DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Renewable Revolution
HTML https://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Nuke Puke
*****************************************************
#Post#: 6426--------------------------------------------------
Re: Nuclear Power Industry Mendacious Propaganda
By: AGelbert Date: February 9, 2017, 6:18 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Dave Pugner link=topic=58.msg6422#msg6422
date=1486581030]
Have you ever seen the documentary Pandora's Promise? Perhaps
you would find it insightful.
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nyjyWxDdoWM
[/quote]
#Post#: 6427--------------------------------------------------
Re: Nuclear Power Industry Mendacious Propaganda
By: AGelbert Date: February 9, 2017, 6:20 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Dave Pugner link=topic=58.msg6422#msg6422
date=1486581030]
Have you ever seen the documentary Pandora's Promise? Perhaps
you would find it insightful.
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nyjyWxDdoWM
[/quote]
Welcome to this forum, Dave. I don't want to scare you away, but
it seems we are getting off on the wrong foot, so to speak. Let
us begin. 8)
Before I discuss your post, please look at this pie chart. If
you claim the subsidies on that chart are inaccurate, then I can
prove you are mistaken. It's a bit dated. The subsidy swag for
polluters has actually gotten even more outrageous in comparison
with the pittance that Renewable Energy has gotten. >:(
[center] [img width=640
height=430]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-281014151757.png[/img][/center]
I certainly have seen that Propaganda film called, "Pandora's
Promise". It is chock full of very clever half truths that
manage to completely cloud the actual issues of cause and effect
in regard to cost/benefit (i.e. POLLUTION COSTS to the
biosphere) in the generation of energy for human civilization.
Renewable Energy is totally misrepresented as being
"insufficiently reliable" to power civilization, too
"expensive" and so on. The derisive icing on the cake is the
totally false claim delivered in 'I'm your friendly Doctor
telling you this for your own good' tone that those that support
a 100% Renewable Energy powered world are to be pitied for their
"wishful and unrealistic thinking".
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/tissue.gif<br
/>
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/shame.gif
Uh Huh... Nuclear Industry Welfare Queen Profits have absolutely
nothing to do with it, of course...
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-311013201314.png
A very insightful and fact filled critique was made of the
writings of those nuclear industry propagandists who pitch that
film and every half truth uttered in that film by objective
energy analysts. I posted on it here years ago in the Nuke Puke
board.
Here is a repost (Originally posted November 08, 2013, 02:42:15
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#: 11953--------------------------------------------------
Re: Nuclear Power Industry Mendacious Propaganda
By: AGelbert Date: April 1, 2019, 4:43 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[center]The Nuclear Power Struggle Documentary: The Future of
Energy[/center]
1,014 views
[center]
HTML https://youtu.be/kgV86OQK8HU[/center]
Thom Hartmann Program
Published on Mar 28, 2019
Film maker Robbie Leppzer’s new documentary “Power Struggle”
look at the future of energy and especially focusing on nuclear
energy.
On the 40th anniversary of Three Mile Island, Leppzer looks at
the dangers of nuclear and the importance sources other than
nuclear power and working with grassroots movements to bring
social change.
To find out more about Power Struggle please visit
www.PowerStruggleMovie.com
➡️Please Subscribe to Our Channel:
HTML https://www.youtube.com/user/thomhart...
SUPPORT THE PROGRAM
► Join us on Patreon:
HTML http://www.patreon.com/thomhartmann<br
/>where you can also watch a re-run of the three-hour program at
any time
AUDIO PODCASTS
► Subscribe today:
HTML http://www.thomhartmann.com/podcast
FOLLOW THOM
► AMAZON :
HTML http://amzn.to/2hS4UwY
► BLOG :
HTML http://www.thomhartmann.com/thom/blog
► FACEBOOK :
HTML http://www.facebook.com/ThomHartmannP...
► INSTAGRAM :
HTML http://www.instagram.com/Thom_Hartmann
► PATREON :
HTML http://www.patreon.com/thomhartmann
► TWITTER :
HTML http://www.twitter.com/thom_hartmann
► WEBSITE :
HTML http://www.thomhartmann.com
► YOUTUBE :
HTML http://www.youtube.com/subscription_c...
ABOUT THE PROGRAM
The Thom Hartmann Program is the leading progressive political
talk radio show for political news and comments about Government
politics, be it Liberal or Conservative, plus special guests and
callers
#MoreFromThom
✔ Amazon links are affiliate links
Category News & Politics
*****************************************************
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page