Skip to main content

Incredible as it may seem, there is only one governmental entity on this planet (this late in the climate change game) that has even attempted a coal phase out.

That's right folks, a rational plan to phase out dangerous fossil fuels and to thus prevent the indiscriminate dumping of dangerous fossil fuel waste (carbon dioxide, heavy metals, sulfur and nitrogen oxides) in the atmosphere is not official policy anywhere except Ontario Canada.

Now, the Ontario plan is not necessarily my cup of tea necessarily because there is a provision to replace one extremely dangerous fossil fuel (coal) with a moderately dangerous fossil fuel (natural gas), but if you look carefully, you will see that whatever its flaws this is the kind of effort that must be attempted.

This is going to be a very short diary and I have no time and thus will dispense with my normal silly polls in this case and simply lay the report before those who may be interested:

Phasing Out Coal.

Anyone who has any question about me by the way, needs to be reminded that I am a nuclear shill who has recently offered some rather involved ideas about how to address the problem of coal.

I will not quote the report directly but I note that it discusses nuclear energy without all of the little snide commentaries that have been drilled into our heads by a rather credulous media over the years.   In other words, the report is simply rational and matter-of-fact.

The coal phase out has not met the original timelines and it has faltered, but no one has surrendered.  

This is the kind of effort of which we need to see more.

Originally posted to NNadir on Thu Jun 21, 2007 at 07:12 PM PDT.

Poll

Where's the poll?

22%7 votes
19%6 votes
3%1 votes
0%0 votes
0%0 votes
3%1 votes
0%0 votes
0%0 votes
0%0 votes
0%0 votes
0%0 votes
3%1 votes
9%3 votes
22%7 votes
16%5 votes

| 31 votes | Vote | Results

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

    •  Isn't a shill (0+ / 0-)

      paid a bit better?

      Come see TV from the reality-based community at RealityBasedTV.com

      by MarkInSanFran on Thu Jun 21, 2007 at 07:13:23 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well I'm a cheap shill. (4+ / 0-)
      •  He got a shirt (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MarkInSanFran, Plan9, willb48

        what more do you expect?

        •  You know, I've only wore it once. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Plan9, Simplify, willb48

          I wore it to my son's second grade class.

          I'll have to wear it tomorrow.   I keep forgetting to put it on.

          I hope I don't have to take up golf to wear it.   It seems depressingly boring.   I've been trying to fight being forced to play golf for years.

          •  I've been shilling here since 2004 & nada, rien (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            LIsoundview, NNadir

            I had been labeled "the worst nuclear shill of all" --regularly accused of collecting monster pay from deadly nuclear power--until you came along and took away my first-place status.  

            I have yet to see one thin dime from the nuclear industry. Or from any energy enterprise. So I am wild with envy about that golf shirt.

            Hmm.  Maybe if my change my tune the coal industry will give me something like, oh, a Tesla . . . .

            The IPCC predicts average global temperatures to rise enough by 2050 to put 20-30% of all species at risk for extinction.

            by Plan9 on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 06:02:57 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  the nvidia gpu cluster or roadster... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Plan9

              both equally lovely... :)

              "The answer to fear cannot always lie in the dissipation of the causes of fear; sometimes it lies in courage."

              by woolie on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 08:34:04 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  I hope I'm not raining on your shill parade. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              LIsoundview, Plan9

              I have made no effort to declare myself either the best nor the worst shill.

              My friend Jerome A Paris is a wind shill.   For some reason though, that seems not to bother anyone at all.   No one runs around saying that "Jerome is the worst wind shill of all."

              If Jerome makes money on the wind business, I have no problem whatsoever with that, none at all.   I would have no objection with wind power producing 10 exajoules, or 20 exajoules or even 50 exajoules of energy in a year.   Now I don't think that will happen, but if it does, there are still hundreds of exajoules of annual energy consumption to be addressed.  

              It is the conceit of the antinuclear industry - which has many many paid advocates, David Lochbaum, for instance - that no one can be for nuclear energy except for venal reasons.   Lochbaum makes money discussing energy, and frankly, his ideas suck.

              The conceit that Lochbaum is honorable and that you and I are not is just another part of the effort to encourage bad thinking.

              Of course, if the nuclear industry paid you hundreds of thousands of Euros, just like the gas industry now pays the architect of the German nuclear phase out - Gerhard Schroeder - hundreds of thousands of Euros, this would not make your statements about nuclear energy either true or untrue.   For example, when Gerhard Schroeder began taking oodles of money from the dangerous fossil fuels industry, this did not instantly render the statement that "Germany cannot phase out fossil fuels with renewable energy" true.   The statement was true before Schroeder took a formal dime and it was true as well after he accepted hundreds of thousands of Euros.

              I have met with representatives of the nuclear industry because I want first hand knowledge of what they do.    This is a perfectly legitimate way to find things out, to go directly to the source.   The people with whom I met were paid to promote nuclear energy.   To my knowledge they did not make one statement that was untrue in our conversations.   Many of the things they told me clearly are true and can be independently verified.

