So, this is what it feels like to have a mind meld.

I also watched the show and was wriggling my eyebrows for the same reasons. That is the problem with knowing too much on any given subject, TV never gets the facts right (neither do newspapers). Never watch an episode of ER with a real doctor sitting in the same room.

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Help acquire and protect ecological hotspots, give to a conservation organization: http://www.saveourbiodiversity.com

" ham-handed with the critique of Bush's handling of Katrina"

This just in:   "The White House was told in the hours before Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans that the city would probably soon be inundated with floodwater, forcing the long-term relocation of hundreds of thousands of people"

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/24/national/nationalspecial/24katrina.html?_r=1

Remind anyone of "Al qaeda to attack within the US" in aug. of 2001?

and....I refer you two to the Rocky Mountain Institute page on nukes.  Hehey.

http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid305.php

Meld this!  

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

At NEI, we've spent plenty of time looking over RMI's research, and much of it doesn't pass muster.  Try the following links to see what I mean:

http://neinuclearnotes.blogspot.com/2005/08/bad-data-leads-to-bad-conclusions.html

http://neinuclearnotes.blogspot.com/2005/09/more-bad-data-from-amory-lovins.html

http://neinuclearnotes.blogspot.com/2005/09/revisiting-rmis-bad-data.html

http://neinuclearnotes.blogspot.com/2005/10/revisiting-rmi-and-amory-lovins.html

Eric McErlain Nuclear Energy Institute

having recently read some of their literature.

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Help acquire and protect ecological hotspots, give to a conservation organization: http://www.saveourbiodiversity.com

Lots of links to click, but no coherent argument?

(I must confess I stopped at the 5th content free link.)

RMI actually sets out a position that can be understood and addressed on their nuclear power page.

If you have a point to make, just make it!  Don't be afraid.

Meanwhile back in the world of corporatism, nuclear power marches on!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11005719/from/RS.1/

"RALEIGH, N.C. - Anti-nuclear activists and a major power company were gearing up for a prolonged battle after the company, Progress Energy Inc., picked the site where it will seek to build the first nuclear reactor in the United States in more than 30 years."

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

Far from being "content-free" David's analysis is pretty clear: Because the methodology of RMI's research is flawed, the conclusions simply can't be trusted.

Eric McErlain Nuclear Energy Institute

Last Sundays's episode of "West Wing" about a radioactive release from a fictional nuclear plant was a frightening scenario, but not entirely outside the realm of possibility.  California's operating nuclear plants are located on eroding and earthquake active coastal bluffs.  Since 9/11/01, the administration has warned U.S. Citizens that nuclear power plants and adjacent onsite high-level radioactive waste storage facilities are at risk of terrorist attacks.

The twin operating reactors at the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station are soon to undergo stam generator replacement that will require cutting 28 by 28 foot holes in each containment dome.  And as most southern Californians are aware, the San Onofre nuclear station is adjacent to a 10 lane freeway, state park, shipping and air corridor and a heavily used rail system - all placing this site at particular risk.  This is a project opposed by San Onofre's co-owner, SDG&E.

Aging reactors with radioactive and embrittled components on our seismically active and vulnerable coast give Californians a cause for real concern.  If a radioactive release were to result from a nuclear accident, no matter the cause, is our state prepared for a nuclear disaster?  Bad news there:FEMA is the responsible agency for all disasters.  We have only to look at the example of Hurrican Katrina and then add the additional risk of radioactivity in the air, water and soil to strike real fear into our hearts.

The only examples of nuclear evacuations are Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. In both cases, the authorities took days to inform the public that there had beena radioactive release. Seventeen cities in Ukraine remain ghost towns
and hundreds of thousands remain displaced.  In this era of increasing secrecy, there is little reason to believe that next tme will be different.

Hundreds of tons of high-level radioactive waste have been produced at California's nuclear plants since operation began in the early 1980's. Thousands of tons will be left on our coast long after the last kilowatt is produced.  Licenses for California's nuclear plants expire in the mid 2020's, but both utility owners are beginning to prepare for license renewal applications.

While Los Angeles does not have its own nuclear reactor, it is located 1/2 way between California's operating reactors.  Evacuation, if ever necessary, will seriously impact the City of the Angeles.  In addition, if the radioactive waste from these reactors ever leaves our state, it will travel through LA on heavily used freeways and dilapidated rail systems.  One only has to look at the front page of today's LA Times to see how safe trucking this radiaoctive waste will be on our roads.

Reactor communities have waited over 50 years for the federal government to fulfill its promise of permanent offsite storage for radioactive waste.  For years, SCE, SDG&E and PG&E ratepayers have paid for the construction of a permanent offsite facility. To date, all that exists is a giant hole in the Nevada desert.

Is continuing down the nuclear path the least expensive option?  No, nor is it the safest.  The total price tag for construction of the San Onofre Nuclear Station and the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Plant was in excess of $11 billion for 4000 megawatts and that was in 1985.  In addition, both utilities need to replace steam generators and that cost will exceed $1.5 billion.  Recently, the California Public Utilities Commission approved $3.2 billion for 3000 megawatts.  Clearly, nuclear power is not economical.

California is the only state in the nation with a law that prohibits the construction of new nuclear plants until there is a permanent solution to the offsite storage of high-level radioactive waste.  The Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility invites Californians to join us in reducing the risks to our state, our economy and to keep the "West Wing" scenario from becoming a reality.

Rochelle Becker, Executive Director
Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility
http://www.a4nr.org
PO 1328
San Luis Obispo, Ca 93406

From your link em:

"Nuclear power plants' capacity factor (how efficient a plant generates electricity) is the highest of any fuel source (90.5%). Renewables are in the 30% range, natural gas for cogeneration is about 40%."

"capacity factor" is not equivalent to... "how efficient a plant generates electricity"

Efficiency is the ratio of electrical energy output from a generating system  compared to
heat energy input to that system.  

Capacity factor measures how many kwh (kilowatt hours) a system produces in a given time period compared to how many kwh that the rated power of the system would produce in that same time period under continuous operation.

(The rest of this discussion is posted here to save space.)

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog/_archives/2006/1/25/1721852.html

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog