DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Renewable Revolution
HTML https://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Nuke Puke
*****************************************************
#Post#: 280--------------------------------------------------
Nuclear Power Industry Mendacious Propaganda
By: AGelbert Date: November 8, 2013, 1:16 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[move]A more appropriate name for the Breakthrough Institute
shameless liars is the BROKEN-RECORD or the BROKEN-THROUGH with
NUCLEAR BALONEY Institute. Enjoy this expert and detailed
debunking of theses low down lying cads.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/2rzukw3.gif
[/move]
The Breakthrough Institute – Why The Hot Air? PART 1 of 2 parts
June 17, 2013 Thomas
I’ve recently stumbled upon a number of articles by the
Breakthrough Institute (BTI) that aimed at discrediting
renewable energy on the one hand and on the other preaching
about nuclear energy as the solution for the global energy
crisis of the 21st century. With their hearts and minds pre-set
on pushing their narrative, that some kind of a nuclear
salvation is being held back by leftish environmentalists
(sinister!), the so called German “Energiewende” (Energy
Transition) has apparently become a regular target of the
Breakthrough Institute staff’s publications.
[img width=640
height=480]
HTML http://i2.wp.com/cleantechnica.com/files/2013/06/Pandoras-Turd1.jpg[/img]
Pandora's TURD ;D
Public displays of ignorance and misrepresentation of facts are
neither new nor rare when commentators try to discredit the
feasibility of a shift to a renewable energy supply. This most
regulary includes unscientific pandering to conventional wisdom.
In the case of the Breakthrough Institute’s recent articles on
Germany and solar energy, all of the above are certainly the
case.
The Straw Men Army
As I mentioned at the top, I am writing this because I’ve
recently stumbled upon a couple of Breakthrough Institute
articles — I wasn’t too familiar with the “Breakthrough
Institute” before that. In the middle of May, the Breakthrough
Institute (BTI) published an article comparing the alleged costs
of what its analysts call “the German solar program” and the
costs of a Finnish nuclear project currently under construction
and which is plagued by cost overruns. A couple of weeks later,
Michael Shellenberger (BTI President) & Ted Nordhaus (BTI
Chairman) published an article defending the previous article
against unspecified criticism and making a couple of incredibly
silly claims in the process.
[img width=640
height=420]
HTML http://i1.wp.com/cleantechnica.com/files/2013/06/BTI-Twitter.jpg[/img]
Reason I wrote this post.
So here’s a roundup of a few straw men, dubious connections,
distortions, and stuff that’s plain and simply silly.
#1 – Irrelevant “Cost” Comparison
[unscientific pandering to conventional wisdom]
Comparing the alleged gross-price tag of Germany’s solar policy
with a Finnish nuclear project might seem like a very clever
thing to do, but in reality it’s simply silly. The comparison
suggests a non-existent equality in circumstances, goals, and
preconditions that simply isn’t there.
What I am trying to say is, that if you want to judge two
policies or projects, you should judge them foremost by their
goals and motivations, not by an unrelated number game.
The motivation and the goals of Germany’s unprecedented solar
policy are neither a secret nor hard to research (EEG 2004,
Article 1). For decades, the main problem of solar had been
identified as it being too expensive to deploy. But, at the same
time, only deployment and mass production would lead to
significant cost reductions. To overcome this barrier, the
German parliament adapted the Feed-in-Tariff (FiT) in 2004 to
incentivize the installation of solar PV systems, thus creating
the first uncapped mass market for solar power. It was the goal
to reduce the technology’s cost through deployment, innovation,
and market forces within the solar industry. The plan has
succeeded a lot faster than anticipated and the cost of PV is
expected to decline by at least another 50% by 2020.
[img width=640
height=480]
HTML http://i1.wp.com/cleantechnica.com/files/2013/06/Germany-PV.jpg[/img]
The development of feed-in-tariff rates for solar power (actual
production costs / kWh are a bit lower).
In contrast, the goal of the Finnish nuclear power plant had
been to have a fully operational 1.6 GW Generation III+ nuclear
reactor by 2009 for $4.2 billion. Since the decision for the new
nuclear plant was made in 2000, that would have been 5 years of
planing and permitting and 4 years of construction. Since the
current estimate is that it might enter commercial operation in
2015 — 10 years after construction began — and at a price of
approximately $11.1 billion, it can with no doubt be considered
a massive failure.
Everyone can judge for themselves what they want to think about
the two political projects.
On one side, a German policy that may have come with a price tag
to consumers, but has successfully triggered the global
commercialization and industrialization of an energy technology
that sat dormant for far too long. (In addition, Germany’s solar
industry — far more than solar cell manufacturing — still
provides 100,000 high-paying jobs and is registering more
patents than ever before.)
On the other side, the newest commercial product of the veteran
nuclear industry failing miserably at delivering what it
promised.
But there’s no arguing about the outcome. In most places around
the world (including Germany), installing solar technology
onsite can now lower the bill for households, businesses, and
even industries. It takes only a few weeks/months from making
the investment decision to producing a relatively certain
monthly amount of peak-load power.
For any new nuclear power project, there is no such certainty
nor is there a similar market-driven investment incentive at the
horizon — even after almost 60 years of commercial nuclear
power. (This is all something the BTI didn’t care to mention.)
I won’t delve into how nuclear and solar operate in different
technological and economic paradigms at this point, but it
should be obvious to everyone that neither solar panels nor a
nuclear reactor represent a complete energy system.
#2 – A Dubious Source as the Main Witness
[Questionable Motives]
I was not surprised to find the “100 Billion Euro disaster”
paper written by Dr. Frondel of the RWI at the heart of the the
first BTI story. What’s amusing is the naïve sort of “a German
wrote it, it must be true!” attitude that is rather prevalent in
many articles/comments that quote his work. Rarely does any
journalist follow the money or intentions, nor does the American
press care about the criticism of Dr. Frondels’ work.
In reality, Dr. Frondels’ analysis is nothing more than a simple
calculation of a price tag. He then chooses to equate the price
tag with macroeconomic costs, by overly simplifying and ignoring
the complexity of the economic reality. Basically, the study was
written to give lazy journalists easy-to-copy-&-paste headlines
and snippets in order to attack solar energy (which is
controversial, of course, which brings in readers and makes the
journalists look “critical” and “smart”).
Undoubtedly, those economic interests that have commissioned the
RWI study and fund the work of people like Dr.Frondel are very
pleased to see the BTI making such “good” and uncritical use of
their investments.
I’ve created this little infrographic below to illustrate some
background information on the history of Dr. Frondels’ study and
other somewhat related information. See what you can find.
[img width=640
height=420]
HTML http://i2.wp.com/cleantechnica.com/files/2013/06/BTI-Source-Connection.jpg[/img]
To give you an even better understanding of the general nature
of Dr. Frondels’ work in recent years, I would just like to
refer you to the RWI’s publication called “Positionen Nr. 45”
from April 2011. The title of this particular RWI paper was,
“The Cost Of Climate Protection – A Look At Electricity Prices.”
In it, Dr. Frondel comes to the surprising (Who pays the piper,
calls the tune) conclusion that German household electricity
prices in 2011 could have remained at their 1998 levels if it
wasn’t for all that nasty climate action!
I personally find it fascinating how the BTI chooses to utilize
Dr. Frondels’ work to discredit renewable energy and attack
people like Bill McKibben, while at the very same time, the
whole Keystone XL decision is an increasingly important issue in
the US.
Well, whatever reasons the BTI may have for its recent urge to
make renewables look bad, it did choose not to mention the
dubious connections of its main source on the alleged economics
of Germany’s renewable energy policy. Its reasoning for
withholding this relevant background information is obvious
though: A study comissioned by the American Oil & Gas industry,
written by a guy who is involved with a German version of the
Heartland Institute simply isn’t a very convincing main witness
when you are try to make a simplistic case against renewables in
favor of nuclear energy.
#3 – The Emissions Blame Game
[Misrepresenting & Oversimplifying]
The good folks at the BTI love to foster the myth that less
nuclear must lead to higher emissions, and that Germany’s
decision to phase out nuclear will kill the climate.
Unfortunately, there is no denying the fact that emissions did
in fact rise in 2012.
However, not mentioning the colder-than-usual winter (including
the related French electricity crisis in February 2012) and the
increase of coal-powered electricity exports due to the collapse
of the European emissions trading system is a willful choice.