              •  It's an expanding universe (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                NNadir

                . . . there's plenty more room for nuclear shills of our ilk.  And may they be fruitful and multiply!

                I consider your diaries a genuine service to humanity, even at their most cantankerous.

                It is puzzling why Jerome a Paris is never put down as a "paid wind shill", or that people who post claiming that "clean" coal or gas-fired plants could replace nuclear power are never characterized as fossil-fuel shills.

                There was a wind entrepreneur who posted frequently and, unlike Jerome, was always dissing nuclear power and taunting me about being in the pay of the nuclear industry.  Finally I disclosed that I own no stocks of any kind and have no investments in anything whatsoever.  And I asked him to do the same.  He disappeared.

                Like yours, my own experience talking to people in the nuclear power industry and in the field of radiation protection is that they are truthful because they tend to adhere to the scientific method.  Their stories check out because they are based on actual measurements, actual phenomena.

                The IPCC predicts average global temperatures to rise enough by 2050 to put 20-30% of all species at risk for extinction.

                by Plan9 on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 10:47:18 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I think of Jerome as a fine thinker and (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  LIsoundview, Plan9

                  a balanced man.   He has been very careful to obviate his links to the wind industry.

                  He makes some errors rhetorically and otherwise - just as I do - but he is the first to acknowledge them when they are pointed out.

                  His comments on nuclear energy are consistently fair.   He's French of course, and in this case being French helps.

                  Some nuclear activists - not all but some - have something against the wind industry.   I do not.   I may not agree that wind is the greatest thing since sliced bread, but I hope that it will displace some dangerous fossil fuels, in particular, natural gas.   Wind energy deserves the industrial scale trial it is getting.

    •  Premier of Ontario announced plans to Bilderberg (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Turkana

      NNadir, I take an interest in emerging solar, wind and Tesla-type power. However, I cannot understand anyone championing dirty nuclear energy plants.
      I was appalled when the Premier of Ontario announced to assembled Bilderbergers that he was putting in new nuclear plants - before any citizens were consulted. Some of these are to be located in geographically unstable areas.  I do NOT approve.

      •  I think that NNadir is only in favor of (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Plan9, Joffan

        clean nuclear, as am I :-)

        Come see TV from the reality-based community at RealityBasedTV.com

        by MarkInSanFran on Thu Jun 21, 2007 at 07:24:49 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Clean nuclear power? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Turkana

          I do not believe that there are nuclear plants that do not produce toxic by products.  

          •  Pretty much all nuclear power plants (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Ed in Montana, LIsoundview, willb48

            emit extroaordinarily small amounts of toxic anything. Coal plants, otoh, are hugely filthy, spewing all manner of carcinogens, heavy metals, not to mention carbon dioxide, into the air, and these emissions are measured in megatons.

            Come see TV from the reality-based community at RealityBasedTV.com

            by MarkInSanFran on Thu Jun 21, 2007 at 07:41:58 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Coal, mercury, autism (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Turkana

              Yes, I know the connection. Does not excuse or justify use of nuke power.

              •  What is your plan for baseload power supply? (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                LIsoundview

                Coal is provably deadly, killing 24,000 Americans per year.  But it supplies 52% of our electricity and is likely to supply more.  There are plans for 150 new coal fired plants.  But coal is a reliable, steady source of electricity that can meet demand. (At least until it runs out in 100 years, as the National Academy of Sciences has just determined.)

                Hydroelectric power, also baseload electricity, is provably deadly.  Around the world dam failures have killed tens of thousands of people, and over a thousand in the US in the past century.  We get about 5% of our electricity from hydro and that can't be increased.  Due to drought it will probably be shrinking.

                Nuclear power, also a baseload provider, has caused zero deaths in the U.S. and, worldwide, far fewer deaths than are caused every week in the US alone by coal combustion.  Nuclear power has the smallest death rate per terawatt-year of any large-scale electricity source.  And nuclear power is becoming cheaper than coal, and its life cycle greenhouse gas emissions are about the same as, or lower than, wind power.

                Wind and solar and conservation are all fine but they cannot provide baseload energy and even by midcentury if all goes well these renewables will not be providing more than about 20% of US electricity.  

                So what is your plan, if you don't want nuclear power?  I am really curious.  Thanks.

                The IPCC predicts average global temperatures to rise enough by 2050 to put 20-30% of all species at risk for extinction.

                by Plan9 on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 06:20:37 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Why do you place this on me? (0+ / 0-)

                  Plan9, you must have a plan - it's in your name! :)
                  It not logical to assume that because I disapprove of the nuclear energy industry that I have a plan to solve our energy problems.
                  However, I think we had better start listening to Al Gore and understanding Tesla now.

                  •  I place it on you because you contrib to global (0+ / 0-)

                    warming by using electricity.

                    I place the same burden on myself.  That is why, as an environmentalist, I looked into every possible way of mitigating greenhouse gas emissions.  And that is how I came to learn about nuclear power and how it is clean, safe, economical, and the biggest single displacer of greenhouse gas emissions (something Gore knows very well but stays quiet about).  I am in favor of conservation, geothermal, wind, and solar power too.  But they are limited and cannot do the enormous job that faces us. They can provide only a small fraction of the electricity we need and are going to need if we care about our fellow humans.

