron scheme in California involved selling power out of state, and then buying it back at an inflated price.  Enron made money both ways.  Another Enron trick was to shut power plants down in order to create artificial shortages, and then sell electricity to consumers at highly inflated prices.  Your revisionist history of Enron is a cover up for their criminal activities.

Charles Barton

Supplemental or baseload

Gar Lipow I have differentiated between the cost of supplemental wind power, and the cost of baseload wind power.  Baseload would be a reliable, 24 hour a day power source.  Supplemental power comes on line intermittently and does not respond to consumer demand.  You report the cost of wind power to be "6 cents per kWh or less."  Is this the cost of supplemental wind power, or the cost of baseload wind power?

Charles Barton

more than electricity

"Renewable energy is much more than electricity." - sunflower

How right you are.  You could have 100% of peek demand generating capacity, and still not have a light bulb lit.  Wind and solar power is going to end up being very expensive if you want to use storage to enhance avaliability on demand.  Storage means you may need to go to 200% or even 300% of peek demand capacity, in order to produce the stored energy.  Even then the system may ne less than 100% reliable.

Charles Barton

Generation VI reactors = Molten Salt

Molten Salt technology is not quite ready for primer time - That is mass production of a parge power generating model - but it can be in about 15 years.  The concept was been proven at ORNL, which built and operated three generations of Molten Salt reactors in the 1950's and 1960's.  I have documented, in my blog, Alvin Weinberg's 1967 statement on Molten Salt Breader Power generating reactors: "WHY DEVELOP MOLTEN-SALT BREEDERS?"  

http://www.xanga.com/bartoncii/591431627/alvin-weinberg-o ...

I have also discussed Weinberg's integrity and vision:

http://www.xanga.com/bartoncii/591790491/alvin-weinbergs- ...

Weinberg was a real pioneer in concerns about anthropogenic global warming.  He discussed it in a paper he published in Science in 1974, and testified to Congress about the danger of CO2 emissions in 1975.  He was fired as director of ORNL because his concerns about reactor safety clashed with the "gung-ho" approach of the Nuclear establishment.  Three Mile Island vindicated Weinberg's safety concerns, but only in the 21th century is his last baby, the molten Salt Reactor being appreciated.

Charles Barton

fuel costs

Laurence Aurbach, I would like to call your attention to two sources of raw materials for reactors.  The first is U235 and Pu239 from retired atomic devices.  There is enough of Bomb grade materials in storage in the United States to run many many reactors.  There are also hundreds of thousands of tons of depleted Uranium in storage.  Depleted Uranium, by the way still contains, enough U235, that it can be reprocessed for More U235, or alternatively require less U235 for enrichment to reactor grand.  There is actually a good deal of Uranium in the fly ash of coal fired power plants.  Why not extract that Uranium to go into reactors, rather than lock it up in cement as is thew present practice.  There are other sources of Uranium and Thorium is an alternative to Uranium that will be used in VI generation reactors.  

Charles Barton

Nuclear costs II

Amazngdrx claims "6 dollars per watt basic construction costs" for reactor power.  Where did this claim come from?  Recent Chines raactor costs have run from a reported $1500 per KW to $1300 per KW. Westinghouse claims its Advanced PWR reactor, the AP1000, will cost $1400 per KW for the first reactor and fall to USD $1000 per KW in mass production.  Even these costs could fall dramatically with generation VI reactors.  
Duke Energy Corp. recently quoted a $1.8 billion cost to build a single 800-megawatt coal-fired power unit.

What the anti-nuks won't tell you is that 150 coal fired geenerating plants have been proposed nationwide.  In Texas we fought back a plan to build 18 coal fired plants. We have got to go to the nuclear alternative to coal now.    

Once again the anti-Nuks are peddling ignorance.  

Charles Barton

The land of unreality

There are two seperate bunches of maniacs in the Global Warming debate.  The global warming skeptics, and the anti-nuk environmentalists,  It is hard to tell which group is more insane, or which group constitutes a greater danger to life on this earth.  My money is on the anti-nuk environmentalists who will protect the coal lobby more effectively than the deniers will ever do.

Nuclear power is the only proven technology that can replace coal fired steam plants, despite all the anti-nuk claim about wind and bat guano saving the planet.      

Charles Barton

Wind generation and conventional generation

Wind power is cost effective if we don't count the costs of energy storage.  We ought to install more wind generating capacity as long as this leads to a decrease in the production of CO2 from fossil Fuel plants, but we  still need alternative generating capasity for obvious reasons.  

Charles Barton

Sailing ships

The ocean is a pretty windy place.

Sailing ships, which use to be the major transportation system at sea, were no doubt never troubled by windless nights.  But in the real world you would always have to have a wind independent power reserve for tose rare occasions when the wind doesn't blow, and the back up system could not be a photovoltaic syestems.  

The EU's present plan for deminishing CO2 emissions without using nuclear power is absurd.  For example, Finland is expected to draw 20% of its electricity from Baltic tides, even though the Baltic only has a 1' tidal range.  What do you bet that Finland is going to need the help of a ractor to meet its EU mandated CO2 reduction goals?

Charles Barton

The missing link

Wow what a story!