For the record, with 317 Mio tons of CO2, the 2012 emissions
from electricity generation are still well below the 5-year
pre-recession average (2003-2007) of 330 Mio tons. If you
consider that the German economy made a strong comeback after
the global recession in 2009, with record-breaking employment
and export levels, this becomes even more significant (i.e.
energy productivity increased).
In fact, 2012 emissions per kWh were almost 10% lower compared
to 2002, which was the year with the highest nuclear output in
Germany. More info on total GHG emissions (not only the 30%
caused by electricity generation) is included below.
#4 – Renewables have had no impact!
[Clown Territory Loss of Reality Disorder(?) / Pandering to
conventional wisdom]
In their opinion piece titled “No Solar Way Around It,”
Shellenberger and Nordhaus get carried away and make the
following remark:
“In reality, there’s little evidence that renewables have
supplanted — rather than supplemented — fossil fuel production
anywhere in the world. Whatever their merits as innovation
policy, Germany’s enormous solar investments have had little
discernible impact on carbon emissions.” – No Solar Way Around
It, BTI
This statement is a showcase example of the smartass microcosm
the BTI president has chosen to populate with his fact-free
wisdom. I don’t know what he was trying to say, but the only
thing he could have hoped to accomplish is to reinforce
anti-renewable mythology. By doing so, he obviously disqualified
himself as a reasonable member of the energy debate. But
I am hopeful that he’ll correct his claim….
Here are the facts, plain and simple, for you to judge:
Click here for PART 2
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/nuke-puke/nuclear-power-industry-mendacious-propaganda/msg281/#msg281
#Post#: 281--------------------------------------------------
Re: Nuclear Power Industry Mendacious Propaganda
By: AGelbert Date: November 8, 2013, 1:38 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Why The Hot Air?[img width=160
height=095]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-241013183046.jpeg[/img]PART<br
/>2
Here are the facts, plain and simple, for you to judge:
[img width=640
height=380]
HTML http://i2.wp.com/cleantechnica.com/files/2013/06/Germany-FinalEnergyEmissions.jpg[/img]
Impact of Renewable Energy on the Energy Supply and
GHG-Emissions. Source: UBA, AGEB, BMWi
During the first 12 years of this century, the final energy
supplied by renewable energy sources has more than tripled.
Final energy is what is left of primary energy after conversion
and transmission losses. At the same time, efficiency increases
have reduced the overall final energy demand, despite a growing
economy. Both developments did not only compensate for the
decline of the marginal nuclear contribution, but they also
supplanted about 9.3% fossil fuel final energy consumption since
the year 2000.
[img width=640
height=380]
HTML http://i2.wp.com/cleantechnica.com/files/2013/06/Germany-Decline-of-Fossil-Fuels1.jpg[/img]
The Decline of Fossil Energy. Source: AGEB
Fossil primary energy consumption (energy content of the fuel
input of a countries energy system) declined by 11.5% since
2000 and by 18% since 1990. Which in turn explains the decline
of greenhouse gas emissions by 10.5% over the same period and a
decline of 25.5% compared to 1990.
It’s important to keep in mind that the German “Energiewende”
(energy policy portfolio) is about improving energy efficiency
(since the late 1970s) and increasing the share of renewable
energy sources (proactively since 2000) at the same time. While
the growth of renewables in the electricity sector gets a lot of
attention, it’s by no means the only aspect of the
“Energiewende”.
Considering this and the facts mentioned before, it’s only fair
to notice that the “Energiewende” has accomplished significantly
more during just the last 12 years, than the quite substantial
nuclear program did since its inception.
[img width=640
height=380]
HTML http://i2.wp.com/cleantechnica.com/files/2013/06/Nuclear-VS-Energiewende.jpg[/img]
These small details (easy-to-access facts) are a good transition
to my next and final point in this post.
#5 – The Germans don’t know what they are doing!
[The Straw Giant]
“What that means is that if Germany doubled the amount of solar,
as it intends to do, there might be a few hours or even days
every year where the country gets 100 percent of its electricity
from solar, even though solar only provides 10 percent of its
annual electricity needs.
What happens beyond that is anyone’s guess. Some say Germany
could sell its power to other countries, but this would mean
other countries couldn’t move to solar since Germany would
provide electricity at the same hours it would seek to unload it
on their neighbors.” — No Solar Way Around It, BTI
[img width=640
height=580]
HTML http://i1.wp.com/cleantechnica.com/files/2013/06/Germany-Bismarck.jpg[/img]
Suggesting that the German long-term energy strategy is somewhat
irrational is a very common thread of most BTI attacks on the
“German Energiewende.” They want you to believe that Germany –
the fourth largest economy of the world and the country that is
excessively proud of its engineering art and long history of
industrial innovation — is wandering into some kind of fantasy
land. In my opinion, this claim alone should make even
uninformed readers pause and question what the BTI is
suggesting.
Unfortunately, the BTI is probably somewhat successful in
reinforcing conventional wisdom on renewable energy and its
“green hippies are naïve” narrative, simply because most people
usually don’t get quality information about these rather complex
issues. This tilts the game in favour of people voicing
simplistic messages (e.g. if you care about climate change => go
nuclear!).
The BTI might also be successful in confusing the public because
it works so hard to misrepresent Germany’s energy strategy (one
of the world’s leading positive examples of strong renewable
energy policy), arguing almost exclusively against its little
straw men army instead of discussing reality. Is it doing so out
of ignorance or because reality is infringing on its late
1980s-style nuclear-salvation narrative? I don’t know.
What I do know is that it spends a lot of time, energy, and
money suggesting that Germany’s game plan is to simply go solar
(with a little wind added in) or that Germany hasn’t run the
numbers.
Obviously all those German scientists and engineers, policy
leaders, and business leaders didn’t check the numbers, because
they didn’t come to the conclusion that there has to be a
nuclear component. It can’t be what must not be!
So what’s the takeaway from all this?
In my opinion it’s very simple. Unless you choose to believe all
the comfortable conventional wisdom that comes along, you don’t
have to be a Raketenwissenschaftler to notice that the
Breakthrough Institute is producing a lot of hot air. If you
come to that conclusion, the next legitimate question should be
to consider its motives. Why has it chosen to walk down a
partisan disinformation alley?
My Humble Opinion
I strongly believe that an informed public is crucial for
confronting the global energy crisis so I am obviously kind of
disgusted by narrow-minded messages of ignorance being delivered
as if they were wisdom from enlightenment. Still, I can not help
finding the BTI’s attempts to discredit Germany’s energy vision
as quite amusing and at the same time intriguing (more on that
at the end).
[img width=640
height=380]
HTML http://i1.wp.com/cleantechnica.com/files/2013/06/Germany-Nothing-to-See.jpg[/img]
Why amusing, you wonder?
While there are definatly worse anti-renewable advocates in the
US, addressing some of the BTI’s claims gives me the opportunity
to relive some of the more ridiculous energy debates that
happened 10-40 years ago in my country. In Germany, I can only
read and ask people about how previous generations struggled to
overcome certain mental barriers. However, due to the internet
and the rather asynchronous state of the energy debate globally,
I can now experience those struggles firsthand — which is
exciting!
[img width=640
height=380]
HTML http://i0.wp.com/cleantechnica.com/files/2013/06/German-1993-NuclearorClimatechange.jpg[/img]
Nationwide print campaign by the German power industry back in
1993
Don’t get me wrong, there is still a lot of anti-renewable and
anti-Energiewende advocacy going on in Germany, but it has
gotten a lot more sophisticated and insidious in recent years
due to an overwhelming pro-renewable public opinion.
In Germany, the goal of anti-renewable advocates has long been
to suppress the rise of ambitions within the civil society.
There are significant vested interests that profit from the
status quo, so they fear any challenge of the current structure
of the energy industry. De-activating society by feeding it
no-future scenarios or by telling it that meaningful action
requires technological breakthroughs that are decades away are
just two of the common themes. Pretty standard
anti-enlightenment stuff.
In my opinon, the BTI tries to apply the above-mentioned
tactics. There is no way for me to prove that opinion or know
what the BTI’s intentions or motivations truly are. Perhaps its
staff members just sing and dance to the “Status Quo” crowd’s
song out of pure personal convictions. What I do know is that
they are currently very obviously promoting their upcoming
overly emotional pro-nuclear “documentary” Pandora’s Promise.