                    So if you have a better idea than a spectrum of solutions that includes conservation, renewables, and nuclear energy, I sure as hell want to know what it is.

                    And if you don't have any ideas, I politely encourage you to educate yourself about the risks and benefits of various forms of energy generation.  And do so by going to science-based sources--university websites, National Academy of Sciences, etc.  Do not go to Greenpeace because you are going to get phony science and false claims.

                    The IPCC predicts average global temperatures to rise enough by 2050 to put 20-30% of all species at risk for extinction.

                    by Plan9 on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 10:59:31 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

          •  Like all industrial-scale power. (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Ed in Montana, MarkInSanFran, willb48

            but nuclear's by-products are more easily controlled and monitored, keeping the environment clean.

            •  Clean? Nuke waste is used in DU weapons (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              emmasnacker, Turkana

              Depleted Uranium is used by the military industry to harden weapons. On impact, DU burns, vaporizes, goes everywhere, and lasts for more than 4 billion years. How do you control and monitor tonnes of toxic stuff for billions of years?
              What does the future look like? Do a search at Google Images for "depleted uranium babies".

              •  without the demand for enriched uranium (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                LIsoundview, Tigana

                they would have just used natual uranium instead.  The unique properties of uranium, depleted or not, make such good (and disgusting) kenetic weapons that it would have been used regardless.

              •  This abuse of birth-deformed babies (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Plan9

                is one of the anti-nuclear movements moments of shame. These poor children have enough problems without mislabelling their problems for political purposes.

              •  Actually, by far, the most uranium distributed (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Plan9, Tigana, wondering if

                comes from coal fired power plants.

                About 30,000 metric tons of uranium have appeared in coal ash.

                No one ever talks about this, mostly because people don't care what's in dangerous fossil fuel waste.

                Another 3 to 5 billion tons of uranium is dissolved in seawater.

                Here in New Jersey we have significant concentrations of it in our soil because we are geologically on the Reading Pronge formation.   We need to monitor our basements for Radon.

              •  What about lead? Let's ban it too (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Tigana

                Lead is as toxic as DU  and is used in weapons and shielding, but nobody seems worried about it.  Why is that?

                DU is depleted of fissile material.  But it is a toxic heavy metal, just like lead and mercury are.

                The IPCC predicts average global temperatures to rise enough by 2050 to put 20-30% of all species at risk for extinction.

                by Plan9 on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 06:22:17 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  DU and nuclear waste (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                LIsoundview, Matthew B

                Don't obfuscate the term nuclear waste, it's hard enough to discuss it already. Additionally, you keep trying to imply the nuclear power industry is responsible for all kinds of military behaviors. Last time I checked, most of these wars were fought over something very different -- the world's remaining fossil fuels.

                "The answer to fear cannot always lie in the dissipation of the causes of fear; sometimes it lies in courage."

                by woolie on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 08:48:45 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  good point (0+ / 0-)

                  let's make sure that every time that canard pops up in the future the first response is:

                  If it wasn't for fossil fuel, the wars that result in the indiscriminate splattering of DU around the environment wouldn't exist.

              •  Ha indeed. (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                LIsoundview, Plan9
                • Google search
                • French, perhaps real but Greenpeace source so probably not
                • Russian military
                • US military
                • Indian mining
                • US military

                Why do elephants paint their toenails red?
                I don't know
                To hide in cherry trees
                They don't do that
                What, you haven't seen them?
                No
                That shows how well it works then

                •  So radioactive waste is (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Tigana

                  ok if it's leaked by the military?
                  Or by mining?

                  The dreadful health effects are the same.

                  I thought the google just might enlighten you a bit.
                  Sorry.

                  •  We're talking about sources of electricity (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    LIsoundview

                    If you look into toxic effects of heavy metal mining you will find that uranium mining is relatively clean.   Why are you untroubled by the toxic effects and known dangers of coal-mining?  Are you OK about the toxic heavy metals like mercury, lead, and arsenic (and uranium) in coal waste?  

                    Are you OK that coal waste is exempt from hazardous waste restrictions and is stored in the soil, water, and air, and kills 24,000 Americans per year?

                    The IPCC predicts average global temperatures to rise enough by 2050 to put 20-30% of all species at risk for extinction.

                    by Plan9 on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 06:26:36 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  This is false logic, Plan9 (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      emmasnacker

                      If someone is against nuclear waste, that does not mean that they don't care about or turn a blind eye to other toxic metals.

                      •  this is one case where it's black and white (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Plan9

                        Pick coal or nuclear waste.  Anything else as a source of power is a diverting lie.

                        One waste or the other, which do you chose?

                        •  Sorry, the black and the white of it for me (0+ / 0-)

                          is that I choose neither. There is already too much of both thank you very much.
                          There are plenty of power sources available that do not have toxic effects, except maybe if you are a bat, raptor or fish.

