Skip to main content

View Diary: Ready for This? Last Month 100% of New Electrical Capacity in the US came from Renewable Sources (187 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  this person is a pro-nuclear advocate (12+ / 0-)

    and never fails to shoot down renewables.

    Not sure why, but there's a pro-nuke contingent here on DK which seems to have a compulsion to attack renewables. I can conceive of a future which includes both--not that that's my ideal--but they, seemingly, can't.

    if necessary for years; if necessary, alone

    by SouthernLiberalinMD on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 06:18:04 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  I'm fine with pro-nuke folks. (9+ / 0-)

      Not sure why they have to be anti-renewables.

      •  Fights over funding perhaps? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mamamorgaine

        if necessary for years; if necessary, alone

        by SouthernLiberalinMD on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 07:34:25 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  NNadir walks his own walk (12+ / 0-)

          and sometimes he builds his own plank and walks off it. Wind and solar power become more reliable as they are used over a larger area. Apparently NNadir hasn't kept up with the developments in renewable energy.

          look for my eSci diary series Thursday evening.

          by FishOutofWater on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 07:49:11 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I wouldn't say his own walk (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            orlbucfan

            after all, he admitted in a diary some time ago to huddling with nuclear industry lobbyists and being rewarded with fancy meals and the occasional toy from them.

            So no, it's not his own walk, it's the walk he is directed to make by his "friends."

          •  Wow. Thanks for pointing that out. (0+ / 0-)

            Despite downloading every issue of Environmental Science and Technology and Industrial Engineering and Chemistry Research, with all it's wonderful articles about the grand renewable victory - reading a fair fraction of the papers therein, despite leafing through each current issue of Nature, Nature Climate Change, despite spending at least 10 to 20 hours a week leafing through the scientific literature connected to Energy and the Environment, I'm clearly not up to date.

            Despite attending many of the energy lectures on wonderful renewable energy at the Andlinger Center for Energy and the Environment where many of the "pioneers" of the grand renewable energy hawk their wares, I am clearly not up to date.

            Since you are "up to date," it should be relatively straight forward for you to show that 1)  There is one country on earth that has phased out fossil fuels because of their wonderful renewable energy program, 2) that there is one solar facility on this planet that has a capacity utilization factor of better than 20%, 3) that there is one wind facility on earth that has a capacity utilization as high as dangerous natural gas and of course, that the combined wind, solar and geothermal energy industries are producing more than 10 exajoules of energy.

            Oh yes, and that the data at Mauna Loa that I produced from last week is an anomaly.

            I'm sure that your echo chamber - which I obviously confuse with intellectual lightweights who only hear what they want to hear despite the concerns of some people that something called "numbers" matter - will cheer your response enthusiastically, as always when you quickly and facilely produce the documents that point these things out.

            Heckuva job on being up to date.   I, for one, am very impressed by you, as you know.   You're very popular here, where we are really, really, really, really, really well informed on the worst environmental disaster in history, climate change.    You must be very, very, very, very, very, very proud of your success.

            Congratulations.

            Have a nice day.

            •  What exactly is your answer (0+ / 0-)

              to the thorny, but actual problem of disposal of radioactive waste? T and R!!

              Some people make u want to change species! --ulookarmless, quoted w/his permission: RIP good man.

              by orlbucfan on Thu Feb 21, 2013 at 07:34:39 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Thorny? Only because it is a nonsense argument (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Odysseus

                This argument drives me nuts as it is context free.

                Generating the same amount of energy released by 30-40 tons of nuclear fuel  (a cube roughly 4-5 ft./side) requires 3 MILLION tons of coal and releases about 10 MILLION tons of CO2.  This is a direct, valid comparison as both nuclear and coal are baseload power sources.

                The CO2, fine particulates, smog and acid-rain producing NOx and SOx, toxic heavy metals are fossil-fuel waste.  It is disposed of in the air we breath.  

                That TINY amount of equivalent SNF is easily sequestered.  95% is still potential fuel for heavens sake.  Many of the fission products could be put to constructive use.  If fully recycled, even this small amount could be reduced about 50-60 times!  There is no PROBLEM with nuclear waste outside of the bloody politics surrounding it.  Physically it is a tiny fraction of fossil fuel waste.  Scientifically, there are no unsolved issues.  Politically, it is the ultimate football.

                If you want to slash CO2 emissions and not enforce economic hardship via energy poverty, nuclear is a huge tool in the toolbox that only one grossly misinformed about the basic facts could toss out-of-hand.  

                To me the question is not nukes: yes or no; but how do we expand nuclear in the smartest fashion possible?  Done wrong = bad.  Done right it clearly has the power to save the world.