This in mind, I can understand their desire to shoot in all
directions, desperately trying to stir up a debate* and get as
much attention for their message as possible. (*damn it! it
worked on me…)
I can understand it from a PR point of view. Though, I think
they are shooting themselves in the feet in the process by
attacking renewable energy deployment increasingly often.
A Brave New World
In any case, the Breakthrough Institute is one of America’s
first more prominent organizations exercising phase 3 of
anti-renewable advocacy designed to discourage those who have
realized that there is an alternative, but who are not yet
convinced that a rapid transition to renewable energy is
feasable or how it might work.
The surprisingly large amount of media coverage which the BTI
enjoys — compared to so many institutions and people who are
actually having an impact around the world — reinforces my
belief that the powerful “Status Quo” crowd wants you to hear
their message. This is fact is intriguing because it would mean
that somebody is starting to get worried about a long-overdue,
massive energy democracy spill on US soil.
Typical phases of resistance to renewable energy, as descriped
by Dr. Herman Scheer are as follows:
Phase 1 – Belittle & Deny the Renewable Energy Option
Phase 2 – Denounce & Mobilize Against the Renewable Energy
Option
Phase 3 - Spread Doubt & Misrepresent the Challenges in the
Disguise of General Support
[I](Note: reaching Phase 3 doesn’t mean that Phase 1 & 2 will
disappear. ;))[/I]
Today, basically every assault on the transition to renewable
energy in Germany comes in the disguise of general support.
Whether it’s the current German federal government trying to
discourage renewable energy investments or the conventional
energy industry that builds coal power stations rendered
unprofitable by the rise of renewable community power — everyone
is officially 120% in favor of the “Energiewende“.
The common use of such phase 3 tactics by the “Pro–Status Quo”
crowd is also the reason why many international analysts and
journalists fail miserably at understanding the current
developments over here. There is a naïve tunnel vision when it
comes to looking at the actual front lines of the German energy
debate.
This lack of quality by international commentators is also the
reason why partisan criticism by people like Dr. Frondel of the
RWI and INSM is so often quoted throughout the international
press, while all those numerous other German experts promoting
the energy transition are hardly ever heard of — despite the
fact that they have obviously shaped the country’s policy.
“Clearly we will win, because we got the better arguments. We
are on the right track, the Energiewende is a successful model.
We have created great markets, we are leading the world in
energy efficency.” – Prof. Dr. Claudia Kemfert, Head of the
Energy Department at the German Institute for Economic Research,
during a TV debate in reply to the question “Who will win this
“battle” of pro & con arguments — the US (shale gas) or us
(German Energiewende)?”
HTML http://cleantechnica.com/2013/06/17/the-breakthrough-institute-why-the-hot-air/#ogGtRMAtSykLyvxs.99
HTML http://cleantechnica.com/2013/06/17/the-breakthrough-institute-why-the-hot-air/#ogGtRMAtSykLyvxs.99<br
/>
MY COMMENT: Soon the BrokenRECORD Institude of marvelous
mendacious nuclear mummblygook will reach STAGE FOUR:
:icon_mrgreen:
STAGE IV = Laughing stock stage when the FINNISH IDIOTS discover
the 2/3 nuclear power and 1/3 renewables will cost 3 or 4 times
100% renewables and abandon the nuclear idiocy. LOL
Do any of these nuclear nuts EVER price in the cost of baby
sitting used fuel rods for a few CENTURIES!!?
WHO paid to dig those deep caverns in Finland or Norway to store
this poison per secula seculorum?
Do ANY OF THESE IDIOTS understand cost accounting?
And in the USA they've got another "bright" idea. They want to
use LIQUID SODIUM (of the fast breeder accidents infamy, by the
way) to ACCELERATE radioactive decay of fuel assemblies so they
will be A-Okay in ONLY a hundred years or so instead of 100,000
YEARS! Aren't they SO thoughtful and kind?
One more thing. Has the BROKEN-THROUGHOUT INSTITUTE ever tried
to price the cost of paying nuclear scientists and technicians
versus PV panel and Wind technicians and maintenance personnel?
OF COURSE NOT!! The word "nuclear" is code for $$$$$$ and they
just don't want to let go of their poisonous cash cow. To HELL
with them!
#Post#: 484--------------------------------------------------
Nuclear Lie Machine Part 1 of 2 parts
By: AGelbert Date: December 2, 2013, 7:10 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bsZUiYgPKjs&feature=player_embedded<br
/>
Did you know that rats eat the wires in the pumps used to
control the heat at Fukushima?
And we are supposed to trust TEPCO? Arnie Gundersen blasts all
the lies, obfuscations and open disregard for all regulations
and ethics by the nuclear "industry" criminals and their bought
and paid for shills. Arnie claims we are told there are WATCH
DOGS taking care of nuclear risks but they watch dogs are
actually LAP DOGS! He suggests googling "Will Shill for Nukes"
to see what these "so-called" "watch dogs" are REALLY ALL ABOUT.
[move]I did. Here it is for your reading "pleasure":[/move]
Will Shill for Nukes
Decommissioning the nuclear lobby's phony op-ed campaign
By William M. Adler, Fri., April 16, 2004
[img width=640
height=480]
HTML http://www.austinchronicle.com/binary/8b1b/pols_feature-23849.jpeg[/img]
Will Shill for Nukes
Illustration By Jason Stout[/I]
Will Shill for Nukes
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/d2.gif
[img
width=060
height=040]
HTML http://www.envisionyourdreamsllc.com/Golden-Pig.jpg[/img]
At UT and elsewhere, academic scientists are only too happy to
lend their names and reputations to the nuclear power industry
BY WILLIAM M. ADLER
From the Desk of ... [i]Big Nuke
Tracing the daisy chain of nuclear PR recycling
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/www_MyEmoticons_com__burp.gif
On March 4, the Austin American-Statesman published an op-ed
article by Sheldon Landsberger, professor of nuclear engineering
at UT. Headlined "Funds for nuclear waste storage should be used
for just that," the column argues that the government is
fleecing electric-utility ratepayers, who contribute mandatory
per-kilowatt-hour fees toward the development of the proposed
national nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain in Nevada.
Landsberger charges that a portion of the fees earmarked for the
federal Nuclear Waste Fund are diverted to the general U.S.
Treasury. "This is stealing money from taxpayers who were
required to support the waste management project," Landsberger
writes.
HTML http://www.u.arizona.edu/~patricia/cute-collection/smileys/lying-smiley.gif
Strong words.
But they're not Landsberger's. Nor are the other 633 words that
appeared in the Statesman that morning under Landsberger's
byline. "It was something which was written for me," Landsberger
told me later on the phone. "I agreed with it, I went over it,
read it a couple of times, took all of 15, 20 minutes."
The op-ed was ginned up, assembly-line style, by a Washington,
D.C., public relations firm that the nuclear power lobby retains
to tilt public opinion in favor of the stalled Yucca Mountain
project. (Unmentioned in Landsberger's plea for official
rectitude are the myriad of unresolved scientific, technical,
and legal questions about the viability of burying high-level
waste in Nevada.) Besides reading and approving the column, all
Landsberger did to take credit for authorship was insert his
name and position at UT, and forward it via e-mail to the
Statesman – even that address provided by the PR firm. (He also
sent the column to several other Texas newspapers, none of which
printed it.)
On Tuesday, the Statesman published a letter from Landsberger
apologizing for his misrepresentation.
Landsberger says he doesn't know who actually wrote his column.
He received it, via e-mail, from an employee at Oak Ridge
National Laboratory in Tennessee. (Landsberger emphasized that
he believed the employee, whom he wouldn't name, sent him the
column as a private citizen, rather than on behalf of the
national lab.) Nor was this the first time; when it comes to
deceiving newspaper readers on behalf of a stealth nuclear
lobbying campaign, Landsberger is an acknowledged recidivist.
"I've been doing this four or five years," he says. "They [op-ed
columns] come from Oak Ridge maybe two or three times a year,
particularly when there's a hot-button issue."
Landsberger's accomplice is Theodore M. Besmann, an Oak Ridge
employee since 1985. Besmann is a prolific correspondent.
