gopher.createaforum.com/1/forums/renewablerevolution/p/59/1

DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Renewable Revolution
HTML https://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Nuke Puke
*****************************************************
#Post#: 1300--------------------------------------------------
Re: Nuclear Power Industry Mendacious Propaganda
By: AGelbert Date: June 5, 2014, 11:19 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Nuclear Giant Exelon Blasts Wind Energy
Elliott Negin, Union of Concerned Scientists
June 05, 2014
Corporate executives often tout the benefits of competition in a
free-market economic system, ::) but it's striking just how
much large corporations don't like it.
HTML http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_0293.gif
In fact,
some companies will do all they can to squash it, lobbying for
favors and subsidies while working to deny them to their
competitors.[img width=40
height=40]
HTML http://www.imgion.com/images/01/Angry-animated-smiley.jpg[/img] [img width=40
height=40]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-051113192052.png[/img] 
Exelon's Christopher Crane [img width=80
height=045]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-241013183046.jpeg[/img] wants Congress to kill a wind tax break, despite the fact the
nuclear industry wouldn't be viable today without decades of
federal subsidies.
The squabble over a key federal tax break for the wind industry
is a case in point. Called the production tax credit (PTC), it
has helped quadruple the wind industry's generation capacity
over the last five years, and six states now have enough wind
turbines to meet more than 15 percent of their annual demand.
Unlike most coal, nuclear, and oil and gas subsidies, the PTC �
which has been around only since the mid-1990s � is not
permanent. Congress has to renew it periodically. Last December,
Congress let it expire yet again, and lawmakers likely will not
restore it until after the November mid-term elections, if at
all. The PTC represents roughly $1.2 billion in annual tax
savings to the wind industry.
Wind's more-established competitors want the PTC dead.
ExxonMobil, the Koch brothers and their front groups
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/2rzukw3.gif
, for example, want
Congress to let it die. Never mind that the oil and gas industry
has been receiving an average of $4.86 billion annually in
today's dollars in subsidies and tax breaks since 1918. Or the
fact that Congress exempted natural gas developers from key
provisions of seven major environmental laws, including the
Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act.
The nuclear power industry doesn't like the wind tax break,
either. Its most outspoken critic is Exelon, the nation's
largest nuclear plant owner with 23 reactors at 14 plant sites.
The Chicago-based utility contends Midwest wind installations
are cutting into its profit margins by driving down electricity
prices, and it blames the PTC. The company has been lobbying
Congress to terminate it, and as I reported earlier this week,
it recently launched a front group, Nuclear Matters, to generate
public support for keeping all U.S. reactors running.
"If the government believes that they're improving the
environment by subsidizing wind, they are wrong," Exelon CEO
Christopher Crane told the Chicago Tribune in late April. "It is
going to shut nuclear plants down." Around the same time, Exelon
Senior Executive Vice President William Von Hoene Jr.
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-311013201314.png clarified the company's position. Exelon is not "anti-wind," h
e
told trade reporters, "but anti-subsidy."
HTML http://www.u.arizona.edu/~patricia/cute-collection/smileys/lying-smiley.gif
Anti-subsidy?! The nuclear industry is awash in subsidies. In
fact, the industry wouldn't be economically viable without
subsidies underwriting every stage of the nuclear fuel cycle,
according to a 2011 report by the Union of Concerned Scientists
(UCS). Altogether, those subsidies have often exceeded the
average market price of the power produced. >:(
What makes Exelon's opposition to the PTC complicated is it is
much more than a nuclear power company. The largest supplier of
wholesale power in the country, it gets 55 percent of its
electric generation capacity from nuclear, 28 percent from
natural gas, 6 percent from hydro, 4 percent from coal, and 3
percent from oil. The remaining 4 percent comes from landfill
gas, solar and ... wind.
Although wind represents a tiny percentage of Exelon's capacity,
it's the 12th largest wind farm owner in the country. It was
even on the board of the American Wind Energy Association �
until it got kicked off two years ago for slamming the PTC. No
matter. Given that nuclear power and natural gas represent more
than 80 percent of its generating capacity, Exelon is against
subsidies � but only for wind and other renewables. Exelon
officials don't mention the fact that natural gas is heavily
subsidized, and they actually claim with a straight face that
nuclear power is not subsidized at all.
Read the rest of this excellent, hard hitting article here:
HTML http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2014/06/nuclear-giant-exelon-blasts-wind-energy
#Post#: 1316--------------------------------------------------
Re: Nuclear Power Industry Mendacious Propaganda
By: AGelbert Date: June 7, 2014, 2:46 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Old Reactors v. New Renewables: The First Nuclear War of the
21st Century
Mark Cooper, Senior Fellow for Economic Analysis, Institute for
Energy and the Environment
June 06, 2014
Within the past year, a bevy of independent, financial analysts
(Lazard, Citi, Credit Suisse, McKinsey and Company, Sanford
Bernstein, Morningstar) have heralded an economic revolution in
the electricity sector. A quarter of a century of technological
progress has led to the conclusion that over the course of the
next decade a combination of efficiency, renewables and gas will
meet the need for new resources and more importantly, render the
antiquated baseload model largely obsolete.
The academic debate over whether we could get to an electricity
system that relies entirely (99 percent) or mostly (80 percent)
on renewables late in this century is largely irrelevant
compared to the fact that over the next couple of decades we
could see a rapid and substantial expansion of renewables (to
say 30 percent of 40 percent), if the current economic forces
are allowed to ply out and policies to advance the
transformation of the electricity system are adopted.
Political revolutions tend to follow economic revolutions, which
is where we stand in the electricity sector today. The dominant
incumbents, particularly nuclear utilities, have recognized that
they face an existential threat and they have launched a
campaign to eliminate it. Utilities, who loudly announced the
arrival of a �nuclear renaissance� less than a decade ago, are
desperate to save their fleet of aging reactors from early
retirement and �stay relevant to the game going forward� (as the
CEO of Exelon, the nation�s largest nuclear utility put it)
because they cannot compete at the margin with renewables or
gas.
This nuclear v. renewables debate is not just �d�j� vu all over
again, a lot more than the fate of nuclear power at stake. The
fundamental approach to delivering electricity in the 21st
century, while meeting the challenge of climate change, is on
the table. Nuclear power and the alternatives are so
fundamentally different that a strategy of �all of the above� is
no longer feasible. Nuclear power withers in an electricity
system that focuses on flexibility because it is totally
inflexible, but renewables cannot live up to their full
potential without opening up and transforming the physical and
institutional infrastructure of the system.
Nuclear power has failed because it has never been able to
compete at the margin with other resources � coal in the 1980s,
gas in the 1990s and renewables in the 2000s. Renewables have
become competitive, not only because technological progress
lowered the resource costs of supply dramatically, but also
because the growth of information and control technologies have
made it possible to integrate decentralized generation
technologies into a dynamic two way system that achieves
reliability by actively managing supply and demand.
The ongoing efforts of Exelon and Entergy to change the rules in
the regions of the U.S. that have relied most on market forces
epitomizes the political conflict. Unfazed by the fact that the
nuclear industry has been the recipient of ten times as much
subsidy as renewables on a life cycle basis and continues to
receive massive subsidies in the form of socialized the cost of
liability insurances and waste management, underfunded
decommissioning, inadequately compensated water use, federal
loan guarantee and production tax credits for new reactors,
continuing R&D funding for small modular reactor technology, and
advanced cost recovery for nuclear investment in a number of
states, the nuclear industry launched its campaign for survival
with an attack on the production tax credit for wind.
However, the campaign quickly moved beyond that small subsidy to
demand much more pervasive changes in regulatory policy.
Precisely because the economics of renewables have improved so
dramatically, nuclear power needs to prevent the development of
the physical and institutional infrastructure that will support
the emerging electricity system.
Putting a price on carbon will not solve the fundamental problem
because it picks losers (fossil fuels) not winners and that is
what nuclear needs because it is at such a huge economic
disadvantage. It will give aging reactors a little breathing
room, but it will not make them more competitive with renewables
at the margin and it will certainly not address the need for
institutional reform.
Economic dispatch, net metering, bidding efficiency as a
resource, demand response, all of which are being fought by the
utilities, are not about subsidies; they are about economic
efficiency. The regulated physical and institutional
infrastructure supported baseload power and retards the growth
of the efficiencies of decentralized generation and system
management. Nuclear power needs to jerry-rig the dispatch order
so that they are guaranteed to run, create capacity markets that
guarantee they win some auction, and redefine renewable
portfolios to include nuclear.
Ironically the current terrain of resource choice and the attack
on renewable reflects the fact that renewables have succeeded in
exactly the way nuclear has failed. Relatively small subsidies
unleashed powerful forces of innovation, learning and economies
of scale that have caused dramatic reductions in costs, yielding
a much higher return on social investment.
Renewable technologies are able to move rapidly along their
learning curves because they possess the characteristics that
allow for the capture of economies of mass production and
stimulate innovation. They involve the production of large
numbers of units under conditions of competition. They afford
the opportunity for a great deal of real world development and
demonstration work before they are deployed on a wide scale.
These is the antithesis of how nuclear development has played
out in the past, and the push for small modular reactors does
not appear to solve the problem, as I showed SMR advocates have
proposed.
The challenge now is to build new physical and institutional
infrastructure. In fact, the growing literature on climate
change makes it clear that the cost of the transition to a low
carbon sector will be much lower if institutional change
precedes, or at least goes hand in hand with pricing policy.
(some graphics at link):
HTML http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2014/06/old-reactors-v-new-renewables-the-first-nuclear-war-of-the-21st-century
My comment: ;D
A. G. Gelbert
June 7, 2014
Patrick O'Leary said, " Mr. Cooper is right to point out the
details and the devil therein. "
HEAR! HEAR!
However, Patrick, these Nuclear power advocates have been double
talking from the get go in the 1950s. They KNEW that the claim
"too cheap to meter" was a lie when they pushed it on an
unsuspecting public. The trail of accidents, deaths and cancer
clusters from radionuclide pollution in the USA have been
consistently suppressed for well over half a century. And no
Patrick, we did not need all those power plants to make weapons.
That is a myth, and a cruel one at that. The "favoring" of the
nuclear industry was not justified on the basis of weaponry or
energy. That has been documented. The reason they got away with
it is because of the government undemocratic secrecy provided to
these subsidy queens for their free ride on the taxpayer dollar.
And it's not over, Patrick. We-the-people are the designated
sucker to pay for the clean up of decommissioned power plants
and baby sitting of used fuel rods for the next few centuries
while the "market forces" (all manipulated and totally UNfree)
that made nuclear power profitable for a some conscience free
investors conveniently disappear when the government is handed a
used poison factory. This is not a benign situation or the
effect of capitalism "free market" winners and losers; This is
corruption, embezzlement, grand larceny and criminal negligence
and massive environmental damage rolled into one elite,
predatory oligarchic mess. We must strive to get those investors
that made so much money off nukes to PAY for the clean up.
We-the-people do not owe the nuclear power advocates anything
but contempt for their brazen mendacity.
The devil in those details you mentioned doesn't just distort
energy policy to favor wasteful parasites like the nuclear power
industry, it threatens our very democracy by perpetually
claiming they must keep what they do secret for "national
security". The nuclear parasites are only concerned about their
subsidy security, not national security.
Renewable Energy is the sine qua non energy source required in
our finite world in order to have a viable biosphere. Anything
else is profit over planet nonsense.
And for Daniel Seddon, who falsely claims to know anything about
engineering, I suggest he look up Amory Lovins, Chief Scientist
of the Rocky Mountain Institute to learn about the FLAWS taught
in present engineering texts in regard to the design of
machinery (reynolds number erroneous data on turbulent and
laminar flow friction losses in gasses and liquids) have
contributed to a bunch of energy wasteful designs that are
pushed as the "most efficient" engineering of machinery
possible.
Mark Cooper KNOWS of what he speaks. Amory Lovins,a scientist
and engineer, backs him up all the way as to the wasteful and
polluting folley of nuclear power.
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. None of these claims can withstand
analytic scrutiny.
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

HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/nuke-puke/nuclear-power-industry-mendacious-propaganda/msg697/#msg697 
NY Times Editorial Board Delivers a �Prudent� Message of Nuclear
Abandonment
Harvey Wasserman
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/nuke-puke/nuclear-power-industry-mendacious-propaganda/msg1054/#msg1054 
The Nuclear Lie Machine: Part 1 of 2 Parts
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/nuke-puke/nuclear-power-industry-mendacious-propaganda/msg484/#msg484
[move]Please Pass it on; the planet you save may be your own.
8)[/move]
#Post#: 1369--------------------------------------------------
Alvin Hulse has a Good Plan
By: AGelbert Date: June 14, 2014, 1:12 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Alvin Hulse
June 13, 2014
This energy plan eliminates the need for nuclear. We cannot do
nuclear, alternative energy and energy efficiency. We can,
however, do alternative energy and energy efficiency at the same
time.
7 Point, 7 Year Energy Plan To Solve Climate Change [img
width=40
height=40]
HTML http://www.clker.com/cliparts/c/8/f/8/11949865511933397169thumbs_up_nathan_eady_01.svg.hi.png[/img] 
1) Eliminate the investor owned, guaranteed rate of return
utility model and replace it with a modified version of the
Independent Service Operator (ISO) used in Ontario Canada,
California and New York. The principal modification would allow
all producers of clean renewable energy to sell their excess
electrons into the grid and get paid a check at the end of each
month. The chief function of the ISO is established to move
electrons around the grid to where they are needed and to
provide grid leveling services.
Allowing all producers to get paid every month for their excess
power generation will create a nation of energy entrepreneurs
eager to make a profit off of their investments. Not only will
this surge in energy entrepreneurs invest in alternative energy,
but they will simultaneously invest in energy efficiency to
maximize the number of electrons they can flow into the grid.
All regional or state ISO's will mandate time of day pricing in
order to level daily and seasonal peak demand periods.
California already has time of day pricing, which encourages
people to reduce consumption during higher rate periods or shift
demand to off peak hours. Leveling peak demand reduces
unnecessary energy waste at thermal power plants where utilities
have to produce more electricity than they can sell in order to
build up for peak demands.
The concept of the investor owned, guaranteed rate of return
utility model is antiquated and fosters massive energy waste.
Thermal power plants operate at a 34 percent efficiency. Grid
transmission losses account for another 8 percent energy loss
which leaves 26 percent of the remaining power to energize a
whole host of inefficient lights, appliances, electric motors,
HVAC systems and vampire energy sucking devices. This is an
unsustainable energy equation that contributes mightily to
climate change. One has to wonder how a utility can make money
wasting 74 percent of the energy they produce before it reaches
the end user. The answer is the investor owned utility model.
Anytime a utility does not earn its guaranteed rate of return,
they simply apply for a rate increase with their industry
friendly Public Utility Commissions. In addition, the practice
of discounting utility rates to commercial users is nearly
ubiquitous. Discounting utility rates has the consequence of
providing little or no incentive for commercial end users to
invest in energy efficiency.
Under my plan, businesses will create their own profit centers
through investment in alternative energy and while
simultaneously investing in energy efficiency in order to
maximize their excess flow of electrons into the grid.
Superefficient Combined Heat Power Plants (CHP), small wind,
rooftop solar, biomass to electricity and fuels cell development
will explode onto the scene once the barrier of the investor
owned utility model is eliminated.
2) Mandate the use of energy efficient LED lighting, energy
efficient electrical motors, energy star appliances and heat
pump or geothermal HVAC systems in existing residential,
commercial, retail, industrial and government properties.
Property owners will be entitled to a 50 percent investment tax
credit on all energy efficient items approved for retrofits.
Rental property owners will be entitled a 100 percent investment
tax credit for energy efficiency retrofits. In addition, all
properties will qualify for Property Assessed Clean Energy
(PACE) to help fund the upfront costs. Pace programs will have a
fixed interest rate at 3 percent. The federal government will
impose a $10 megawatt hour carbon tax on utilities/ratepayers to
fund retrofits on federal buildings for 5 - 7 years until all
government building have been retrofitted. 25 percent of these
funds will be allocated to families who rent their homes to help
pay for energy efficient lighting.
This will generate $47 Billion per year. Local and state
governments will increase property taxes by $200 per year per
property for 5-7 years to pay for their building energy
efficiency retrofits. This will generate $55 - $60 billion per
year for energy efficiency upgrades across America. This
represent a $700 billion in U.S. investments in government owned
infrastructure over 7 years. I estimate that the private sector
under this plan will spend $1.5 trillion on energy efficiency
retrofits. This is the combined cost of our two wars. The
primary difference is that energy efficiency pays, wars cost.
3) All new buildings, including residential properties, will be
constructed to a minimum of Platinum LEED Certification. All
items associated with the Platinum LEED Certification will
receive a two year bonus depreciation schedule in the commercial
sector and a 30 percent investment tax credit for residential
properties. In order to offset this cost to the government, the
investment tax credit will be eliminated for alternative energy
now that business and residential producers can get paid a check
at the end of each month. The government will also benefit from
the $10 per megawatt hour charge applied to alternative energy.
4) The government will pay $10 Billion to the first five
automotive companies in the U.S. who either produce a 5
passenger that gets 125 MPG or can travel 400 miles on an
electric charge. They will have five years to develop it. The
car must also cost less than $40,000. The auto companies who
achieve these goals, will receive income tax free status for the
10 years following the introduction of their vehicle(s) and a
retroactive tax free status for the five years of development.
Foreign manufactures will not qualify. Their respective
governments can establish their own goals.
5) Develop the Interstate High Speed Rail System that will
parallel the major East/West and North/South Interstate
highways. This is where people travel in their cars and this is
where the trains ought to travel too. This system development
will be funded by a $5 per barrel oil/carbon tax. There shall
also be a $5 tax on all air fares. All people with adjusted
gross incomes below $100,000 will receive a $2,500 tax credit
for the increase in gas prices.
6) All alternative energy producers will pay a $5 per month
surcharge to their utility or the ISO to maintain and improve
the grid to smart status.
7) Re-establish U.S. forest cover to the beginning of the 20th
century level. Tax incentives shall be provided to landowners to
replant their land. In addition, a $5 per barrel oil tax shall
be imposed on all imports including the oil traveling to the
U.S. via the Keystone XL Pipeline. 20 percent of all greenhouse
gases are the result of deforestation.
None of these changes are onerous in comparison to the full
effects climate change will cause civilization and the planet to
experience in the years to come. In fact, these changes will
lead to full employment, better health, lower health insurance
premiums, a sustainable energy economy, lower energy costs,
lower taxes as government energy consumption is dramatically
reduced and energy independence.
Once the energy efficiency programs have been fully implemented,
the cost of alternative energy investment will decline
dramatically. We will only be replacing what the new demand for
electricity will be as a result of the sharp reduction in energy
consumption caused by energy efficiency improvements. Most of
these costs are offset to consumers and businesses through the
energy savings they will achieve by retrofitting their
properties and by the investment tax credits. These are real
energy savings that will flow to them as long as they own their
properties.
HTML http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2014/06/old-reactors-v-new-renewables-the-first-nuclear-war-of-the-21st-century#comment-132470
#Post#: 1423--------------------------------------------------
Re: Nuclear Power Industry Mendacious Propaganda
By: AGelbert Date: June 20, 2014, 7:31 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Nuclear WAR at Renewable Energy World: Continued
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/3ztzsjm.gif
;D
40 Comments
Michael Keller
June 19, 2014
So how's the "green" Kool Aid! You lads have really gone over
the edge.
PJ van Staden
June 19, 2014
The adrenaline of going over the edge is even greener, thank
you!
And thanx for leaving.
A. G. Gelbert
June 20, 2014
Michael Keller said, "Actually, the plants were Independent
Power Producers. If the units were not profitable, we're out of
business. "
Tell me Mr. Keller, what part of this REPORT by the Union of
concerned Scientists do you not understand?
Report: "US Nuclear Power Still Not Viable without Subsidies"
(24 Feb 11) A new report entitled "Nuclear Power: Still Not
Viable Without Subsidies", prepared on behalf of the Union of
Concerned Scientists, provides a detailed review and
quantification of subsidies to nuclear power in the United
States. The report concludes that subsidies to the nuclear fuel
cycle have often exceeded the value of the power produced.
Subsidies to new reactors are on a similar path.
The analysis claims to catalog in one place and for the first
time the full range of subsidies that benefit the nuclear power
sector. Since its inception more than 50 years ago, the nuclear
power industry has benefited-and continues to benefit-from a
vast array of preferential government subsidies. Indeed, as the
report shows, subsidies to the nuclear fuel cycle have often
exceeded the value of the power produced. Subsidies to new
reactors are on a similar path.
The most important subsidies to the industry do not involve
cash payments, the report concludes. Rather, they shift
construction-cost and operating risks from investors to
taxpayers and ratepayers, removing from investors an array of
risks ranging from cost overruns and defaults to accidents and
nuclear waste management. This approach has remained consistent
throughout the industry's history, according to the report,
which claims that market choices that would otherwise favor less
risky investments are distorted as a consequence. Although it
may not involve direct cash payments, such favored treatment is
nevertheless a subsidy, with a profound effect on the bottom
line for the industry and taxpayers alike.
Link to full report
Executive summary
HTML http://www.eceee.org/all-news/news/news_2011/2011-02-24b