                The intrinsic nature of Power is such that those who seek it most are least qualified to wield it.

                by mojo workin on Thu Feb 21, 2013 at 10:13:56 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Put it in my backyard. (0+ / 0-)

                  You know, where it already is.  Braidwood is a very short drive from my condo.  Current spent fuel is stored onsite at US reactors.

                  Zion, Dresden, Clinton ...

                  -7.75 -4.67

                  "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose."

                  There are no Christians in foxholes.

                  by Odysseus on Thu Feb 21, 2013 at 11:10:20 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

              •  I have spent too much time in my life... (0+ / 0-)

                ...answering this question, which is actually a trivial question, since the storage of valuable used nuclear fuel has not caused any deaths in this country.

                You may leaf through the 399 diaries I wrote on this site where I addressed this question many times in detail, although my diaries have certainly proved to be as useless as all the diaries on this website about climate change, against which the battle has failed.

                The silly designation of used nuclear fuel as "waste" is an arbitrary and meaningless - if popular - designation.

                If you are really concerned about energy "wastes" you might want to consider the fact that 3.3 million people die from air pollution each year - half under the age of 5 - not even counting climate change, with epidemiological evidence rapidly accumulating that climate change does, in fact, cause large numbers of human deaths.

                If you would like to make a claim that the storage of used nuclear fuel kills anything like 33 million people per decade, I'd be very interested in hearing you document your claim.

                Have a nice weekend.

            •  We're on the same side here. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              HamdenRice

              Frankly, though, I think being Anti [Thing] is a total waste of breath.

              People are scared of nuclear power. The Ruskies and their shitty Chernobyl plant really made sure of that. Harrisburg really made sure of that.

              Telling folks their ignorant to worry about it won't gain you even an inch of traction. Not one inch.

              "Oh sure...ONE mismanaged nuclear plant resulting in a 1000 square mile exclusion zone and people freak the fuck out. Ignorant idiots."

              Not sure if you noticed...PEOPLE DON'T TRUST GOVERNMENT OR CORPORATIONS to do shit responsibly.

              The only reason we trust coal is because it's what great-grandpa used. It's the devil we know.

              Make a better case for your product, don't waste your time hating on renewables. And lay off whining about how other peoples ignorance is holding you back.

              •  Sorry, but I don't think you get where I'm... (0+ / 0-)

                ...coming from.

                First of all:   Listing all the nuclear reactors that failed without comparing it to every other energy system, is in itself a form of ignorance inasmuch as it relies wholly and totally on selective attention.

                Maybe the public doesn't notice that 3.3 billion people die each year from air pollution, but it's not my style to declare ignorance as "OK."   My sig line says it all:  "Ignorance kills," and in case you didn't notice it, a lot of people have died, 33 million people in the last decade, and the shit is about to hit the fan.

                It is true that ignorance has in fact, won the day.   The first week of this month set an all time record for increases in dangerous fossil fuel waste when compared to the same week of 2012, 4.54 ppm at Mauna Loa.

                I think your position also says "People are scared, so smile and be happy."    That's not my style either.    I'm not going to make a happy face about ignorance and fear.

                Finally.   I will not lay off renewables and their grotesque and extremely expensive failure.

                You say that people don't trust governments.   As it happens, I am a person, so I think that I qualify as a member of the set you broadly describe.   My whole life - I'm what's called a "liberal Democrat" I have trusted government to do lots of things for people, and have argued that it should do more, including fighting pollution.   You may have learned that there was a recent election in a prominent North American country, and that the person who won that election was an advocate of more government, not less.

                Also I think there are a lot of people on this planet - I happen to be one of this set as well - who do not "trust" coal.

                I don't give a fuck what "Grandpa" did.   As it happens my
                Grandfather was an ignorant asshole.

                Finally, as I indicated, I'm a person, not a sheep.

                There is a sheep like love of so called "renewable energy" on this planet, but being both a person and an atheist, I'm not willing to throw hundreds of billions of dollars in alms to it because it's become an element of religious dogma.

                The planet uses 520 exajoules of energy each year.    The hundreds of billions of dollars, euros, yen and yuan thrown at, for one example, the very toxic solar energy industry produces as of 2013, the equivalent of three 1000 MW dangerous natural gas plants, nuclear plants, or coal plants or any kind of 1000 MWe plant.

                Two billion people on this planet have never seen, never mind operated a flush toilet, and I'm supposed to cheer for the very, very, very, very, very, very expensive and more importantly failed so called "renewable" energy industry.

                Sorry, can't do that either.

                Finally, I'm not really "pushing a product."   The battle against climate change is lost.    We're done, we're cooked, because the 50 year history of appeals to fear and ignorance have now created a condition that is economically - and more importantly and critically - technically impossible to reverse.