Beginning at least as far back as 1978, he has had published
under his own or others' names dozens of nuclear love songs in
newspapers across the country, from The New York Times to the
San Francisco Chronicle to The Washington Post to the Houston
Chronicle to The Christian Science Monitor ("Nuclear: The
Environment's Friend," appeared in the Monitor in 1994).
None but a blockhead, Samuel Johnson said, writes for free.
:evil4: Ted Besmann is no blockhead. He moonlights as a paid
consultant to Potomac Communications Group, the Washington PR
firm that works for the Nuclear Energy Institute, the nuclear
industry's stentorian voice and lobby. The NEI's current primary
concern – besides beating the congressional bushes for tax
breaks and subsidies for nuclear power – is opening the atomic
garbage dump at Yucca Mountain. Many of the nation's 103
reactors are running out of on-site storage space for their
spent fuel rods, the NEI says, and may have to close if the
Energy Department doesn't soon open the Yucca Mountain facility.
To spread its message, the electric utility-funded NEI relies on
generous campaign contributions to key members of Congress,
virtually unbridled access to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
and academic "experts" who prostitute their reputations and
those of their universities.
Everybody Does It
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/mocantina.gif
Enter Sheldon Landsberger, Ph.D. He directs the Nuclear
Engineering Teaching Lab at UT and coordinates the Nuclear and
Radiation Engineering Program. He's a busy guy. So when Ted
Besmann forwarded him the op-ed on Yucca Mountain, Landsberger
read it, "signed off" on it, and passed it on to the Statesman
as his own, just as he'd done with the Statesman and other
papers, once or twice a year for at least five years. Is that
such an outrage?
Well, yes, says Jonathan Knight, an ethics specialist for the
American Association of University Professors. "If I see an
article by Jack Spratt, then I assume that Jack Spratt has
indeed developed the ideas that are in his document," says
Knight, who directs the AAUP's program on academic freedom and
tenure. "If I learn that in fact Jack Spratt has only lent his
name to that, I've got a problem in terms of being seriously
misled."
Unsurprisingly, the perpetrators of this "public affairs
campaign" ;) see it differently. :evil4: It matters not who
writes the piece, says Bill Perkins, founding partner of Potomac
Communications, but what the piece says. "Whether the words are
largely theirs, or largely not theirs, the views are. Nobody
would submit an article if they didn't totally agree with it."
[img width=220
height=120]
HTML http://www.whydidyouwearthat.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/tumblr_l7j9nik8Wf1qaxxwjo1_5001.jpeg[/img]<br
/>[img width=40
height=40]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-051113192052.png[/img]<br
/>
Besides, Perkins says, everyone does it.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/fly.gif
"I doubt that there is a public affairs campaign by any advocacy
group in the country that doesn't have some version of this. The
op-ed pages are one of the ways people express their views in
these debates."
But Landsberger did not exactly express his views; he
appropriated those of the nuclear lobby, in their words. The
distinction is crucial. Otherwise, says Knight of the AAUP, he
is "foisting an illusion upon us: that he really has come up
with those ideas himself."
Landsberger acknowledges an offense – but claims it was he who
was victimized. He says that a "few months ago" he had a
"sneaking suspicion" that Ted Besmann was forwarding him the
same op-ed columns other professors were receiving. "When I
started doing this, I was under the impression that rightfully
or wrongfully I was the only guy." He said he has since told
Besmann he will no longer participate.
Besmann says Landsberger is mistaken about his place in the PR
machine. "I do help with letters to the editor," he says. "It's
always original material, unique to that person."
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/budo.gif
But Besmann says he only
occasionally ghostwrites op-eds, that more often he merely
passes them on from the ghostwriters of Potomac Communications
Group.
Was Landsberger saying that it's ethical to slap your name on
writing that's not yours as long as no one else claims it, too?
"I had no problems with them coming to me," Landsberger says,
"but then going on to someone else and having them do the same
thing, I felt betrayed, duped, whatever the word is." [img
width=50
height=50]
HTML http://www.imgion.com/images/01/Angry-animated-smiley.jpg[/img]<br
/>
No Credit
Suppose, the professor was asked, a student of his submitted a
paper he didn't write as his own. Wouldn't he and the university
consider that cheating, and how is that different from what he,
Landsberger, did?
There was a long, long pause.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/ugly004.gif
"I don't put them
both in the same light," Landsberger finally said. "There was no
monetary value in here, number one, and number two, there was no
credit to be given."
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/165fs373950.gif
Knight, the ethics expert with AAUP, disagrees: "Whether it's an
op-ed in a local newspaper or an article in a learned journal,
we're talking about the same phenomenon, which is plagiarism:
presenting the ideas as if they were one's own."
HTML http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_0293.gif
Continued in Part 2
#Post#: 485--------------------------------------------------
The Nuclear Lie Machine Part 2 of 2 parts
By: AGelbert Date: December 2, 2013, 7:11 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The Nuclear Lie Machine Part 2 of 2 parts
University policy appears similarly unforgiving. Under UT
guidelines, governing "all research conducted at the
university," any allegation of "scientific misconduct" – defined
as "fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism" – would be
referred to the associate vice-president for research, Sharon
Brown. As for the university's "working definition" of
plagiarism, Brown referred me to the federal Office of Research
Integrity, which "considers plagiarism to include both the theft
or misappropriation of intellectual property and the substantial
unattributed textual copying of another's work." The ORI defines
"unattributed textual copying of another's work" as "the
unattributed verbatim or nearly verbatim copying of sentences
and paragraphs which materially mislead the ordinary reader
regarding the contributions of the author."
For at least 25 years, an Oak Ridge employee named Theodore M.
Besmann has had published nuclear love songs in newspapers
across the country, under his own or others' names. [img
width=30
height=30]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-141113183729.png[/img]
If an allegation of scientific misconduct is made, Brown said,
she and university ethics officer Lee Smith, an attorney in the
legal affairs office, would conduct an initial inquiry to
determine "whether there is enough evidence to warrant a full
investigation."
Trust Them, They're Experts [img width=80
height=40]
HTML http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_9HT4xZyDmh4/TOHhxzA0wLI/AAAAAAAAEUk/oeHDS2cfxWQ/s200/Smiley_Angel_Wings_Halo.jpg[/img]<br
/>
HTML http://www.smileyvault.com/albums/stock/thumb_smiley-sign0105.gif
Professor Landsberger is hardly Big Nuke's lone academic conduit
for conducting stealth PR campaigns. His March 4 testimonial to
Yucca Mountain in the Statesman apparently rolled off the same
assembly line as a piece three months earlier in The State of
Columbia, S.C. That column, "Time to move ahead on nuclear waste
disposal," appeared Dec. 9, 2003, under the byline of Abdel E.
Bayoumi, chairman of the mechanical engineering department at
the University of South Carolina.
Landsberger's column is at times a replication of Bayoumi's. And
when it's not identical, it can be downright fraternal. Take the
beginning of Landsberger's last paragraph: "The record
demonstrates that since the advent of nuclear electricity more
than 40 years ago, scientific organizations across the world
have examined the issue of radioactive-waste management."
Compare Bayoumi's words: "The record shows that since the advent
of nuclear electricity more than 40 years ago, scientific
organizations around the world have examined the issue of
radioactive waste management."
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-311013200859.png
Landsberger's column concludes by quoting a line from a
14-year-old study supporting burial underground as the "best,
safest long-term option for dealing with high-level waste."
Bayoumi quotes the same, "best, safest long-term option" line
from the same study, but ends his column with a flourish: "The
government should get on with it." [img width=160
height=095]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-241013183046.jpeg[/img]
Landsberger and Bayoumi each told me he was unaware of the
other's column.