Your gravy train of taxpayer theft is about to end, Mr. Keller.
We-the-people kind of resent being fleeced for you "Independent"
LOL! power producers.
PJ,
Thanks for your patience, persistence, fortitude and reasoned,
fact based logical arguments. These creative accounts in the
nuclear power plant taxpayer fleecing racket need to get
reminded of their history of grand larceny as often as possible
:>).
They should all be required to live within ONE MILE of a reactor
they get "profits" from so they can learn first hand what those
"irrelevant" costs are all about. :>)
joe richardson
June 20, 2014
Mr Gelbert is absolutely right.
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/tuzki-bunnys/tuzki-bunny-emoticon-005.gif The nuclear industry has had virtually all of its costs
transferred to the public via an assortment of sleazy means. And
the worst part is the real long term costs wont be realized for
generations.
If you could get an honest answer from the Japanese government
id suggest asking them what they think it'll cost them for the
failings of their nuclear plants.
Failings that are the direct result of human beings and low
costs designs to save a dollar. What rocket scientist decided to
put their back up generators anywhere near where a tidal wave
could reach them??? This in an area that's suffered earthquakes
and tidal waves for,,what,,a few hundred thousand years of
verifiable geologic history???
No one should ever doubt that this sort of decision was made on
the basis of money...Such folly and such lies and such greed.
Betcha they wish they had a few thousand windmills off their
coast instead of these nuclear plants now!!
Michael Keller
June 20, 2014
You lads are mistaken. ::) I am not defending nuclear power.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/ugly004.gif
I am stating that the
competitive market place should fundamentally set power prices.
Nobody should be given exclusive assistance not available to
others. [img width=40
height=40]
HTML http://www.imgion.com/images/01/Angry-animated-smiley.jpg[/img][img width=40
height=40]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-051113192052.png[/img] 
That means if somebody gets some form of help (e.g. accelerated
depreciation ::)) then everybody else gets the same advantage.
As to the Union of Concerned Scientists report, in their current
form, new nuclear power plants are not particularly competitive.
Make them more competitive or don't build new ones. Ditto for
renewable energy.
Agelbert NOTE: RIGHT... In order for those of us without
Orwellian vocabularies to understand what Mr. Keller MEANS BY
"competitive" (and don't forget "particularly" - that's a
GO-O-O-D ONE! ;) ), You need to read some of MKing's "rational"
inversions of CFS pushed as if that mindfork was the most
natural thing in the world!
I say, these game theory "bright bulbs"
HTML http://www.websmileys.com/sm/aliens/hae51.gif
:emthdown: are
rather slippery.
joe richardson
June 20, 2014
Mr Keller,
I finally agree with you, "the competitive market place should
set power prices", "and nobody should be given exclusive
assistance".
I'm not a rigid free market person but that's probably because,
while a free market is a great sounding idea, I've never seen it
practiced anywhere. Because someone or some industries are
always trying to skew the process, and the nuclear, coal and oil
industries have historically skewed the process in order to
maintain their existence, and profits for a few.
It was the 1970's when we Americans woke up to our dependence on
fossil fuels and first glimpsed this dependencies real costs.
but we were blinded to the facts by the coal and oil companies
and continued down the same road. .
Imagine what the world would be like today if we, and everyone
else, had acted on this dependency then and pursued some level
of self sufficiency in renewable energy instead of letting the
fossil fuel industry skew our reality in order to maintain their
profits. Imagine the savings just in the dirty little oil wars
that have been waged.
So,, ill still take windmills slowly turning in the breeze and
solar panels soaking up rays any day, to avoid the total costs
of fossil and nuclear fuels.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/47b20s0.gifhttp://www.pic4ever.com/images/128fs318181.gifhttp://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_0293.gif
HTML http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2014/06/nuclear-giant-exelon-blasts-wind-energy#comm132630
Joe gets it! Soon he will figure out that WE DID TRY and WE HAVE
tried to get off of fossil fuels since the 1930s!
At absolutely every juncture in the introduction of Renewable
Energy sources from ethanol (killed by Rockefeller funded
Prohibition 1920-1933) to Chemurgy (killed by big paper, big oil
and the chemical giants including Du Pont and Dow Chemical) to
building nukes when dams were orders of magnitude cheaper in the
1950s to PV crushed in the 1970s to Wind subsidies killed in the
1980s while tanker hull safety was delayed over ten years
(contributing to the Exxon Valdez mess) to global warming
denial by the George C. Marshall institute of profit over planet
lying, murderous sacks of **** from the late 1980s to the
PRESENT, it was has been a 24/7 ATTACK on we-the-people's
choices so we COULD NOT OBTAIN cheap renewable energy.
Part and parcel of this pack of lies is that oil is presented
as a valuable resource worthy of fight wars over for "national
security" when it is a biosphere destroying liability.
National security? NO! Fossil Fueler Fascist Security and
FREEDOM to BUY our government and keep those God Damned
"subsidies" in place! Are we having fun yet? Are you tired of
playing "catcher" for the energy oligarchs?
I've got chapter and verse on the energy rip off of a century
with lots of dead people from unnecessary wars and lots of
totally unnecessary and massively harmful pollution FOR WHAT!!??
To make a SUCKER out of you and me and steal democracy (what
little we have) from us in the process.
Details at the Renewable Revolution Forum. Just do a search in
the forum with any of the terms above.
Renewable
Revolution
HTML http://dl3.glitter-graphics.net/pub/465/465823jzy0y15obs.gif

HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/index.php
Here's the NUGGET of TRUTH from this peer reviewed book that
will convince you that we have been suckered BIG TIME if you
don't want to dig up the info on all the above in my forum:
[quote]
Dilworth (2010-03-12). Too Smart for our Own Good (pp. 399-400).
Cambridge University Press. Kindle Edition.
"As suggested earlier, war, for example, which represents a cost
for society, is a source of profit to capitalists. In this way
we can partly understand e.g. the American military expenditures
in the Persian Gulf area.
Already before the first Gulf War, i.e. in 1985, the United
States spent $47 billion projecting power into the region. If
seen as being spent to obtain Gulf oil, It AMOUNTED TO $468 PER
BARREL, or 18 TIMES the $27 or so that at that time was paid for
the oil itself.
In fact, if Americans had spent as much to make buildings
heat-tight as they spent in ONE YEAR at the end of the 1980s on
the military forces meant to protect the Middle Eastern oil
fields, THEY COULD HAVE ELIMINATED THE NEED TO IMPORT OIL from
the Middle East. So why have they not done so? Because, while
the $468 per barrel may be seen as being a cost the American
taxpayers had to bear, and a negative social effect those living
in the Gulf area had to bear, it meant only profits for American
capitalists. "
[/quote]
Note: I added the colored graphics and font size changes and the
bold caps emphasis on the barrel of oil price, money spent in
one year and the need to import oil from the Middle East.
This totally unjustified profit, never mind the needless lose of
lives, then increases the power of the fossil fuel corporations
to perpetuate a biosphere harming dirty fuel status quo. How? By
"funding" politicians with rather large "donations" to keep
renewable energy from competing with dirty energy.
[move]
[img]
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/emoticon-object-106.
gif[/img] Pass it on. The Democracy you save may be your own...
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/tuzki-bunnys/tuzki-bunny-emoticon-028.gif
[/move]
#Post#: 1437--------------------------------------------------
Re: Nuclear Power Industry Mendacious Propaganda
By: AGelbert Date: June 22, 2014, 12:23 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Nuclear War at Renewable Energy world CONTINUED! ;D
Fred Linn
June 21, 2014
Bill Scutt------" I am a biological scientist, and the
mainstream biological community would not agree that alpha
emitters are much worse than beta or gamma emitters.
I have seen the lung histology with the embedded alpha-particle
as quoted by Brian Donovan. The amount of damage involved is bad
and it is spread over an area of somewhere between 10 & 50
micrometers. It's very unlikely the person died of it and it's
almost certain it was an incidental finding. 10000 cells is not
so much out of a 100 billion lung cells. It's quite certain that
cigarettes damage > 10000 cells each and every day in a smoker.
My guess is that a resident of Beijing would suffer >10000 cells
damaged each and every day from air pollution even if they don't
smoke. "------------
I don't know what you are, but you are NOT a biological
scientist. No biologist alive would make such stupid statements.
The completely flawed and off the wall logic tends to indicate
a political huckster or special interest hack writer.
HTML http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_0293.gif
A. G. Gelbert
June 21, 2014
Bill Scutt claims his hero is right in claiming "live in a
radioactive world and we are superbly adapted to it". I guess he
didn't read the extensive testing on Drosophila Melanogaster in
the 1930s, long before the bomb. Do you know what mutagenic
means, Bill?
mu�ta�gen (myt-jn, -jn)
n.
An agent, such as ultraviolet light or a radioactive element,
that can induce or increase the frequency of mutation in an
organism.
muta�genic adj.
muta�geni�cal�ly adv.
muta�ge�nici�ty (-j-ns-t) n.
Tests on fruit flies proved the severe mutagenenicity of
radiation on offspring that did not go away, but increased with
each subsequent generation; even though only the first had been
given radiation doses THAT DID NOT KILL the fruit flies so they
lived an average life span.
What next, Bill? Are getting ready to tell us radiation is
"good" for us too? That's rather old AND LETHALLY ERRONEOUS
news.
Long before the bomb gave you crazies all those lethal toys,
there was a "radiation is good for you" craze in this country.
The popularity of this "wonder therapy" didn't last. Here's the
story, Bill. I guess you never got the word or are paid well to
push pro-nuke mendacity.
"In the early 1900s, radiation was considered to have healing
properties and was used in products for a range of conditions,
including wrinkles and arthritis. The dangers of radiation
became well known after the death of prominent American tennis
player and industrialist Eben Byers, who said he drank three
bottles of radium-laced water each day." (Google it!)

Of course the pro-nuclear advocates never got the word and
that's how "Nuclear Medicine" was born as a way to charge for
nuclear power plant "products". Never mind that short half life
tracers can all be made in a cyclotron without the risk, expense
and pollution of building a large nuclear power plant, eh Bill?
Did the plant operators hire used car salesmen to sell "nuclear
medicine" products to hospitals? We may never know but the pitch
was, unfortunately for many, world class. In the 1950s 0ne of
ten people were expected to get cancer in their life time. Now
it's one out of three. Yes, fossil fuels and chemical industry
pollutants contributed but the nuclear power plants are a major,
proven, epidemiological studies source of cancer clusters.
(Google it!)
But that game is up. Do you know what tyrosine kinase enzymes
are, Bill? If you are a biologist scientist, you should. It's
linked to over 90 percent of all cancers.
You see, radiation (not a lot Bill, not enough to kill you Bill,
just enough to be above that pesky limit you wear those badges
in nuclear power plants for) UPREGULATES those enzymes in human
tissue.
All mammals have them in every cell. They are part of the
apoptosis clock that tells cells when to die.
Guess what? When upregulation from radiation exposure occurs,
the TKE "forgets" to tell a cell it is time to die and, instead,
accelerates cell division!
That gives us what is known as a tumor. Whether it is benign or
malignant is beyond the scope of this post but you can be
certain it does not do a human any good. We ARE NOT adapted to
cancer from radiation caused TKE upregulation!
The word is out Bill. The nuclear BULL and profit over planet
fraud is public knowledge thanks to real nuclear scientists with
ethics like Arnie Gundersen of Fairwinds. I learned much of what
I know from him.
He has chapter and verse on 3 mile island and it's "effects" on
men, women, children and animals. It seems they weren't too
"superbly adapted to radiation", Mr. Bill. You calloused bunch
of nuclear advocates kept a tight lid on the epidemiological
studies but they leaked. Tough luck for you conscience free
folks, eh?
You people are right there with the 19th century snake oil
salesmen and other entrepreneurs throughout history that are
fast talkers doing anything for profit.
And earlier there was this scam:
"Eye drops containing bird dung were used from the 16th century
through the 18th century to help treat eye infections."
Radiation is WORSE, much much worse than bird dung, Bill because
every subsequent generation will have more degraded DNA. That
means, in addition to more cancers, more deformities and organ
abnormalities so you can make money off of nuclear power plants.
We are not going to put up with that criminal insanity any more.
I's over, Bill. Live with it.
#Post#: 1438--------------------------------------------------
Re: Nuclear Power Industry Mendacious Propaganda
By: AGelbert Date: June 22, 2014, 1:23 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Boy this is NUCLEAR ROCK AND ROLL!
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/3ztzsjm.gif
[img width=240
height=120]
HTML http://fc06.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2009/347/2/6/WTF_Smiley_face_by_IveWasHere.jpg[/img] 
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/2z6in9g.gif
::)
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/2mo5pow.gifhttp://www.pic4ever.com/images/swear1.gif 
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/2mo5pow.gifhttp://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_6869.gif 
HTML http://www.smileyvault.com/albums/userpics/12962/noway.gif 
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/2rzukw3.gif
[img width=100
height=60]
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/245.gif[/img]
50 Comments
Brian Donovan
June 19, 2014
Keller,
Coal plants are damaged by throttling, as are nuclear power
plants, and not because of the lack of variable speed pumps, but
because they are boiler based, with huge thermal masses.
HTML http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy12osti/55433.pdf

HTML http://www.ipautah.com/data/upfiles/newsletters/CyclingArticles.pdf 
Combined cycle are also less flexible than simple turbines.
Flexible peaking and reserve turbines and diesels need to be
designed for the task. These peaking generators area already
installed to deal with the massive unpredictable changes in
load.
"Batteries needed to cover the periodic loss of renewable energy
would be stupefying expensive"
Nah it would be stupefying stupid,since it's not needed.
NPP and coal plants cause the negative [pricing events that have
happened. Solar, wind and waste to fuels have no problem
throttling.
HTML http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21587782-europes-electricity-providers-face-existential-threat-how-lose-half-trillion-euros 
It's time for coal and nuclear to stop picking consumer pockets
and taxing us all for their expensive inflexible dirty deadly
power. Solar, wind and waste fuels are cheaper, clean and safe.