Charles Barton

energy sorage

There are different ways to estimate the costs of electrical generation.  For example the cost of fossil fuel generation does not include the social costs associated with global warming.  The costs of wind and solar power does not include the cost of production and storage systems required to provide round the clock power.  Wind farms produce power about 28% of the time.  Solar voltaic power is effective 50% of the time, but that percentage is variable with the season. In order to be effective as reliable power sources electrical storage equal to two to three times maximum demand must be included in solar and wind system.   Once these costs are factored Solar and Wind power sources appear far less attractive as sources of round the clock power as reactors.  

Current estimates of the costs of new reactor power would run about $0.10 to $.12 pre KWh.  This cost is very competative with the real cost of fossil fuels, and very, very competative wiith the cost of Solar or wind sources when storage costs are factored in.

Geothermal power from deep sources come with an unassessed and lagely unacknowledged seismic risk.  In addition current technology limits the geothermal sources that can be used.  One German study estimated that geothermal sources could provide at most 25% of of German power needs.    We have to mark the geothermal business uncertain at best.  

Environmentalists serve coal industry interests, but blocking the electrical sourse that is most likely to compete with coal.  Remember every year that no comprehensive solution to the CO2 problem  is adopted, means billions of dollars in the pocket of the fossil fuel industry, and more massive amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere.  

Solutions must be found not only for the United States and Europe, but for the rapidly growing, energy hungry economies of India and China.  

The costs of reactors can be brougt down in the short run by mas production.  In the longer run the adoption of generation IV reactor technology would greatly deminish the coust of building and operating reactors.

Environmentalists have to decide if the want to continue ther secret alliance with the fossil fuel industry of accept the necessity of reactor power generation.        

Charles Barton

the "natural reactor lie"?

"Once again the pro-nuke people claim the existence of a natural reactor is somehow analogous to current waste storage problems." Pangolin

Once again we see the secret allies of the coal barons, are the environmentalist, who willingly sacrifice a viable solution to the CO2 problem on the alter of irrational objections to nuclear power.  Pangolin knows nothing all about the Oklo reactors.  And he knows even less abour reactor safety.  It might shock him to learn that Oklo was documented in Scientific American a long time ago, and that many peer reviewed research papers have been published about it.  Anti-Nuk Environmentalists are just as ignorant and narrow minded as global warming skeptics.  

I have no objection to solar power, but the last I checked, the sun does not shine in Texas for around 12 hours on an average day. I cannot turn on solar powered lights after dark.    Now maybe someday, a cheep and reliable storage technology will becpme avaliable, but until them solar power is not reliable power.  It does not supply electricity on demand.  Reactors are the only tested and cost competative electricity sources, that provide reliable power without CO2 output.  It is utterly irresponsible of ignorant environmentalists like Pangolin to dismiss reactors without giving the technology a fair hearing.

Charles Barton

One and a half billion year old reactor is safe

Charles,

I'm unaware of any radioactive byproducts sequestration that has been "proven to be effective for at least one and a half billion years". Can you link to something to support that claim? - SoggyInSeattle

I am amazed that you are unaware of the one and a half billion year old Oklo reactors, located in Gabon, Africa.  This should be known to anyone who wants to talk seriously about energy.

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

T

Charles Barton

optimal climate

Sometimes climate change skeptic, Tim Ball has correctly pointed out that significant global warming would benefit the Canadian economy.  The warmer the world gets, the more comfortable Canada will be for human beings, and our economic activities.  Global warmings would not make things better in the United Staes.  In fact the Southwest would be dryer and hoter, making it significantly leas habitable.  

Charles Barton

GM Plug In Car

GM has demonstrated that a plug in car can be built.  A 40 mile range is acceptable, 50 miles is a reachable goal in the next 10 years.  We still need hybrid because some people need to drive their cars for more than 40 miles in a day.  Some people would like to have a car that can be driven on out of town trips.  

Charles Barton

Clean power

Renewable energy sources - wind, solar - are great, but they are intermittent.  The only way we are going to get clean, reliable electric power is to go nuclear.  You can charge your hybred car from a clean nuk source, and then you would not be taking bread from the mouths of the poor, and you would not be adding to the CO2 burden of the atmosphere.  

Charles Barton

Lifestyle

James Howard Kunstler has his views.  But he is part of the problem, not the solution.  Kunstler's basic problem is that he does not like people. At least any one who is not committed to his vision of the future.

"In my travels, I have noticed a disturbing theme among the educated minority of eco-advocates: they are every bit as dedicated to the status quo (in their own way) as the NASCAR morons and shopping mall developers. The eco-advocates want cars, too, and all the prerogatives (like free parking and country living) that go with them, just like the WalMart shoppers. If this were not so, then why do the eco-advocates cream in their jeans whenever somebody presents a snazzy new vehicle that runs on a fuel other than gasoline? Indeed, why are some of the eco-friendly pouring all their efforts into the invention of such things instead of into walkable communities and the reform of our stupid land-use laws?"

I do not believe for one moment that we have to make drastic changes in our lifestyle in order that we confront the CO2 issue.  In fact it would be very desirable if we don't have to.  If fossil fuils can be replaced.  Electricity coming from nuks, for example, could solve many problems.  For example, plug in our electrical cars for a recharge after we get back from Walmart.  Ya if we don't have a Walmart all the people who work there will be out of work.  Maybe they could find employment as cobblers, since in Kunstler's ideal world, we are going to walk everywhere.  Kunstler has not thought enough to wonder how much desperate grinding poverty his supposedly eco-friendly world would create.  He doesn't really care though, because people don't matter to him, only his concept of am ideal environment does.          

Charles Barton