HTML http://www.coh2.org/images/Smileys/huhsign.gif<br
/>
HTML http://www.u.arizona.edu/~patricia/cute-collection/smileys/lying-smiley.gif<br
/> And while Landsberger now acknowledges his duplicity, Bayoumi
insists the language in his column is his alone. How, then, to
explain that three paragraphs of Bayoumi's column – as well as
his grand "The government should get on with it" finale –
appeared in an op-ed piece by a University of Pittsburgh
professor in The Buffalo (N.Y.) News on July 26, 1993, a full 10
years earlier? Or that the Buffalo News columnist also used the
industry's time-honored refrain: "The record shows that since
the advent of nuclear energy more than 30 years ago" – note the
earlier time-frame – "scientific organizations around the world
..." [img width=50
height=50]
HTML http://www.imgion.com/images/01/Angry-animated-smiley.jpg[/img]<br
/>
"I have nothing really to say," Bayoumi replied when asked to
explain his verbatim language. "I have no knowledge of that
[Buffalo News] column. I have no idea who did what 10 years
ago." Bayoumi did allow that some of his "numbers" came from
"fact sheets" posted on the Web site of the American Nuclear
Society, a professional organization based near Chicago. "But
all the writing is my own," he insists, adding, "I didn't
consent to let anyone else use it." [img width=220
height=120]
HTML http://www.yellowdoggereldemocrat.org/images/20071010_GraspingAtStrawsSign.jpg[/img]
Opinions 'R' Us
But Bayoumi apparently allowed himself to be used. And there he
is not alone. Like Landsberger, Bayoumi deceived his hometown
newspaper by submitting and representing as his own work what
apparently originated as an industry-generated and -funded
column. Could these two professors of engineering, one at Texas,
the other at South Carolina, be the only beneficiaries of the
Nuclear Energy Institute's ghostwriter-in-residence program?
Further investigation has uncovered what might be called Big
Nuke's vast op-ed conspiracy: a decades-long, centrally
orchestrated plan to defraud the nation's newspaper readers by
misrepresenting the propaganda of one hired atomic gun as the
learned musings of disparate academics and other
nuclear-industry "experts."
The conspiracy stretches from Washington, D.C., home to the NEI
and to the inexhaustible pen of Peter Bernstein. Bernstein, a
vice-president of the lobby's PR firm, Potomac Communications
Group, is the man whose prose stylings have been cloned by
nuclear scientists and engineers from Oregon to Florida. (Over
the course of two weeks, Bernstein declined to respond to three
phone messages and an e-mail requesting an interview.)
In Oregon, for instance, state climatologist and Oregon State
University professor George H. Taylor publishes under his name
columns written entirely or in part by Bernstein. Says Taylor:
"There have been people who have sent me things and said, 'We
just want you to say that you wrote this.' And I'm uncomfortable
doing that; I'd prefer just to write things myself." ;)
But an examination of Taylor's collected works reveals he
doesn't always get around to dashing off his own words. Asked
about his op-ed that appeared in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer
on April 9, 2002, Taylor recalled that he worked from an outline
Bernstein sent him and that he "basically did the writing myself
and sent it back to them." Somehow, however, between the time
Taylor returned his piece to Bernstein and its publication, it
came to echo a handful of other op-eds published previously.
[i]Statesman[/I], March 4, 2004
Statesman, March 4, 2004
Each of those other columns, published under similar headlines
("Nuclear Power Provides a Cheaper, Cleaner, Safer Alternative"
HTML http://www.u.arizona.edu/~patricia/cute-collection/smileys/lying-smiley.gif
is representative) and different bylines in The San Diego
Union-Tribune, The Detroit News, The Beaumont Enterprise,
Richmond Times-Dispatch (and after Taylor's, in Florida Today,
Melbourne, Fla.), used at least one stock sentence: "Far from
being an atoms-for-peace relic heading for extinction, nuclear
power now sets the competitive bench mark for electricity
generation." (Occasionally a minor word was changed – "today"
substituted for "now," for example.) And there were a multitude
of interchangeable paragraphs or sentences that appeared to be
cut-and-pasted from one to another.
Don't Waste Your Words
Before you dismiss this argument as little more than an exercise
in LexisNexis-fueled pedantry, consider yet another serial
instance of nuclear collusion – a chorus of received and
parroted ideas likely to induce cynicism in even the staunchest
believer. Here it may help to note that no matter how
indefatigably Bernstein yanks his puppets' strings to argue that
nuclear power is, well, a "cheaper, cleaner, safer alternative,"
the industry's Achilles' heel is still the waste question: how
to safely manage nuclear waste remains unresolved.
Meanwhile, the radioactive waste piles high. And not just the
high-level spent fuel rods, but so-called low-level waste
generated in medicine and manufacturing. In the early 1990s, the
industry launched a PR campaign to site commercial low-level
nuclear waste dumps in various states: Nebraska, Pennsylvania,
North Carolina, and Texas.
Writing in the Omaha World-Herald of the proposed Boyd County,
Neb., dumpsite, Dr. Samuel H. Mehr, the director of nuclear
medicine at an Omaha hospital, proclaimed in November 1990 that
"the best scientists and engineers available ...
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/d2.gif
believe that the ...
facility will be among the safest and best-engineered waste
facilities of any type in the country."
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/acigar.gif
Two years later, a nuclear engineering professor at Penn State,
Anthony Baratta, took to the pages of Harrisburg, Pa.'s
Patriot to champion a dump in Pennsylvania as, yup, "among the
safest and best-engineered waste facilities of any type in the
country."
Not to be outdone, Charles M. Harman, a Duke University
professor of mechanical engineering, struck a blow in the News &
Record of Greensboro, N.C., for a planned facility in Wake
County, N.C. "The design of the ... facility," Harman wrote in
April 1994, "is such that it would be" – all together now –
"among the safest and best engineered of any waste disposal
facility."
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/mocantina.gif
(Professor Harman also included other language not his own. Here
is the last line from Mehr's 1990 Omaha column: "It is past time
to move on to real and present problems that lack solutions."
Here is Harman's: "It is past time to move on to real and
present problems and to available solutions.")
It is also past time to conclude these ruminations, so let us
return to the engineering department on the campus that spawned
them: the University of Texas. In the June 29, 1996, edition of
the Statesman, Dale E. Klein, then associate dean for research
and administration of the College of Engineering, published a
letter to the editor in support of building the proposed nuclear
dump in Sierra Blanca, in far West Texas. (In November 2001,
Klein moved from the Forty Acres to the Pentagon. He is
presently assistant to the secretary of defense for nuclear and
chemical and biological defense programs. His wife, Rebecca
Armendariz Klein,
HTML http://www.websmileys.com/sm/aliens/hae51.gif<br
/> is the Republican
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/2rzukw3.gif
candidate for U.S. Congress in CD 25.)
Klein wrote in response to coverage of an Austin rally to
protest the dump. He declared that to leave the waste "at
multiple sites – many in populous areas of the state – is a
monitoring nightmare and brings into question the motives of the
most strident opponents of the facility."
After insulting those who might wonder why nuclear waste is safe
for rural residents but not for city folk, he suggests that an
effort be made to tell those many families who trooped to Austin
from Hudspeth and surrounding counties that "the food they eat
and the water they drink will not be radioactive."
Why's that, Dr. Klein?
Because, he wrote, the Sierra Blanca facility "will be among the
safest and best-engineered waste facilities in the country."
:icon_mrgreen:
But of course. end story [img width=120
height=60]
HTML http://images.zaazu.com/img/Incredible-Hulk-animated-animation-male-smiley-emoticon-000342-large.gif[/img]
HTML http://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2004-04-16/206880/
HTML http://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2004-04-16/206880/
#Post#: 486--------------------------------------------------
Rebecca A. Klein is a defender of nuclear power poisons
By: AGelbert Date: December 2, 2013, 7:43 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[I]Dear readers and fellow "blockheads" (we write for FREE!
[img width=30
height=40]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-141113185047.png[/img]<br
/>),
Have you ever heard of the Association of Women in ENERGY
(AWE)?.
NOTICE the title says NOTHING about NUCLEAR energy, just that
thermo[s]nuclear[/s]dynamic process we all hold dear along with
our SUVs.
You will NEVER GUESS WHO THE DIRECTOR IS.
HTML http://www.websmileys.com/sm/aliens/hae51.gif
Remember that NUKE SHILL wife of another NUKE SHILL that tried
to run for congress back in 2004?