                          •  And which of your sources can provide baseload? (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Matthew B

                            "Plenty of power sources" you say.  Would you please name some sources that can power trains, factories, hospitals, schools, etc. reliably, 24/7, and don't need backup?  

                            Wind and solar operate only operate about 1/3 of the time.  By 2020 they may provide 6% of our energy if the DOE is correct.  So where do we get the other 94%?

                            If you refuse fossil-fuel power and nuclear power, and you know that hydroelectric in the US only provides about 5%, how do you propose in the coming decades to generate electricity for the population of the US? I am very eager to know your solution.  

                            Since you think in absolute terms, I am guessing you have an absolute solution.  If we are not going to rely on a spectrum of sources of energy generation (nuclear, renewables), then we are going to need your absolute solution.  

                            Thank you.

                            The IPCC predicts average global temperatures to rise enough by 2050 to put 20-30% of all species at risk for extinction.

                            by Plan9 on Sat Jun 23, 2007 at 06:14:51 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  solar power toxic wastes (0+ / 0-)

                            Do you have any idea how much energy, raw material and toxic chemistry it takes to produce a solar panel or a windmill?  Or did you though until now that solar panels and windmills grow like trees in forest somewhere? You certainly need to do your homework.

                            Besides, did you know that wind only blows sometimes? Have you seen clouds? These sources are chaotic by nature. If you deploy them, you absolutely must back them up woith some spinning reserver - typically a fossil fuel burner.

                            Therefore, the "solar" alternative is from 60-90% depending on location and mix a bad old fossil 'alternative', with all its problems from toxic pollution to climate change.

                  •  What is it about nuclear power (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Plan9

                    that makes people blame the ills of other activities on it?

                    Military activity is not nuclear power
                    Mining is not nuclear power

                    Nuclear power does not have dreadful health effects

                    A Google search is not a reasoned argument

                    OK. enough rant.

                    Leaking nuclear waste is a concern. It needs action. The easy detection of radioactivity usually means that it is caught at levels below serious.

                    But if it's not caused by nuclear power, you should not blame it on nuclear power. Agreed?

                    •  Agreed. I was in a hurry, and didn't (0+ / 0-)

                      look at the links closely enough.
                      That said, with a million and a quarter hits, I'd bet the google contains several more examples of radioactive contamination caused by improper waste storage. I guess you discount the huge Russian leaks as they were from old subs, and not land generation plants?
                      You are right, nuclear power does not have dreadful health effects. Unless the plant leaks, blows, we put it in bombs to spread democracy around the middle east, or the waste escapes it's temporary shelter. Then it does. Look at the pictures of the DU babies. Go ahead, look.

                      Results 1 - 10 of about 1,120,000 for health effects radioactive waste.

                      •  I have mentioned my disgust before (0+ / 0-)

                        about this appalling abuse of birth defect children pictures by the antinukes, on the basis of no evidence whatsoever.

                        And - again - you're talking about the military.

                        •  It might be more appropriate to (0+ / 0-)

                          be disgusted by the cause of the defects. Oh, I understand that the pro-nuke crowd wants to deny the cause. A lot of the people suffering the effects of nuclear waste contamination disagree with you.

                          In 1997, federal medical researchers at the Naval Health Research Center and the CDC determined that babies born to Gulf War veterans were more likely to suffer from certain birth defects including malformations of the eyes, jaw, and spine.

                          Much as you would like to stuff various aspects of the nuke industry into neat little boxes, and ignore half the science, nuke waste is nuke waste, and it's harmful. And it's not just the waste. Pro nuclear people would have us believe that there is nothing coming out of the stacks.

                          According to credible physicists such as Joseph Mangano, national coordinator of the Radiation and Public Health Project, nuclear reactors release more than 100 chemicals into the air. These chemicals are created only in nuclear weapons and reactors. They are radioactive and cause cancer by damaging cells. Each chemical enters the body through breathing and food and affects the body in a different way. For example, Iodine-131 attacks the thyroid gland, Strontium-90 seeks out bone and Cesium-137 disperses through the soft tissue. The fetus and infant with rapidly dividing cells are most affected. Studies of reactor communities have shown increased deaths in babies and increases in childhood cancers...snip

                          Totten also ignores the connection of nuclear power to nuclear weapons proliferation. This issue is extremely well presented in the 2005 book published by the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, a well-respected scientific think tank headed by Arjun Makhijani. Insurmountable Risks: The Dangers of using Nuclear Power to Combat Global Climate Change by Brice Smith addresses the historic connections between nuclear power and nuclear weapons from its inception in the forties with the Manhattan Project. This important connection should not be ignored.

                          •  Mangano and Makhijani have been debunked (0+ / 0-)

                            Even conservative radiation-protection scientists do not accept their shabby research and bogus claims.

                            No nuclear weapon has ever been made from a civilian nuclear plant supplying electricity.  The plutonium is the wrong kind.

                            You cannot compare the dirty business of the former USSR in handling nuclear materials with commercial nuclear power in the U.S.  That would be the same as saying that steel is sometimes used to kill people (in bullets) or has accidentally killed people, so we should not permit the manufacture and use of steel.