Michael Keller
June 19, 2014
Donovan,
I've run and managed all the power plant types you mentioned.
The machines can and do change power levels. However, ramping
the machines up and down has to be done within set rates.
Further, times between overhauls are shortened if power level
changes are excessive.
Wind turbines and solar plants are not immune to issues caused
by the forced reduction in output, although the problem is more
financial in nature. They bring in less money if forced to
curtail operations. That means fixed costs (e.g. debt repayment)
must be distributed over fewer megawatt hours of generation.
That drives up their costs which are already well above typical
market prices. Leads us directly to the fact that "renewable
energy" plants are parasites run by "welfare queens"
PJ van Staden
June 19, 2014
Keller
(Leads us directly to the fact that "renewable energy" plants
are parasites run by "welfare queens")
You shouldn't knock the little child that is busy growing up
that badly. Your statement is depleted of understanding, for
your reference speaks from the current dynamics as things are
right now. There comes a day that renewables will approach its
mature strength, and much of that strength will reside in time
zone linkage, then most of this negative pricing will vanish.
Negative pricing, in fact, if you think about it, is due to
systems in isolation. Once that isolation disappears and the
market widens, the need to throttle will ease out.
If not that, then upcoming technology will eliminate
intermittency. Both ways coal and nuclear will become obsolete.
The writing is thus on the wall: "Start complimenting those
'parasites' of the 'welfare queens,' for its your future."
joe richardson
June 19, 2014
Mr Kellers comments that, "renewable energy plants are parasites
run by welfare queens? is absurd and so typical of those
insisting on keeping their heads in the sand, ignoring reality
and trying to push nonsense and lies in support of the fossil
fuel industry out to the public.
Coal plants have been subsidized by generations of coal miners
living in poverty and working in appealing conditions all the
while suffering the ill health effects of coal production first
hand, and depending on the rest of us to subsidize their health
care. Nuclear, gas and oil fired plants have lived off
government welfare, or corporate welfare, tax breaks, subsidies,
favorable labor laws, favorable or non existent pollution
regulations, zero interest loans, the same health care costs as
other renewables from their toxic waste and by product etc etc
for so long, most people have forgotten how to count their REAL
costs. As evident by so many of the comments here.
And as far as costs go, throttling or curtailment is a fact of
life at all power plants and its a fact of life because the
loads vary day to day minute to minute and only the ignorant
don't understand this. We don't live in a flat line easily
predictable world, never have, never will. And only the ignorant
don't understand that any effect this variations in output may
have on a particular plants equipment is part of its overhead,
or costs.
And ill accept the TOTAL cost of a wind or solar plant over that
of a nuclear or coal plant any day of the week, any week of the
month and all year long. And that's with no corporate welfare
skewing the picture. Those that continue to preach about the
good of the coal, gas, oil and nuclear industry and how evil
renewables are, really need to look inward at themselves and ask
themselves,, who am I serving by spewing all of this nonsense,
the public?, my kids? their kids, or big oil, big coal and
individuals such as the Koch brothers? The head in sanders
really need to look inward at themselves and ask, what happened
to common sense and conscience.

Michael Keller
June 19, 2014
If we're going to play your silly little "total cost" game, then
you need to include the cost of the benefits of actually having
power produced by nuclear and fossil plants. That is an
extremely large number.
Fact of the matter is , renewable energy receives a direct
subsidy of over $20/MWh of production. Nobody else gets that.
Parasite is a pretty good description.
Renewable energy needs to stop crying like spoiled little brats
and grow-up. Compete and win by improving the economics of your
product.
PJ van Staden
June 19, 2014
Renewables are growing up! Its exactly what I said...
Subsidy in production??? That's not "subsidy." Its penalty! And
that penalty will kept being paid by coal and nuclear until
their death, which is just fair taking into consideration all
the evil it has incurred on mankind and its habitat. Ignorance
has to make way to knowledge. And in power generation,
renewables are the knowledge and conventionals the ignorance.
Forget the money, it cannot buy you a new earth when this one
melts down. You should rather be thankful that you have the
opportunity to pay that production penalty to renewables.
Cheer up man! Life is greater than money.

joe richardson
June 19, 2014
Mr Keller,
Total cost isn't a "silly little game" its a business reality
and its a sum of immediate costs and deferred or ignored long
term costs. I can only assume you had no concerns about cost,
short term or long term while you were running every type of
power plant there is because you were too busy enjoying your
free lunch from the subsidies and tax breaks you enjoyed while
you ignored the truth. Its a real world out there and reality
will hit you in the face sooner or later. Sometimes it comes in
the form of a lawyer demanding billions of dollars in penalty
payments.
If you doubt it, ask the tobacco or asbestos industry about the
effects of deferred or ignored long term costs. They probably
wont be able to give you a number though, they wont know the
total cost of their willful negligence for a long time,,, as is
the case with the fossil fuel and nuclear energy industries.

Michael Keller
June 19, 2014
Actually, the plants were Independent Power Producers. If the
units were not profitable, we're out of business.
You characters are clearly "green energy" religious fanatics
incapable of engaging in rational discussions.
joe richardson
June 19, 2014
Profitable provided someone else carried a significant amount of
their "total cost" no doubt.
joe richardson
June 19, 2014
And i'm not religious, not at all I prefer to be a realist,
unlike those that prefer to put their heads in the sand and hope
things don't catch up with them. Or worse, someone that has no
concerns for those he's stole from, or hurt from their greed.

PJ van Staden
June 19, 2014
Mr. Keller, you accidentally threw in the wrong word there; Its
not "green energy" religious fanatics. Its "green energy"
reality fanatics. Like Joe said, it might hit you in the face
sooner or later.
I'll tell you what is not rational. Its you trying to justify
yourself on a website where you in the first place don't belong,
and in the second place are trying to create a philosophy to
justify the unjustifiable with. Its not going to work, because
you lack the insight to understand why renewables are tomorrow's
reality.

Michael Keller
June 19, 2014
You guys are really good at demonstrating my point. Silence the
blasphemers! The evil "rich" need to pay! How about we throw in
the Koch brothers into the discussion as well?
PJ van Staden
June 19, 2014
Mr. Keller, no man, you threw in the wrong word again. Its not
"silence the blasphemers." Its "silence the intellectuals."
The reason is: Its not good for intellectuals to talk all of the
time, because it tires them, but first and foremost, it prevents
them from thinking. And we need their creativeness to create
solutions that will still be valid to the challenges of our
time. So you see, Mr. Keller, since the conventionals could not
create healthy energy in over 50 years time, we are now kind of
forcing you to start utilizing your above average intellectual
strength, for we desperately need it.
Thus, no hard feelings. We are trying to help you.
All the best
joe richardson
June 19, 2014
I thought I had already!! but that's ok. Anything about how the
Koch brothers have exploited both the citizens of the world and
it environment certainly has a place in any discussion about
corporate welfare and greed of the fossil fuels business.
Lets start with this, "Shortly after the new year, 1999 the
Justice dept. and EPA announced that Koch had agreed to pay a 35
million dollar fine, the largest ever levied under the Clean
Water Act. up to that point. Accusing Koch of "egregious
violations""
And then we can go with, "EPA Administrator said that the fine
sends a strong message to those that try to profit from
polluting our environment will pay the price?. . There's that
darn inconvenient truth of "total cost" again.
Lets add, "Koch Industries was fined 8 million dollars for
illegally dumping millions of gallon of ammonium laced
wastewater and spilling some 600,000 gallons of fuel into a
wetland in the nearby Mississippi river"
And the Koch brothers story of greed and criminal activity goes
on and on so I wont bore you with more inconvenient facts. But
try reading a book, ill suggest Sons of Wichita by Daniel
Schulman.
Youll find these and so many more facts about the Koch brothers
and how their greedy dealings in the oil and coal business has
damaged us all,, all while enriching them.
But no fear, they do good things with the money they grab.. They
won a yacht race a few years ago!! and I hear that more than one
brother has a great wine collection. Oh, and have you ever heard
of the John Birch Society? yessir, another Koch Brothers high
point,, pathetic.
Michael Keller
June 19, 2014
So how's the "green" Kool Aid! You lads have really gone over
the edge.
PJ van Staden
June 19, 2014
The adrenaline of going over the edge is even greener, thank
you!
And thanx for leaving.
A. G. Gelbert
June 20, 2014
Michael Keller said, "Actually, the plants were Independent
Power Producers. If the units were not profitable, we're out of
business. "
Tell me Mr. Keller, what part of this REPORT by the Union of
concerned Scientists do you not understand?
Report: "US Nuclear Power Still Not Viable without Subsidies"
(24 Feb 11) A new report entitled "Nuclear Power: Still Not
Viable Without Subsidies", prepared on behalf of the Union of
Concerned Scientists, provides a detailed review and
quantification of subsidies to nuclear power in the United
States. The report concludes that subsidies to the nuclear fuel
cycle have often exceeded the value of the power produced.
Subsidies to new reactors are on a similar path.
The analysis claims to catalog in one place and for the first
time the full range of subsidies that benefit the nuclear power
sector. Since its inception more than 50 years ago, the nuclear
power industry has benefited-and continues to benefit-from a
vast array of preferential government subsidies. Indeed, as the
report shows, subsidies to the nuclear fuel cycle have often
exceeded the value of the power produced. Subsidies to new
reactors are on a similar path.
The most important subsidies to the industry do not involve
cash payments, the report concludes. Rather, they shift
construction-cost and operating risks from investors to
taxpayers and ratepayers, removing from investors an array of
risks ranging from cost overruns and defaults to accidents and
nuclear waste management. This approach has remained consistent
throughout the industry's history, according to the report,
which claims that market choices that would otherwise favor less
risky investments are distorted as a consequence. Although it
may not involve direct cash payments, such favored treatment is
nevertheless a subsidy, with a profound effect on the bottom
line for the industry and taxpayers alike.
Link to full report
Executive summary
HTML http://www.eceee.org/all-news/news/news_2011/2011-02-24b