The Nuke Pukes take care of their own. And they don't ADVERTIZE
the fact that they SHILL for nukes. [quote]Posted by AWE on Jul
20, 2011 in
Rebecca A. Klein Director, Board Of Directors
[size=18pt][b]Rebecca A. Klein is Principal of Klein Energy,
LLC, a regulatory and business consulting company in Austin,
Texas. Over the last twenty years she has worked in Washington,
DC and in Texas in the energy, telecommunications and national
security arenas. She provides business, regulatory and
government affairs consulting for international and domestic
clients focused in the energy, communications and national
security industries. - See more at:
HTML http://www.associationofwomeninenergy.com/board-of-directors/2011/07/klein/#sthash.fGY9BuHh.dpuf
HTML http://www.associationofwomeninenergy.com/board-of-directors/2011/07/klein/#sthash.fGY9BuHh.dpuf[/size][/quote]
[move]The above covers BOILER PLATE Credentials for an "energy
Expert" . [img width=160
height=095]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-241013183046.jpeg[/img]<br
/>Sneaky Reptiles, aren't they? [img width=100
height=080]
HTML http://images.sodahead.com/polls/000370273/polls_Smiley_Angry_256x256_3451_356175_answer_4_xlarge.png[/img]
[/move]
#Post#: 538--------------------------------------------------
Re: Nuclear Power Industry Mendacious Propaganda
By: AGelbert Date: December 12, 2013, 6:32 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[img width=640
height=1250]
HTML http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2012/04/26/science/mod/mod-articleInline.jpg[/img]
Cool graphic of a giant radioactive poison pill called a Small
Modular Reactor. ;)
[img width=70
height=50]
HTML http://carrieamedford.com/wp-content/uploads/money-emoticon.gif.jpg[/img]<br
/>= Nuke Puke Wet Dreams
Small Modular Reactors: First the HYPE!
Advancing Small Modular Reactors: How We're Supporting Next-Gen
Nuclear Energy Technology [img width=160
height=095]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-241013183046.jpeg[/img]
December 12, 2013 - 4:00pm
Nuclear energy continues to be an important
HTML http://www.coh2.org/images/Smileys/huhsign.gif
part of America’s
diverse energy portfolio, and the Energy Department is committed
to supporting a domestic nuclear industry.
;)
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/nocomment.gif
While we are supporting the deployment of passively safe large
nuclear reactors,
HTML http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_2932.gif
both in
the United States and around the world, we are also looking to
the next generation of nuclear energy technologies.
Today, the Department announced a new award that supports
first-of-its-kind engineering, design certification and
licensing for an innovative small modular reactor (SMR) design.
Supporting this innovative technology will help advance
low-carbon nuclear energy deployment in the United States.
HTML http://www.smileyvault.com/albums/stock/thumb_smiley-sign0105.gif
What is a Small Modular Reactor? [img width=50
height=50]
HTML http://www.imgion.com/images/01/Angry-animated-smiley.jpg[/img]<br
/>
Small modular reactors are approximately one-third the size of
current nuclear power plants or about 300 megawatts -- enough to
power almost 230,000 homes each year. These reactors feature
simplified, compact designs that are expected to be
cost-effective [img width=40
height=40]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-051113192052.png[/img]<br
/> and incredibly safe.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/funny.gif
Agelbert NOTE: I'm surprised they used the expression
"cost-effective" instead of "too cheap to meter!"
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/ugly004.gif
And why the laughing hard emoticon? ANSWER: See the adjective
"incredibly" for the hidden truth in the propaganda mendacity.
Clever fellows, aren't they?
And now, let use return to the rest of the PROPAGANDA:
For example, small modular reactors could be manufactured in
factories and transported to sites where they would be ready for
installation upon arrival, reducing both capital costs and
construction times. SMR designs also have built-in passive
safety systems that use the natural circulation of air, water
and steam to maintain the right conditions for operation.
At the commercial scale, SMRs could expand the options for
nuclear power in the U.S. and around the world. The smaller size
also makes these reactors ideal for small electric grids and for
locations that cannot support large reactors, in addition to
offering utilities the flexibility to scale production as demand
changes.
The investment made today builds upon the Department’s broader
efforts to promote a sustainable nuclear industry in the U.S.,
including cultivating the next generation of scientists and
engineers and solving common challenges across the industry.
Check out more on these efforts at www.energy.gov/nuclear.
HTML http://energy.gov/articles/advancing-small-modular-reactors-how-were-supporting-next-gen-nuclear-energy-technology
For the nuke puke true believers, you will find a slick
infographic on SMRs at the above link created with mendacious
TLC to have soft colors, look peppy, safe, clean, modern, safe,
forward looking, high tech, inexpensive, and did I mention safe?
;) ;D
NOW, THE TRUTH!
Small Modular Reactors: Safety, Security and Cost Concerns
Small isn't always beautiful
According to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and some
members of the nuclear industry, the next big thing in nuclear
energy will be a small thing: the “small modular reactor” (SMR).
SMRs—“small” because they generate a maximum of about 30 percent
as much power as typical current reactors, and “modular” because
they can be assembled in factories and shipped to power plant
sites—have been getting a lot of positive attention recently, as
the nuclear power industry has struggled to remain economically
viable in an era of flat demand and increasing competition from
natural gas and other energy alternatives.
SMRs have been touted as both safer and more cost-effective than
older, larger nuclear reactor designs. Proponents have even
suggested that SMRs are so safe that some current NRC
regulations can be relaxed for them, arguing that they need
fewer operators and safety officers, less robust containment
structures, and less elaborate evacuation plans. Are these
claims justified?
Economies of Scale and Catch-22s
SMR-based power plants can be built with a smaller capital
investment than plants based on larger reactors. Proponents
suggest that this will remove financial barriers that have
slowed the growth of nuclear power in recent years.
However, there's a catch: “affordable” doesn’t necessarily mean
“cost-effective.” Economies of scale dictate that, all other
things being equal, larger reactors will generate cheaper power.
SMR proponents suggest that mass production of modular reactors
could offset economies of scale, but a 2011 study concluded that
SMRs would still be more expensive than current reactors.
Even if SMRs could eventually be more cost-effective than larger
reactors due to mass production, this advantage will only come
into play when many SMRs are in operation. But utilities are
unlikely to invest in SMRs until they can produce competitively
priced electric power. This Catch-22 has led some observers to
conclude that the technology will require significant government
financial help to get off the ground.
Are SMRs Safer?
One of the chief selling points for SMRs is that they are
supposed to be safer than current reactor designs. However,
their safety advantages are not as straightforward as some
proponents suggest.SMRs use passive cooling systems that do not
depend on the availability of electric power. This would be a
genuine advantage under many accident scenarios, but not all.
Passive systems are not infallible, and credible designs should
include reliable active backup cooling systems. But this would
add to cost.
SMRs feature smaller, less robust containment systems than
current reactors. This can have negative safety consequences,
including a greater probability of damage from hydrogen
explosions. SMR designs include measures to prevent hydrogen
from reaching explosive concentrations, but they are not as
reliable as a more robust containment—which, again, would add to
cost.
Some proponents have suggested siting SMRs underground as a
safety measure. However, underground siting is a double-edged
sword—it reduces risk in some situations (such as earthquake)
and increases it in others (such as flooding). It can also make
emergency intervention more difficult. And it too increases
cost.
Proponents also point out that smaller reactors are inherently
less dangerous than larger ones. While this is true, it is
misleading, because small reactors generate less power than
large ones, and therefore more of them are required to meet the
same energy needs. Multiple SMRs may actually present a higher
risk than a single large reactor, especially if plant owners try
to cut costs by reducing support staff or safety equipment per
reactor.
Relaxing Security Standards
The April 2013 bombings at the Boston Marathon remind us that
terrorism is an ongoing threat. Yet the nuclear industry is
proposing weaker security standards for SMRs. Industry
representatives have suggested potential security force
reductions of as much as 70 to 80 percent, which seem likely to
leave plants inadequately defended.
Some industry representatives have suggested that underground
siting could make SMRs less vulnerable to attack, but this is
true only in some possible attack scenarios—in others,
underground siting could work in the attackers' favor. No matter
what safeguards are added to a plant's design, a robust and
flexible security force will be needed.
Shrinking Evacuation Zones
Because of SMRs' alleged safety advantages, proponents have
called for shrinking the size of the emergency planning zone
(EPZ) surrounding an SMR plant from the current standard of 10
miles to as little as 1000 feet, making it easier to site the
plants near population centers and in convenient locations such
as former coal plants and military bases.
However, the lessons of Fukushima, in which radiation levels
high enough to trigger evacuation or long-term settlement were
measured at as much as 20 to 30 miles from the accident, suggest
that these proposals, which are based on assumptions and models
that have yet to be tested in practice, may be overoptimistic.
Conclusions
Unless a number of optimistic assumptions are realized, SMRs are
not likely to be a viable solution to the economic and safety
problems faced by nuclear power.