                            Spontaneous birth defects occur in the Chernobyl region at the same rate they always have.  Eleven international agencies, like WHO, have conducted intensive studies and analysis of data and have found no increase of birth defects in the region.

                            Chemical pollution has been associated with birth defects, and it is widespread in industrial areas in E. Europe.

                            The IPCC predicts average global temperatures to rise enough by 2050 to put 20-30% of all species at risk for extinction.

                            by Plan9 on Sat Jun 23, 2007 at 06:21:03 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  sure, (0+ / 0-)
                            and all the gulf war vets are oncologists, which means they can be absolutely sure that their cancer is caused by DU and not exposure to traces of chemical warfare agents used in Iraq.

                            (Besides, DU isn't really a byproduct of the nuclear power industry.  It's a byproduct of Jimmy Carter's stupidity.)

                          •  don't engage in the argument on DU projectiles (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Plan9, emmasnacker, Joffan

                            Whether or not DU weapons are causing ill effects is totally irrelevant in the discussion on nuclear power.

                            If it wasn't for the demand of U235, the projectiles would just be natural uranium.

                            And if it wasn't for the use of oil, the war would have never been fought.

                          •  Look I can see you are convinced (0+ / 0-)

                            but this is not evidence. Nowhere near the evidence required for such extraordinary claims. The Gulf War veterans were exposed to a range of complex chemicals and the extreme stress of the battlefield; blaming everything on DU is not only unfounded, it runs counter to the physics of the element and most importantly distracts from the search for the true source of their problems.

                            Your quote from Hattie Nestel (who?) does nothing to convince me that Mangano is anything other than propagandist who picks natural fluctuations in illness to pretend that something is going on that is not. His alarmist claims has been assessed by numerous state medical authorities and have been found baseless on all occasions that I know of.

                            The nuclear power industry has a safety record it can be proud of. Your gut opposition to nuclear power is forced to rely on bullshit for want of real arguments. Please try to separate military use of nuclear materials from civilian. The military uses would exist without any nuclear power sector.

                        •  google antinuclear idiot (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          bryfry

                          google claims 51,100 hits on that one LOL

                          Oh, and by the way, Google's search engines lie about the total number of hits by a factor of 5X to 10X

                          •  But why ... (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Plan9

                            do I have to go searching the internet for an antinuclear idiot, when so many stop by these diaries to exhibit their ignorance?

                            Oh, and by the way, Google's search engines lie about the total number of hits by a factor of 5X to 10X

                            Yeah, but who is going to actually check and count "about 51,000" sites? I wouldn't call it a "lie," since it's an order of magnitude type of calculation. Thanks. I didn't know this, but I'm not surprised.

                          •  off topic (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            bryfry

                            Hm, under 5 minutes to show that they lie by 51X in this case:

                            google's last page of links

                            They let you click ahead 100 at a time so that's only 10 clicks to get to the last page.

                            I have noticed that since google went public that they maximize click through revenue over relevance and their  search engines have grown less and less useful.

                            I wonder if an inflection point will be reached where it gets so bad that their volume of users drops rapidly causing a crash.

                      •  DU is not nuke waste! (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Plan9, emmasnacker

                        Once again I spot the claim that DU is nuclear waste.  OK, so really it is.  It is waste left over from fuel processing.  But the majority of the public believes that nuke waste means radioactive spent fuel.  It is misleading to characterize DU generically as nuclear waste when the public thinks the term means something different.

                        I'm not an expert, but depleted uranium has LESS radioactivity than natural uranium since much of the U235 has been removed.  As has been pointed out several times already, if the military wanted to they could use natural uranium for their projectile weapons.  

                        Linking the military use of DU to the existence of civilian nuclear power is not a rational argument.  Yes, the military uses depleted uranium because it is available (from both military and civilian activities).  But if it were not available, they would use the chemically identical (although isotopically different) natural uranium.

          •  Life cycle of nuclear power is cleaner than solar (0+ / 0-)

            Solar power waste contains toxic heavy metals that, unlike radioactive waste, never decay. And to produce the panels requires toxic gases. Read about it here.

            I am in favor of solar power, limited though it is, but its life cycle emits more greenhouse gases than nuclear power does.  Decommissioned panels by volume will take up far more space than spent nuclear fuel if solar expands.  If a person got all his electricity for his lifetime from nuclear power, his share of the waste would come to two pounds, which could fit in a big coffee mug--since uranium is very dense.

            Nuclear plants do not present a toxic environment.  They are cleaner than any other industrial site you will find, in particular chemical factories, coal-fired plants, and oil refineries.  By law nuclear plants have to be constantly monitoring the water and soil.  I doubt that is true for a wind-turbine factory or a solar-panel factory.