                I've heard advice like yours lots of times, and I've also had people tell me that I changed their minds, not that it did any good, since the game is up.

                But thanks for that advice, and understand that in my anger over this disaster, I'm not inclined to take it.

                Have a great weekend.

                •  You're either back in this fight or you're not. (0+ / 0-)

                  If you want to play the role of the grumpy old soldier I-Told-Ya-So-ing himself off until the World Burns, that's good for you...

                  I ask myself......if I honestly believed the world was fucked no matter what, would I spend the final days of humanity "I-Told-Ya-So-ing" on DailyKos?

                  No.

                  And neither would you.

                  There's still some fight left in you. And still a belief we can forestall the end of human civilization. Otherwise you'd be doing something a lot more interesting. Or at least I hope you would be.

                  Drop the martyrdom. Drop the lamentations on the ignorance of humanity.

                  If you believe Nuke is the answer.........if you believe HUMANITY is at stake, and if you believe there's a chance......then for fucks sake, snap out out of whatever funk you're in and find a better way to sell your point of view.

                •  Also....if you believe the world is ending (0+ / 0-)

                  who the fuck CARES how much MONEY you spend on something?

                  Fiscal prudence is moot, if that's your honest belief.

      •  we don't (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Egalitare, SouthernLiberalinMD

        so I'm not sure, except that I think that renewables are favorite punching bags for the anti environmental movment.  So some pro nuke folks are anti carbon, and some are anti environment.

        Hay hombres que luchan un dia, y son buenos Hay otros que luchan un año, y son mejores Hay quienes luchan muchos años, y son muy buenos. Pero hay los que luchan toda la vida. Esos son los imprescendibles.

        by Mindful Nature on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 10:03:20 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  NNAdir is a separate entity (4+ / 0-)

      from any pro nuker @ DK. Simply unique.

      ...... Social Security blogathon March 25th thru March 29th. #HandsOffmySS FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

      by Roger Fox on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 06:35:47 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Just an Extreme Example (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        SouthernLiberalinMD

        NNadir is just an unusually severe victim of nuke monomania.

        "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

        by DocGonzo on Thu Feb 21, 2013 at 06:23:17 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  That's the big problem. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Roger Fox

          Waste, yes, that's a problem. Damage to plants from earthquakes, tsunamis, extreme weather events, yes, that's a problem. Biggest problem, though, is those who think nuclear is the magic bullet. Not a useful approach to climate, no matter what the bullet in question is.

          if necessary for years; if necessary, alone

          by SouthernLiberalinMD on Thu Feb 21, 2013 at 08:38:08 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Misinformation is the problem (0+ / 0-)

            That earthquake damage in Fukushima - it killed no one, and nor is it likely to according to United Nations Scientific Committe on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR).  Either they don't know what they are talking about, it is a UN conspiracy, or too many people have bought into hype sold by the MSM around low-level radiation, including the Japanese government that is completely spooked by radiation levels that are a tiny fraction below levels that could conceivably cause any harm.  Ultra-low levels by health regulations are so low because they are deemed "conservative".  Those conservative levels spooked the government into an evacuation that is responsible itself for hundreds of deaths.  

            Yes, peddling fear of extremely low levels of radiation has killed people, and continues by fostering antinuclear politics.  

            Where I live, we have 10,000MW of nuclear power on our grid.  That is preventing 100,000,000 tons of CO2 emissions every year.  Every plant not built out of such politics of ignorance and fear, will open the door to another 10,000,000 tons of CO2 per year (if its is coal).

            Its about time we started learning FACTS about the true risks of low-level radiation and the risks of NOT using nuclear.  People rarely use science-based reasoning in evaluating risks.

            That's the big problem.

            The intrinsic nature of Power is such that those who seek it most are least qualified to wield it.

            by mojo workin on Thu Feb 21, 2013 at 10:30:19 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  @11 to 13 cents per kwh for new construction (0+ / 0-)

              Nukes are no more competitive on a LCOE basis than solar is now, but solar is trending down and fission is not.

              Right now wind is the cheapest form of new generation @ 6.5 to 3.3 cents per kwh LCOE over 30 years.

              ...... Social Security blogathon March 25th thru March 29th. #HandsOffmySS FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

              by Roger Fox on Thu Feb 21, 2013 at 03:13:57 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  And nukes are getting priced out of the market (0+ / 0-)

            by Wind, and soon solar. So call a WHAAamulance.

            ...... Social Security blogathon March 25th thru March 29th. #HandsOffmySS FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

            by Roger Fox on Thu Feb 21, 2013 at 03:10:35 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site