June 20, 2014
You lads are mistaken. I am not defending nuclear power. I am
stating that the competitive market place should fundamentally
set power prices. Nobody should be given exclusive assistance
not available to others.
That means if somebody gets some form of help (e.g. accelerated
depreciation) then everybody else gets the same advantage.
As to the Union of Concerned Scientists report, in their current
form, new nuclear power plants are not particularly competitive.
Make them more competitive or don't build new ones. Ditto for
renewable energy.
joe richardson
June 20, 2014
Mr Keller,
I finally agree with you, "the competitive market place should
set power prices", "and nobody should be given exclusive
assistance".
I'm not a rigid free market person but that's probably because,
while a free market is a great sounding idea, I've never seen it
practiced anywhere. Because someone or some industries are
always trying to skew the process, and the nuclear, coal and oil
industries have historically skewed the process in order to
maintain their existence, and profits for a few.
It was the 1970's when we Americans woke up to our dependence on
fossil fuels and first glimpsed this dependencies real costs.
but we were blinded to the facts by the coal and oil companies
and continued down the same road. .
Imagine what the world would be like today if we, and everyone
else, had acted on this dependency then and pursued some level
of self sufficiency in renewable energy instead of letting the
fossil fuel industry skew our reality in order to maintain their
profits. Imagine the savings just in the dirty little oil wars
that have been waged.
So,, ill still take windmills slowly turning in the breeze and
solar panels soaking up rays any day, to avoid the total costs
of fossil and nuclear fuels.
Brian Donovan
June 20, 2014
The "free market"? free to do what? pollute, kill, steal? We
need a fair market, not a free market. The democracies must
control the corporations and the market, not the other way
around, or it's oligarchy. We have given fossils and nuclear
massive gov breaks for a century and 50 years, more per KWH over
the history than solar or wind have gotten.
Yes, the newer cleaner technologies Nobody should be given
exclusive assistance not available to others. like the dirty
fossils and nuclear power industries. We can';t just turn off
the fossils and nuclear plants, that's what we should do for our
health., but it will take 10 years or so to phase them out. Just
fine fossils and nuclear for all their wastes, allow NO new
fossils or nuclear plants, and stop all gov support for them.
Nuclear can't even run 1 second without gov protection from
liability, we we will have to phase that out, unfair as it is.
Already the fossils and nuclear dinosaurs are actually demanding
payment for their lost profits from their bad choices, they
charge wind and solar with cost that are actually lost profits
for fossils and nuclear companies. Don�t believe me?
HTML http://www.internationalenergyworkshop.org/docs/IEW%202013_4E1Ueckerdt.pdf 
look at the "profile costs of wind, they are the lost profit of
the fossils and nuclear companies.
Nuclear and fossils should get NONE of the gov breaks we reserve
for companies that provide social value, not deadly pollution.
Competition is a fantasy at the electrical generation level.
Because of the natural monopoly, it is a totally gov regulated
market, and must be. We really need to devolve electric and
waste fuels down to the local municipal level.
Like I said, fossils and nuclear plants are damaged by
throttling, so much so, they pay for hydro storage and have had
to offer negative pricing to prevent throttling. Since
unpredictable demand changes happen faster than these plants can
throttle, they are useless for it. and in fact an impediment.
Wind, solar and waste fuels in peaking generators are not
damaged physically by throttling, and need never cause negative
pricing.

Michael Keller
June 20, 2014
Who decides what's fair? As a republic, the people decide
through our laws, elected representatives and judges. I am fine
with that. Unfortunately what we currently have are appointed
radical bureaucrats unilaterally dictating what is "fair" in
defiance of the basic construct of the US constitution.
Fortunately (or perhaps unfortunately for the Democrats) we have
elections and the current vast crop of "commissars" may get
drop-kicked over the stern. Or perhaps the radical left will
again win the elections. In any case, if that's what the
majority of people want, then we get to suffer the consequences
of our votes.
As far as the "regulated" power markets are concerned, what
should occur is the least cost producers should be deployed.
Those producers have to comply with environmental laws passed by
our elected representatives, as opposed to bureaucratic attempts
to unilaterally legislate. That seems to be a defining trait of
the left - they believe they are exempt from the laws they do
not like and can do whatever they like.
PS Your technical knowledge of power plants (particularly
nuclear) is not so good. The machines were designed to operate
at essentially full power all the time and are not "throttled".
Because the machines are not really designed to reduce load,
they basically don't. That means they can indeed send power into
the grid and not receive much of a return (or even lose money).
That same principal of getting what the markets thinks your
product is worth should be applied to renewable energy, which
should receive no "feed-in" tariffs (subsidies) from the
taxpayer nor should the market be mandated to use renewable
energy. Please note, conventional power plants receive no such
"feed-in" tariffs or mandates.
Also, I suspect you cause more damage to the environment from
the trash and sewage you create than a nuclear power plant can
realistically ever achieve. Coal plants do have some issues, but
it really boils down to what level of impacts are we
collectively (as opposed to say just the radical left "green
energy" religious fanatics) willing to put up with relative to
the benefits we receive from using coal.
Brian Donovan
June 20, 2014
Keller, the constitution gave the Congress total control of the
US market and economy, including money itself. The bureaucrats
just follow the elected leaders. It was Cheney that gave the
fossils and nuclear industry a blanket exemption from liability
and environmental laws, You think the dems are bad? I do to, but
not compared to the GOP. Thanks for agreeing that I fully
understand the inability of nuclear power plants to throttle.
That's just what I said.
Try reading again. There is no free market for electric, nor is
the "free market " a good idea.
Subsidies and FIT SHOULD be given to clean safe, sustainable
technologies that are cheaper in the long run. We should not
allow monopolies, and corruption of the gov to keep fossils and
nuclear going and growing. Why would you think otherwise?
Nuclear power plants receive 500M$ worth of gov support per year
per reactor according to the Duke energy CEO. He used that
figure to sell investors. There are lots of gov support other
than direct subsidies. Liability insurance for instance.
Fukushima and Chernobyl will kill about a million people each
with cancer. I don't think me trash does that., and if they
would do what I suggest and convert it to energy, fuels and raw
materials it would help the environment. I have a septic tank,
it fertilizes my lawn. Nice try though.
PJ van Staden
June 21, 2014
A.G. you're welcome.
The Law used to put criminals on trial, but nowadays criminals
make the Law, isn't it? Brian is right in this, and its true in
just about every large scale trade. Governments don't set up
trade regulations themselves, but the "major" role players of
trade sit alongside when those regulations get stipulated, with
priority number one to make sure its as difficult as possible
for new players to enter the trade and market. So yes, "free" my
*rse! The only religion we're talking about here is called,
Holism, which entails that everything should be kept one whole
amongst the incumbents and the governing politicians.
Here we are, able to predict how long we still will be reliant
on fossils (transport more than energy). We already see the
effects in nature, super storms, tsunamis, earthquakes and the
damage that goes with it, with absolutely zero chance of
degrading in intensity, but O-yes!, we're going to put up more
nukes???
You know, sometimes I wonder, shouldn't I take up street wiping
and picking up litter as a job, for what value do scientist's
have in a world where ignorant fools who think they're gods,
called politicians and businessmen, against every warning and
sign, anyway steer us directly into hell???
So, we put up all these nukes and every "2nd day" have to
throttle it down when a super storm wipes out the network it
supplies? Wake up man, please!
joe richardson
June 21, 2014
Mr. Keller,
Please stop trying to use the argument that wind and or solar
plants damage nuclear and fossil plants from the need to vary
plant output, i.e.throttling,,,,, the argument is ridiculous.
All machines are designed to run the best and longest at a
given speed and any variations in this cause wear and shortens
its life. That's just a fundamental of mechanics and physics, I
think its ever a Newton law of some sort, something about an
object in motion tends to stay in motion unless acted on by an
external force..Sound familiar?
Or,, in simpler terms, in regards to moving machinery,
force=resistance, resistance=wear, wear=costs.. One of those
great cosmic muffin rules.
And the fact that nuclear and fossil fuel plants has such
massive construction, operating and deferred costs (read that as
ignored long term costs) is fundamental to the argument that
they are not cost effective in the long term compared to wind
and solar.
Sorry. but its simple physics and math.