            The IPCC predicts average global temperatures to rise enough by 2050 to put 20-30% of all species at risk for extinction.

            by Plan9 on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 06:13:08 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Oh and, what is tesla-type power? n/t (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Tigana

        Come see TV from the reality-based community at RealityBasedTV.com

        by MarkInSanFran on Thu Jun 21, 2007 at 07:26:19 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Nikola Tesla - wiki (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MarkInSanFran
          •  That is not an energy source (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            LIsoundview, Plan9, willb48

            Solar and wind power, otoh, are energy sources. The tesla method is just a way of transmiting electrical power from on place to another. Very inefficiently also.

            Kind of like hydrogen is not an energy source, since there is no hydrogen around to fill up hydrogen storage tanks with.

            Come see TV from the reality-based community at RealityBasedTV.com

            by MarkInSanFran on Thu Jun 21, 2007 at 07:39:02 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Free energy may be available now (0+ / 0-)
              •  Uhm .. excuse me (0+ / 0-)

                You do realize that the link that you pointed to is about a conspiracy theory, don't you? What's next? UFO's?

                Sorry, but your link really deserves to be lumped with several other links of similar credibility.

              •  Free energy - Wikipedia (0+ / 0-)

                http://en.wikipedia.org/...

                So, bryfy, you know all about Tesla? :)

                •  About Nikola Tesla (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Plan9

                  I am an electrical engineer so I know a little about Nikola Tesla.  He was a genius who created many concepts that are indispensable today: three phase transmission, the induction motor (I think), he held a patent for an electrical transformer, he even built a radio-controlled boat.  Tesla was arguably one of the brightest minds, ever.  But that does not mean he was always right.  None of us are.  His genius did not stretch to his business sense, so he died impoverished (which was a crying shame considering what he created during his life).

                  Robert A. Heinlein said it often in his fiction: "TANSTAAFL"  There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.  

                  About free energy:

                  Solar power is free energy.  It is there every day, in full strength if you get above the clouds.  Well, it's free after you pay for the PV panels...  

                  Hydroelectricity is free energy.  Well, it's free after you build a dam and flood many square miles of quaint riverside land...

                  Geothermal is free energy.  Well, it's free after you drill the holes and build the plant and pay people to operate and maintain the plant...

                  Distributed wind energy (a wind turbine on every rooftop) is free energy, every time the wind blows.  Well it's free after you pay for the turbine and inverter and battery storage system to carry you through those pesky light-wind days...

                  Nikola Tesla appears to have had a theory about using natural fields and/or space charges as sources of free energy.  Well, it would be free after the energy collectors were built...

                  TANSTAAFL!

                  •  fossil fuel and nuclear is free too (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Plan9

                    Fossil fuels can be dug up and burned for free, they're just sitting there in the ground doing nothing anyways.  Of course ignore the costs of digging it up and the equipment to burn it.  Which is less than the cost of a solar panel.  And of course ignore the environmental costs.

                    Nuclear is free - just put enough of the right concentrated minerals in close proximity and endless energy!!!

                  •  No free energy (0+ / 0-)

                    Thanks, Brad...no free energy, no perpetual motion. Um, what makes the universe go round?

                    •  Stop wasting our time (0+ / 0-)

                      "The answer to fear cannot always lie in the dissipation of the causes of fear; sometimes it lies in courage."

                      by woolie on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 02:24:23 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Do you know what Chernobyl did to people? (0+ / 0-)

                        http://inmotion.magnumphotos.com/...

                        This photoessay shows a little of what the nuclear plant disaster at Chernobyl (1985) did to the area around the town, and to people who weren't even anywhere near. The Russians stopped the aerial spread all over Europe only by seeding clouds, and it rained on the next country - Belarus.
                        So, Woolie, I don't think we have any time to waste in exploring new energy and getting rid of nuclear plants.

                        •  Cporrection - 1986 nt (0+ / 0-)
                        •  The Educated Person Will Be Aware of Chernobyl. (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Plan9

                          I have described in some detail in a diary here a work of critical analysis done by a Ukranian-American who became so obsessed with the details that she abandoned her American life and went to live in Ukraine to examine the situation in exhaustive detail.

                          Wormwood Forest: A Natural History of Chernobyl," Some Comments

                          I highly recommend this book - with the caveats I listed in the discussion - for the educated person.

                          I have spent many hours thinking about Chernobyl because in my position I am continually challenged on this subject.

                          My position on the subject is clear.   It is regrettable in every way that there is a special fetish for the victims of Chernobyl to the exclusion of the hundreds of millions of people - and quite possibly more - who are likely to be effected by climate change.

                          Several thousand people have died in the last few years in the Ukraine from coal mining related disasters, and many more have been killed by air pollution from burning coal - brown coal in that country.

                          Right now the country is experiencing an unprecedneted doubt, almost certainly related to climate change.

                          It is interesting to note that Ukraine - even though that country knows far more about Chernobyl than you do - is planning a major expansion of nuclear power.

                          The well educated person is situated as to be able to do comparisons.   It is strictly true on a profound level that nuclear energy is the only form of energy that can properly be required to be perfect to be acceptable.  No form of energy is perfect but it is very, very, very, very clear to the educated person that some forms are more dangerous - by far - than others.