While some SMR proponents are worried that the United States is
lagging in the creation of an SMR export market, cutting corners
on safety is a shortsighted strategy.
Since safety and security improvements are critical to
establishing the viability of nuclear power as an energy source
for the future, the nuclear industry and the DOE should focus on
developing safer reactor designs rather than weakening
regulations.
Congress should direct the DOE to spend taxpayer money only on
support of technologies that have the potential to provide
significantly greater levels of safety and security than
currently operating reactors.
The DOE should not be promoting the idea that SMRs do not
require 10-mile emergency planning—nor should it be encouraging
the NRC to weaken its other requirements just to facilitate SMR
licensing and
deployment.
HTML http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_0293.gif
Last Revised: 09/10/13
HTML http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_power/nuclear_power_technology/small-modular-reactors.html
SMALL MODULAR REACTORS =
HTML http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_1593.gif
for YOU
AND ME and
HTML http://www.smilies.4-user.de/include/Spiele/smilie_game_017.gifhttp://www.pic4ever.com/images/acigar.gif<br
/>for the NUKE PUKES!
[move]
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/emoticon-object-106.gif<br
/>Please PASS IT ON.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/176.gif<br
/>
HTML http://www.websmileys.com/sm/violent/sterb029.gifTHE
PLANET YOU
SAVE MAY BE YOUR
OWN..
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/earthhug.gif.
[/move]
#Post#: 697--------------------------------------------------
Re: Nuclear Power Industry Mendacious Propaganda
By: AGelbert Date: January 13, 2014, 10:20 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Nuclear Nonsense
AUTHOR: Lovins, Amory
DOCUMENT ID: E09-10
YEAR: 2009
DOCUMENT TYPE: Journal or Magazine Article
Stewart Brand's book, Whole Earth Discipline, features a chapter
claiming that new nuclear power plants are essential and
desirable, and that a global "nuclear renaissance" is booming.
In this book review, Amory Lovins' review finds fatal flaws in
the chapter's facts and logic.
Download 63KB
Nuclear Power: Economic Fundamentals and Potential Role in
Climate Change Mitigation
AUTHOR: Lovins, Amory
DOCUMENT ID: E05-09
YEAR: 2005
DOCUMENT TYPE: Report or White Paper
In this presentation, Amory Lovins provides evidence that low
and no-carbon decentralized sources of energy have eclipsed
nuclear power as a climate friendly energy option. He argues
that new nuclear power plants are unfinanceable in the private
capital market and that resource efficiency provides a cheaper,
more environmentally viable option.
Download 2099KB
Four Nuclear Myths: A Commentary on Stewart Brand's Whole Earth
Discipline and on Similar Writings
AUTHOR: Lovins, Amory
DOCUMENT ID: E09-09
YEAR: 2009
DOCUMENT TYPE: Journal or Magazine Article
Some nuclear-power advocates claim that wind and solar power
can't provide much if any reliable power because they're not
"baseload," that they use too much land, that all energy options
including new nuclear build are needed to combat climate change,
and that nuclear power's economics don't matter because climate
change will force governments to dictate energy choices and pay
for whatever is necessary.
HTML http://www.u.arizona.edu/~patricia/cute-collection/smileys/lying-smiley.gif<br
/> None of these claims can withstand analytic scrutiny. [img
width=30
height=40]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-141113185047.png[/img]<br
/>
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/cowboypistol.gif
Download 592KB
Nuclear Power: Climate Fix or Folly?
AUTHORS:
Lovins, Amory
Sheikh, Imran
Markevich, Alex
DOCUMENT ID: E09-01
YEAR: 2009
DOCUMENT TYPE: Report or White Paper
This semi-technical article, summarizing a detailed and
documented technical paper (see "The Nuclear Illusion" (2008)),
compares the cost, climate protection potential, reliability,
financial risk, market success, deployment speed, and energy
contribution of new nuclear power with those of its low- or
no-carbon competitors.
Download 4867KB
Nuclear Power and Climate Change
AUTHOR: Lovins, Amory
DOCUMENT ID: C07-09
YEAR: 2007
DOCUMENT TYPE: Letter
This 2007 e-mail exchange between Steve Berry (University of
Chicago), Peter Bradford (former U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commissioner and senior utility regulator), and Amory Lovins
illustrates the cases for and against nuclear power in relation
to climate and the environment.
Download 658KB
Nuclear Power: Competitive Economics and Climate Protection
Potential
AUTHOR: Lovins, Amory
DOCUMENT ID: E06-04
YEAR: 2006
DOCUMENT TYPE: Presentation
In this presentation to the Royal Academy of Engineering, Amory
Lovins explains the economic and environmental impacts of
nuclear power. By showing that companies and governments have
cut energy intensity without the use of nuclear power, Lovins
shows that nuclear power is not a necessary step in the fight
against climate change.
Download 3742KB
HTML http://www.rmi.org/pid257
#Post#: 772--------------------------------------------------
Re: Nuclear Power Industry Mendacious Propaganda
By: AGelbert Date: February 15, 2014, 3:50 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[center]Why the Obama Administration Will Not Admit that
Fukushima Radiation is Poisoning Americans
HTML http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/forum/index.php/topic,785.msg44278.html#msg44278[/center]
Surly,
YEP. :(
And this is the money, money and MORE MONEY quote.
“If nuclear power is as safe as the industry always claims, then
why do they insist on liability limits and exemptions?” asked
Shawn-Patrick Stensil, a nuclear analyst with Greenpeace Canada.
“If nuclear power is as safe as the industry always claims, then
why do they insist on liability limits and exemptions?”
[move]“If nuclear power is as safe as the industry always
claims, then why do they insist on liability limits and
exemptions?” [/move]
Bingo.
Nuclear poison is the beloved baby of the MIC. It gave them
power and the ability to finance every project of dubious
ethical value and enormous cost to the taxpayer in total secrecy
and totally free of all liability for damages of any sort under
the false rubric of national security. Controlling energy is
only part of the scam. These people were willing to wage nuclear
war with losses of up to 40 million in the USA as a "win". No
one can seriously entertain the thought that these goons give a
**** about childhood cancer clusters around nuclear power plants
and genetic defects for the last half a century or so.
[img width=640
height=480]
HTML http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Bzb-1rVB8pc/UfXxBekcYVI/AAAAAAAAEm4/hXUkGCzFIPg/s1600/giveafuckometer-gif.gif[/img]
[img width=100
height=100]
HTML http://www.emofaces.com/en/emoticons/n/nuclear-emoticon.gif[/img]
[img<br
/>width=100
height=100]
HTML http://www.emofaces.com/en/emoticons/n/nuclear-emoticon.gif[/img]
[img<br
/>width=100
height=100]
HTML http://www.emofaces.com/en/emoticons/n/nuclear-emoticon.gif[/img]
[img<br
/>width=100
height=100]
HTML http://www.emofaces.com/en/emoticons/n/nuclear-emoticon.gif[/img]
[img<br
/>width=100
height=100]
HTML http://www.emofaces.com/en/emoticons/n/nuclear-emoticon.gif[/img]
[img<br
/>width=100
height=100]
HTML http://www.emofaces.com/en/emoticons/n/nuclear-emoticon.gif[/img]
That is PEANUTS to them. It's WORTH IT for a "few" American
children to get cancer and die so they can keep they secret
parasitical connection to the tacxpayer intact per secula
seculorum.
To the MIC, nuclear power is like a rifle to a die hard Second
Amendment Prepper. I.E. the MIC will let go of nuclear power
when it is pried away from their cold dead hands and not a
moment sooner. They NEED that excuse for secrecy and 24/7
government manipulation of energy policy for the benefit of a
few oligarchs.
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-311013201604.png
They won, Surly. But thank you for continuing to expose how we
have been taken and continue to be taken to the "cleaners" (see
Orwell) in both money and health until the end. [img width=40
height=40]
HTML http://www.clker.com/cliparts/c/8/f/8/11949865511933397169thumbs_up_nathan_eady_01.svg.hi.png[/img]<br
/>
[move]DATELINE: July 4, 2036 - satire or prophecy ???[/move]
The Journal of New England Nuclear Medicine applauds the new
free radiation therapy/spa located conveniently within 25 miles
of every major US city providing increased health benefits to
the populace by helping them avoid obesity.