Michael Keller
June 21, 2014
Richardson,
You are a pin-head. I've never said wind and solar plants
physically damage nuclear plants, although they can reduce
revenues because the market price of power is artificially
reduced by the special treatment given wind and solar. Most
nuclear power plants were designed as base load units that
operate at full load. That is how these particular machines are
run. Reactors can be designed to maneuver (e.g. military
reactors) but the economics would be poor.
Suggest you take a remedial course in thermodynamics if you
actually want to know the fundamentals behind energy production.
Wind and solar are not low-cost, Owing to their variable nature,
capacity factors are dismal. That means costs have to be
distributed over relatively few operating hours. Further, the
value of the power also varies according to when it is needed.
Power in the middle of the night has significantly less value
than power in the middle of the afternoon.
Renewable energy is generally not profitable. However, the
parasites who own the machines think they are entitled to
special access to the taxpayers and consumers wallets to make
profit from their non-competitive enterprise.

joe richardson
June 21, 2014
Mr Keller,
True forgive me, you may not have said renewables damage fossil
and nuc plants but that's what and where your old argument about
their inherent issues with tapering, trimmimg, throttling,
curtailing and negative pricing and cost per kw/hr is all about.
Renewable plants are more adapt at meeting the variable demands,
and nuc and coal plants aren't. Sounds like an adapt or die
situation to me and nuc and coal plants haven't shown much
adaptability.
But have no fear, your job is secure,,, because of the nuc waste
generated and stored on site at every nuc plant, they will
require someone to baby sit each for the next few hundred
years,,, even if it's production is ZERO.
Well,, unless you work someone near the ocean, a flood plain, a
hurricane, tornado, or earthquake prone area, or a place where
some whacked out terrorist stays up all night figuring out how
he can blow it up. Well in that case, sleep tight..

joe richardson
June 21, 2014
Oh Mr Keller, also, you said,
"the parasites who own the machines think they are entitled to
special access to the taxpayers and consumers wallets to make
profit from their non-competitive enterprise".
Didn't this discussion begin with Exelon, one of the largest
nuclear plant operators In the world complaining about
renewables killing their profits?