                          If Chernobyl has wiped out the city of Kiev - and in fact there is some evidence that the city of Kiev is still there - it is very unlikely that it would have been quite as castrophic as any of the last 20 years of unrestricted normal fossil fuel operations.   In fact though, Chernobyl did not wipe out the city of Kiev.

                          It is arbitrary to declare that the Chernobyl disaster - as regrettable as it was - is the only energy disaster that matters.

                          In fact the largest energy disaster in the 20th century - one that killed hundreds of people in a single night, unremarked by the people who have a special Chernobyl fetish - was a renewable energy disaster.

                          It was at the Banqiao dam.   Many educated people in fact ignore this disaster - a position that is extremely arbitrary and, in fact, in light of the Three Gorges Dam, a little bit strange.

                          Unlike the continuous stream of fossil fuel related deaths, both accidental and systematic, i.e. continuous, the Chernobyl disaster was never repeated, not even in RBMK diasters.   By contrast there is no way to stop fossil fuel disasters, if even their mechanism is well understood.

                          As bad as the Banqiao dam disaster was, it will pale in comparison to the destruction of Yangtze River from climate change.   I have attempted in the linked diary to estimate the magnitude of such destruction, comparing it in scale to things like the Second World War.

                          I have had to repeat this viewpoint many times, so many times that it has largely become second nature.   It will be a much safer world when the deaths of 100 Russian coal miners last month - all of whom are already forgotten - becomes as important as the deaths of the Chernobyl victims 20 years ago.   It will be a safer world when the people who will die from air pollution tomorrow count 1/100th as the Chernobyl victims.

                          •  Can we find a way to clean energy? (0+ / 0-)

                            I am glad that you grapple with the dangers of all energy industries. However, it is false logic to suggest that coal's problems, or those of dams, make those of nuclear power desirable. I hope we are fortunate and intelligent enough find a way to clean energy.

                          •  it's ridiculous (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Plan9

                            to make a claim to any kind of "free energy" perpetual motion machine, much less to argue there's a conspiracy theory behind it.

                            I'd recommend a primer on thermodynamics and conservation of energy.

                            "The answer to fear cannot always lie in the dissipation of the causes of fear; sometimes it lies in courage."

                            by woolie on Sat Jun 23, 2007 at 08:27:38 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Tesla and clean energy will suit me fine (0+ / 0-)

                            Woolie, I didn't make a claim that there is a perpetual motion machine, though I  wonder how the universe never runs out of energy.
                            I am very interested in alternatives to the energy sources we have now. What book do you recommend?

                          •  Because universe is running on nuclear energy (0+ / 0-)

                            which is plentiful.

                            Go it?

                          •  actually (0+ / 0-)

                            the amount of energy in the universe is constant. however, entropy increases over time, until the energy gradient across the cosmos is zero.

                            "The answer to fear cannot always lie in the dissipation of the causes of fear; sometimes it lies in courage."

                            by woolie on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 08:02:24 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  China and India don't count (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Plan9

                            The developing world doesn't even exist to most people in this country.. in particular people making claims about the power of wind and solar, carefully neglecting the fact the developed world became that way by massive burning of fossil fuels and the expenditure of energy that was required to build the infrastructure and cities of the first world.

                            "The answer to fear cannot always lie in the dissipation of the causes of fear; sometimes it lies in courage."

                            by woolie on Sat Jun 23, 2007 at 08:18:49 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                •  Free Energy? (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Plan9

                  Now, when you refer to "free energy," are you talking about Gibbs free energy or Helmholtz free energy, because they're not the same thing, you know?

                  Sorry ... just a little physics joke.

                  And Tesla? Of course I know about Nikola Tesla. My background is in physics, so I suspect I know far more about Tesla, his work, and the theoretical basis behind most of his work than you do. Judging from your comments, I would say that all that you know about Tesla seems to have come from what you have read at some conspiracy theory website that you found on the internet.

                  As a physicist or at least a physics-minded person, I should point out that nuclear energy is the only source of free energy that is available today, since it is the only process by which energy is actually created. That is, a small part of the mass of the atom is converted directly into energy when the fission process occurs. All other "sources" of energy really are just transfers of energy from one form to another -- chemical to thermal to mechanical to electrical, etc., and usually ultimately to thermal -- along with the resulting increases in entropy that accompany the processes and make them irreversible.

                  Energy (or mass and energy in the case of subatomic processes) is never created or destroyed. When we talk about energy being wasted, we mean that the energy has been put into a form from which it is unsuitable to extract and convert to a useful form. Usually this is because the energy has become so dispersed that nothing useful can be done with it.

                  The huge advantage that nuclear energy has is that such a small amount of material can provide enormous amounts of energy. Nothing else can compare.

                  On the other end of the spectrum, so-called "renewable energy" sources are very diffuse, which is why they require such large amounts of material and resources to collect this energy and convert it to a useful form (usually electricity). This in itself is not an insurmountable problem, but it does make these sources more expensive and also results in a larger environmental footprint than less diffuse energy sources. If, however, one is willing to spend the resources and sacrifice the space, then they are feasible.