The new, slim trim appearance, particularly highlighting facial
structure and handsome cranial features, is also a hit with
Hollywood as all the new films use actors that have obtained
these free facial and body health improvements complements of
the ubiquitous and life saving presence of nuclear power plants,
the holy grail of renewable energy.
[center][img
width=640]
HTML http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-jBl6C3pyG4E/UnmNwLGFvsI/AAAAAAAAEXc/VfUP46F86fE/s1600/8.jpg[/img][/center]
The new Hollywood Diet. Just think, all these benefits without
having to go through painful plastic surgery! Your taxpayer
dollars at work! Celebrate our great and glorious energy
independence and health with your family today with a fireworks
celebration being held next to your local nuclear power fuel rod
reservoir/therapy spa pool. Don't forget to bring the kids.
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-311013201314.png
#Post#: 1054--------------------------------------------------
Re: Nuclear Power Industry Mendacious Propaganda
By: AGelbert Date: May 4, 2014, 4:07 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
NY Times Editorial Board Delivers a ‘Prudent’ Message of Nuclear
Abandonment
Harvey Wasserman | May 4, 2014 10:47 am
In support of the dying nuclear power
industry
HTML http://www.emofaces.com/en/emoticons/n/nuclear-emoticon.gif,<br
/>the New York Times Editorial Board has penned an inadvertent
epitaph. [img width=60
height=60]
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/mog.gif[/img]
;D
Appearing in the May 2 edition, The Right Lessons from Chernobyl
twists and stumbles around the paper’s own reporting. Though
unintended, it finally delivers a “prudent” message of essential
abandonment.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/47b20s0.gif
The Times does concede that “The world must do what it can to
increase energy efficiency and harness sun, wind, ocean currents
and other renewable sources to meet our ever-expanding needs for
energy.”
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/128fs318181.gif
The edit drew 288 entries into its comment section [img width=80
height=90]
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/2mo5pow.gif[/img]http://www.smileyvault.com/albums/userpics/10172/Bored-cute-big-smiley-animated-066.gif[img<br
/>width=80
height=90]
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/swear1.gif[/img]
before
it was capped.
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-scared002.gif
I’ve
posted one of them at NukeFree.org. Overall they’re widely
varied and worth reading.
Because the Times is still the journal of record, the edit is a
definitive statement on an industry in dangerous decline.
Let’s dissect:
The edit begins by citing the “New Safe Confinement” shield
being built over the seething remains of Chernobyl Unit 4.
Already “almost a decade behind schedule,” its completion is “a
race against time” due to the “decrepit state of the
sarcophagus” meant to contain the radiation there.
That we still must fear Chernobyl more than 28 years after it
melted and exploded underscores the “nightmarish side of nuclear
power.”
That the “vast steel shield” may not be done in time, or may not
even end the problem, is downright terrifying, especially in
light of the “near-bankruptcy of Ukraine,” not to mention a
political instability that evokes horrific images of two hot
wars and the cold one.
Amidst rising tensions between Ukraine, Russia and the west, the
corporate media studiously avoids Chernobyl. But Belarus and
Ukraine long ago estimated its cost to their countries at $250
billion each. One major study puts the global death toll at more
than a million human beings.
The Times says Chernobyl’s terror is “more powerful than Three
Mile Island before it or Fukushima after it.”
HTML http://www.u.arizona.edu/~patricia/cute-collection/smileys/lying-smiley.gif
Three Mile Island suffered an explosion and melt-down in 1979.
Exactly how much radiation escaped and who it harmed are still
unknown. The industry vehemently denies
HTML http://www.u.arizona.edu/~patricia/cute-collection/smileys/lying-smiley.gif<br
/>that anyone was killed, just as it denied there was a melt-dow
n
until a robotic camera proved otherwise.
HTML http://www.websmileys.com/sm/aliens/hae51.gif
At Fukushima, there is no end in sight. Bad as it was, Chernobyl
was one core melt and explosion in a single Soviet reactor in a
relatively unpopulated area. Fukushima is three core melts and
four explosions in American-designed General Electric reactors,
of which there are some two dozen exact replicas now operating
in the U.S., along with still more very similar siblings.
Spent fuel is still perched dangerously in damaged pools high in
the Fukushima air. Thousands of rods are strewn around the site.
The exact location of the three melted cores is still unknown.
At least 300 tons of highly radioactive liquid pour daily into
the Pacific, with the first of their isotopes now arriving on
our west coast. Huge storage tanks constantly leak still more
radiation. The labor force at the site is poorly trained and
heavily infiltrated by organized crime.
The Times itself has reported that a desperate, terrified
population is being forced back into heavily contaminated areas.
:P >:( Children are being exposed en masse to significant
radiation doses. Given the horrific health impacts on youngsters
downwind from Chernobyl, there is every reason to fear even
worse around Fukushima.
But the Times Editorial Board [img width=60
height=045]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-241013183046.jpeg[/img]<br
/>follows with this: “Yet it is also noteworthy that these
civilian nuclear disasters did not and have not overcome the
allure of nuclear power
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/ugly004.gif
as a source of clean
and abundant energy.”
HTML http://www.coh2.org/images/Smileys/huhsign.gif<br
/>
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/gen152.gif
“Allure” to whom? ;) Certainly the corporations with huge
investments in atomic energy are still on board. The fossil fuel
industry is thoroughly cross-invested. And extraordinary
corporate media access has been granted to pushing the odd
belief that nuclear power can help mitigate global warming.
But the vast bulk of the global environmental movement remains
firmly anti-nuclear. Grassroots opposition to re-opening any
Japanese reactors is vehement to say the least. Amidst an
extremely popular revolution in green technologies, U.S. opinion
demands that nuclear subsidies be cut, which means death to an
industry that can’t live without them.
It’s here the edit falls entirely overboard:
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/d2.gifhttp://www.pic4ever.com/images/acigar.gif<br
/> “Only Germany succumbed to panic after the Fukushima disaster
and began to phase out all nuclear power in favor of huge
investments in renewable sources like wind and sun.” [img
width=120
height=60]
HTML http://fc06.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2009/347/2/6/WTF_Smiley_face_by_IveWasHere.jpg[/img]
Germany’s green transition has been debated for decades, stepped
up long ago by Chernobyl. With strong popular backing, the
German nuclear phase-out, as in Sweden, Italy and numerous other
European nations (Denmark never built any reactors) has long
been on the table. The center-right Merkel government finally
embraced it not only because of Fukushima, but because the
German corporate establishment decided that going green would be
good for business. As energy economist Charles Komanoff has
shown, they’ve been proven right.
Despite the predictable carping from a few fossil/nuke holdouts,
Germany will shut its reactors, as will, eventually, all other
nations. [img width=30
height=40]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-141113185047.png[/img]<br
/>The edit says there may be “an increase in greenhouse
emissions,” but it will be “temporary.”
END OF PAGE 1
go here for page 2:
HTML http://ecowatch.com/2014/05/04/ny-times-editorial-board-nuclear-abandonment/2/
Selected quotes from page 2:
[quote]Wall Street has thoroughly rejected atomic energy and is
pouring billions into renewables, especially photovoltaics (PV)
which convert solar energy to electricity.[/quote]
[quote]Will the Grey Lady now provide the radioactive disaster
insurance missing since 1957?[/quote]
[quote]The edit does spare us more hype about the “nuclear
renaissance.” After a decade of being pushed to buy a whole new
fleet, we’re now begged to be “prudent” about shutting the old
tugboats. ::)[/quote]
[quote]Above all, we’re not to be “spooked” into mistrusting an
industry that for decades said reactors could not explode, but
has now blown up five and melted five.[img width=50
height=50]
HTML http://www.imgion.com/images/01/Angry-animated-smiley.jpg[/img]<br
/>[img width=40
height=40]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-051113192052.png[/img]<br
/>
[/quote]
#Post#: 1279--------------------------------------------------
Exelon Launches Front Group to Cover Its ASSets, Undermine Renew
able Energy?
By: AGelbert Date: June 4, 2014, 7:07 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Nuclear Giant Exelon Launches Front Group to Cover Its Assets
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-scared005.gif,<br
/>Undermine Renewable Energy?
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-devil19.gif
HTML http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2014/06/nuclear-giant-exelon-launches-front-group-to-cover-its-assets-undermine-renewable-energy#comment-132211
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page