Michael Keller
June 21, 2014
Renewable energy is the cause of rapid fluctuations in the grid
because of its intermittent nature. Renewable energy is the
problem and are not the solution. The solution is to figure some
way to cost effectively store renewable energy when it is not
needed. Alternatively, figure out some way to rapidly cover the
load when renewable energy suddenly takes a nap.
As far as Exeleon is concerned, they are correct that government
interference (renewable mandates, feed-in tariffs) in the energy
market is creating contrived price signals that do not reflect
the actual value of the power.
A. G. Gelbert
June 21, 2014
Joe Richardson QUITE ACCURATELY tried to point out to Keller the
Nuker that " this discussion began with Exelon, one of the
largest nuclear plant operators In the world, complaining about
renewables killing their profits!"
Thank you Joe. The problem with Mr. Keller is that he has his
own rather interesting definitions of "level energy resource
playing fields", "help" (a LOT more than accelerated
depreciation is involved there!), and let us not forget those
adjectives he uses like "particularly" to describe new nukes as
to not being "profitable".
Oh, and his definition of "profitable" and "profit" is an
Orwellian masterpiece.
While we are on the subject of accounting terms that mean one
thing for nuclear power plant operators and something a bit less
"limited in scope" for the rest of us, I am sure he will tell
you that nuclear power plants enhance our national security.
Again the highly selective mental processes of these bright
masters of game theory dictates that his own job security is
what said nuclear power plants really provide. And of course,
that word "our" means all of us to help out with "national
security" (nuclear power plant "subsidies") while Keller the
nuker logically gets the "profits" from "all that work he is
doing for the rest of us" to enhance our National Security.
I'm sure they have a special dictionary of terms to keep the
newbies (they're usually retired nuclear submarine officers
looking for a job) from adding and subtracting properly...
I've got to admit, they certainly are undaunted and unflappable
(while being totally mendacious) in their claims. They have
excellent "message" discipline. It's almost as is they are given
a script before they come on these boards. They are really,
really "good" at stubborn denial of economic realities to suit
their wallets.
Expect them to get more voluble as renewable energy continues to
eat their lunch. :>)
Thanks again Joe Richardson for telling it like it is. Well
done!
HTML http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2014/06/nuclear-giant-exelon-blasts-wind-energy#comm132677
#Post#: 1446--------------------------------------------------
Re: Nuclear Power Industry Mendacious Propaganda
By: AGelbert Date: June 23, 2014, 3:12 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
joe richardson
June 23, 2014
Mr,. Gelbert,
Thanks for your kind words and endorsement. As I told my Keller
I'm not a religious man. But I have studies religious philosophy
a bit and ill offer Keller a quote from a book of tales from
ancient times,,, 'The Truth Shall Set you Free"..
Thanks again Mr Gelbert, we all have to light a candle against
the dark and I appreciate your efforts as doing so also.
Mr Keller,
For all your advanced degrees and all of your experience running
every type of power plant there is you seem truly uninformed as
to the byproduct of each, and its associated costs.
You wrote,, ,
"I have several advanced degrees, including an MBA. I am quite
familiar with the energy business. There is no question that
renewable energy folks expect handouts from the government
because their product is not competitive. Further, their product
is essentially inconsequential to green house gas emissions"
---"their product is essentially inconsequential to green house
gas emissions"-- really ????.
HTML http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_6656.gif 
HTML http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_1730.gif
I'm not sure if your just truly and stubbornly uninformed or if
your just doing as the Republican party reality deniers do here
In the sates,, and just keep repeating the big lie,, over and
over and over hoping to sway the opinion of someone that's just
ignorant and uninformed.
Help me understand, do you really think that by taking a coal
plant off line and replacing it with wind of solar,, it has
little effect on green house gas emissions??? [img width=40
height=40]
HTML http://www.clker.com/cliparts/c/8/f/8/11949865511933397169thumbs_up_nathan_eady_01.svg.hi.png[/img] ;D
I imagine your answer with some sort of,,, well its a matter of
scale argument. In that the amount of emissions reduction from
one coal plant is miniscule compared to the total? In which case
your right. But the process isn't an all in, go for everything
at once situation. The reduction obviously begins one coal plant
at a time.
And yes, Nuclear plants have zero emissions also. But,, and this
but is a BIG but! nuc's have no emissions until some bonehead
does (or did) something stupid,, and then the emissions are BIG
and unrecoverable and forever.. Its not just a case of giving
your neighbors kids asthma from your coal plant emissions, nope,
when the arrogance of the nuc plant crowd reveals itself, its
a,,, EVERYBODY RUN FOR YOU LIFE situation. As if that'll do any
good.
HTML http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2014/06/nuclear-giant-exelon-blasts-wind-energy#comment-132744
Agelbert Note: Keller lied to Joe. Nuke plants are NOT carbon
neutral. Anyone can Google that. And the false choice Keller
presents between coal and nuclear is part of their propaganda
pitch attempting to exclude renewables, which can replace both,
conveniently for the polluting predators, out of the energy
solution picture. I gave Joe a link the Renewable revolution
forum. If he comes here or Googles nuclear power plant
emissions, he will be able to throw the proof of Keller's
mendacity in his face. I hope he does. ;D
#Post#: 1448--------------------------------------------------
Re: Nuclear Power Industry Mendacious Propaganda
By: AGelbert Date: June 24, 2014, 12:32 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
A. G. Gelbert
June 24, 2014
Final Statement to Bill the "biologist" 2
HTML http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-TzWpwHzCvCI/T_sBEnhCCpI/AAAAAAAAME8/IsLpuU8HYxc/s1600/nooo-way-smiley.gif who, in so many words, is repeating the mantra that the
solution to nuclear pollution is dilution. This totally ignores
food chain realities expressed by the ingestion and
concentration of radionuclides in bivalves and other bottom of
the food chain filter feeders which are then ingested by fish,
thereby increasing the concentration, not decreasing it (as Bill
claims) in higher order life forms like Homo sapiens.
Cardiovascular disease and death increases in that area you
claim "only" had increases in thyroid cancer are linked DIRECTLY
to guess what radionuclide that is distributed uniformly in
human muscle tissues? You obviously haven't looked at the
Chernobyl effects data very closely. Also, you claim that my
statement that 1 in three persons will get cancer at present is
false. Google it! And yes Bill, the increase in cardiovascular
disease and deaths, though you nukers will deny it, is
definitely linked to radionuclide absorption in muscle tissue.
It's not just about cholesterol and sugar! The radionuclide
Ce-137 deposition map of the USA is public information LONG
before Fufkushima.
Do you want to prepare a graph showing cancer and cardiovascular
disease rate increases in this country and Ce-137 deposition
from power plants and nuclear bomb tests? Probably not. You
prefer to reach for your "correlation is not causation" straw.
If you really think my answer was long or disjointed and
irrelevant, you have never read a research paper. If you want to
descend into nitpicking minutiae to muddle the issues so I can
be accused of getting "off topic" by the anonyMouse Steven, only
for you to leap back to generalizations after I give you proof
in a detailed answer, that again shows you are into propaganda,
not science.
So, for the readers, I will present a really brief summary of
the points I made . The proof is in that "long" answer I gave
for those who have scientist level attention spans.
1. Mutagenicity of ionizing radiation was proven as far back as
the discovery that Drosophila melanogaster has DOUBLE or more
the mutation rate (none of said mutations beneficial, by the
way) in an abandoned uranium mine. Of note to the readers is
that Insects are more resistant to ionizing radiation than
mammals because of the higher percentage of water in our
tissues. One of the PRIMARY targets of therapy for cancer caused
by radiation (Acute Radiation Sickness) are the non-receptor and
receptor tyrosine kinase enzymes because of the PROVEN link
between radionucllde exposure and tumorigenesis.
2. Target theory, as opposed to LNT is the only way to
accurately measure damage from ionizing radiation. The damage is
inversely proportional to the distance of the emitter. That is
nuclear physics 101. Ingestion of radionuclides is far more
damaging than the LNT standards people like Bill and AEC accept
(wrongly and inaccurately) because the distance is in
nanometers. I can give you a web sight where you can do the math
on the group of photon energies for any radionuclide. At
nanometer distances, it AIN'T PRETTY, Bill.
3. The main subject here, energy sources and COST, is defined
rather selectively by the nukers to exclude AND minimize the
health costs to, not just human populations, but the biosphere
as a whole that we require to be a viable species, never mind a
few centuries of baby sitting used fuel rod assemblies on the
taxpayer dime.
The facts prove that, not only is Renewable Energy cheaper, it
is the only sustainable alternative because of it's potential
for zero waste products that damage the life forms in the food
chain vital to our existence. The only nuclear powered furnace
we need is the sun. We not only can scale up to 100% renewable
energy, any other option is unsustainable and undermines the
viability of the biosphere and that of future generations of
Homo sapiens.
If you agree, please sign this petition to President Obama:
Demand Liberty From Fossil Fuels Through 100% Renewable Energy
WWII Style Effort
Here's a link to the petition:
HTML http://www.care2.com/go/z/e/Ai3Tb 
We did it with the Liberty Ship massive building effort in WWII;
we can do it again with Renewable energy technology and
infrastructure.
Thank you
Anthony G. Gelbert
Green Leaf Star American in the Service of Future Generations
#Post#: 1699--------------------------------------------------
Re: Nuclear Power Industry Mendacious Propaganda
By: AGelbert Date: August 14, 2014, 7:27 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Sowing Confusion
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714183543.bmpAbout Renewable Energy
Readers of The Economist may have been surprised to read in its
26 July 2014 �Free exchange� section on page 63, or in its
online version, the �clear� conclu�sion that solar and wind
power are �the most expen�sive way of reducing green�house-gas
emissions,� while �nuclear plants�are cheaper,� so governments
are foolish to boost renewables and mothball nuclear. [img
width=100]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-251117175700.png[/img]
In each of the past three years, the world has invested more
than a quarter-trillion dollars to add over 80 billion watts of
renew�ables (excluding big hydro dams). That growth is
accelerating: solar power is scaling faster than cellphones. Big
European utilities lost �0.5 trillion in market cap, as an
Economist cover story fea�tured, not because renewables couldn�t
compete, but because they competed all too well, wiping out old
power plants� profits. The same is happening to some
well-running U.S. nuclear plants, now facing closure as
uneconomic just to operate.
Shouldn�t the runaway market success of renewables�soon to beat
grid power on price, says Bloomberg , in most of the world�have
raised a flag at the Eco�no�m�ist article�s conclusion?
That full-page article highlights a May working paper by Charles
R. Frank, Jr. (economics Ph.D. 1963) [img width=80
height=045]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-241013183046.jpeg[/img], a nonresident fellow at the nonpartisan and notably
debate-friendly Brookings Institution. His background is in
international development and finance. I daresay most experts on
the economics of energy technologies and climate change had
never heard of him�but they have now. As soon as The Economist
featured his paper, their inboxes and Twitter TWTR -1.06% feeds
lit up with incredulity: could his conclusions possibly be true?
They�re not (and yes, I�ve written The Economist a letter saying
so). My detailed critique explains why, and cites two other
reviews and a podcast. But for anyone who knows the subject, Dr.
Frank�s con�clu�sions don�t even pass the giggle test. He finds
that new wind and solar power are the least, and new nuclear
power and combined-cycle gas generation are the most,
cost-effective ways to displace coal-fired power�just the
opposite of what you�d expect from observing market prices and
choices.
How does Dr. Frank reach his contrarian conclusions? By using,
apparently
unwittingly,
HTML http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_2932.gifobsolete data and incorrect methods. He assumes wind and solar power ha
lf
as productive and twice as costly as they actually are, gas
power twice as pro�duc���tive as it actually is (but with no
methane leakage or price volatility), and new nuclear power at
half its actual total cost and con�struction time and one-fifth
its actual operating cost. He also posits a need for new U.S.
generating capacity and bulk electricity storage, but no
efficiency oppor�tuni�ties worth mentioning. His strange method
of assessing reliability suggests little under�standing of how
power grids integrate, and their operators analyze, renew�ables.
So are Dr. Frank�s odd findings artifacts of errors in his
methodology, his data, or both? Both, but there are so many
mistakes that just nine data points can carry the whole load. My
colleague Titiaan Palazzi reconstructed Dr. Frank�s
spread��sheets, reproduced his results, then simply updated the
nine most egregiously outdated figures to those in the latest
official historical statistics (not forward-looking projections)
from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, Department of
Energy, Nuclear Energy Institute, and similarly authoritative
sources.
Presto! The conclusions flipped. Instead of gas combined-cycle
and nuclear plants� offering the greatest net benefit from
displacing coal plants, followed by hydro, wind, and last of all
solar, the ranks reversed. The new, correct, story: first hydro
(on his purely economic assumptions), then wind, solar, gas, and
last of all nuclear�still omitting efficiency, which beats them
all.
Beneath Dr. Frank�s wrong answer, however, lurks a useful
question. He adopts the distinguished economist Prof. Paul
Joskow�s 2011 valid thesis that the way power-sector investments
are chosen�lowest long-run eco�nomic cost�is incomplete, because
different technologies generate power at different times,
creat�ing different amounts of value. Of course value as well as
cost should be con�sidered. But interestingly, this case
suggests that if we use correct and up-to-date cost and
per�for�mance data, the cost- and value-based calculations yield
the same priorities, whether judged from the perspective of
financial investment or climate-protection effectiveness. That
is, adjusting for different resources� time of genera�tion,
though theoretically nice, doesn�t change the result;
cost-benefit analysis gives the same answer as a simple cost
comparison. The resulting best-buys-first sequence would also
gain even more value if other hidden costs, risks, and benefits
were counted too.
Making a splash�intentional or not�with a flawed analysis that
doesn�t survive more careful scrutiny is nothing new. My
esteemed Stanford colleague Dr. Jon G. Koomey cowrote a 2002
Annual Review of Energy and the Environment paper called �Sorry,
Wrong Number: The Use and Misuse of Numerical Facts in Analysis
and Media Reporting of Energy Issues.� Its abstract says:
�Students of public policy sometimes envision an idealized
policy process where competent data collection and incisive
analysis on both sides of a debate lead to reasoned judgments
and sound decisions. Unfortu�nate�ly, numbers that prove
decisive in policy debates are not always carefully developed,
credibly documented, or correct. This paper presents four widely
cited examples of numbers in the energy field that are either
misleading or wrong. It explores the origin of those numbers,
how they missed the mark, and how they have been misused by both
analysts and the media. In addition, it describes and uses a
three-stage analytic process for evaluating such statistics that
involves defining terms and boundaries, assessing underlying
data, and critically analyzing arguments.� It�s a bracing read,
with a nice summary and update.
The diligent Dr. Frank
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/www_MyEmoticons_com__burp.gif
has
collected not just one wrong number but a flotilla, together
driving a false conclusion that gained a prominent platform in
The Econo�mist. The ana�lytic lesson: rapidly changing data
quickly pass their sell-by date.
It�s too early to guess whether prompt refutations will prevent
the distres�sing phenomenon Dr. Koomey describes, whereby media
and advocates fond of a false thesis (or who don�t know any
better) keep repeating it long after it�s been de�cis�ive�ly
debunked.
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-311013200859.pngTime will tell. But your ability to stay well-informed and to
exer�cise your critical faculties can help build sound public
discourse. If you hear a claim that sounds nutty, maybe it is.
If it is, say so. As biologist Prof. E.O. Wilson wrote,
�Some�times a concept is baffling not because it is profound but
because it�s wrong.�
This article originally appeared on Forbes.com
HTML http://blog.rmi.org/blog_2014_08_07_sowing_confusion_about_renewable_energy
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page