                  Wind and solar energy suffer from a more important drawback, however; they are not reliable sources. Try as we might, we cannot control the weather to make the wind blow and the sun shine when we need it. This, in my opinion, is ultimately what will limit the fraction of our energy needs that can be provided by these technologies, and all of the experience that we have with them worldwide supports my opinion.

                  As for Tesla's ideas about "free energy" (probably just another idea to collect energy from a diffuse source), whatever he was thinking about died with him. Whether it was feasible or not will never be known.

      •  Dalton McGuinty was called saurian kitten-eater (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MarkInSanFran

        SaintDaltontigjpg

      •  I don't buy your description of nuclear plants. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Ed in Montana, willb48

        It's actually quite silly.

        Nuclear plants are not covered with soot.

        I certainly would have no problem with solar energy providing one exajoule of the 470 exajoules of energy now consumed on the planet.   On the other hand I am not convinced that the solar industry is competent to produce one exajoule, since 50 years of cheering for it has (loudly too) has failed to produce an exajoule.

        I'm not willing to wait 500 years for everybody's pet fantasy to play out.   I claim we need action now and our options are clear.

        Either climate change is a serious matter needing immediate attention or it is not.

        There is no such thing as risk free energy.   There is only risk minimized energy.   That energy is nuclear energy.

        The External Cost of Energy (and hence the nature of "dirty") is discussed here.

      •  Premier of Ontario is named Dalton McGuinty (0+ / 0-)

        tidying up here, ref to cartoon below

  •  please explain (0+ / 0-)

    on your podcastnetwork link, it says you are "nnadir of the dailykos." in what way are you "of" dailykos? does that not imply some sort of official relationship? shouldn't you have explained to them that you simply blog here, as do tens of thousands of other random people, as on any public board, but that the only people really "of the dailykos" are the people markos has appointed as administrators?

    © 2007 "one must pay back from this secret deposit of exquisite moments" - virginia woolf

    by Laurence Lewis on Thu Jun 21, 2007 at 07:14:37 PM PDT

    •  Although perhaps the (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      OCD, Simplify

      nadir of tact, he's really a nice guy :-)

      Come see TV from the reality-based community at RealityBasedTV.com

      by MarkInSanFran on Thu Jun 21, 2007 at 07:17:05 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Although (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MarkInSanFran

        He never answers my questions about pebble reactors :(

        Maybe if I title a comment "NNAdir is a shill!" and ask the question, he will read it.

        Experience may differ in online play...

        by OCD on Thu Jun 21, 2007 at 07:36:09 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'd like to hear (0+ / 0-)

          about that as well :-)

          Come see TV from the reality-based community at RealityBasedTV.com

          by MarkInSanFran on Thu Jun 21, 2007 at 07:44:47 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  I'm sorry. I will get to this point. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          OCD

          Right now, though, I'm going to bed.

        •  I have not forgotten your request. (0+ / 0-)

          The pebble bed concept has not been my favorite actually and so I've not become as expert as I might have done.   I have tended to focus on types of reactors that would be of more interest to a chemist with an eye to fuel recycling strategies.

          That said, I am willing to have my mind changed, if appropriate.

          I'm going to discuss the concept further with someone who knows quite a bit more than I do about helium based gas cooled reactors (of which the pebble bed is a type) Rod Adams.   Our conversation will be available on line as audio as part of Rod's "Atomic Show."   You may wish to listen in while I learn more, or if you prefer, you can ask me after my conversation with Rod (remind me in a future) diary.

    •  I didn't write the description of myself. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      willb48

      You write things about me describing me, but this hardly implies that I am responsible for what you say about me.  God forbid.

      As it happens, if one googles "NNadir" one can find all sorts of people who say all sorts of things about me and my ideas.  Many refer to my writings here.

      In fact I don't believe that Daily Kos endorses everything everyone writes here.   For instance, there are people who write articles about how wonderful Dennis Kucinich is, but I don't think that this is a special program endorsed by Kos.   Now, personally I think Dennis Kucinich is a fool, but simply because I write at Kos where other people spend lots of time writing in favor of Kucinich, doesn't mean I endorse Kucinich.

      I might be wrong about that and if you have special insight, it might behoove you to point it out.

      I am a blogger at Daily Kos.  I write here often.   I say what I say frequently, like say, oh, a zillion other writers on political blogs.

      I think the intelligent reader can figure this out in modern times.   I believe that millions of people blog these days.

      I have certainly never represented that I own or control Daily Kos.

      Do you own or control Daily Kos?   If so, given your contempt for me and my ideas, it is curious that you have not prevented me from writing here.

      •  really (0+ / 0-)

        they came up with that on their own? just out of the blue, they decided to say you were "of the dailykos"? and even if they did somehow come up with that on their own, you don't think, in the interest of honesty, that you should have corrected them? the intelligent reader of that site, who knows nothing of this site, might assume you speak for this site, and its name recognition confers some sort of legitimacy to you.

        i do not speak for dailykos. i speak for myself. i would never allow some public site to claim i am "of" dailykos. that would not only be dishonest, it would be disrespectful to markos and the administators.

        © 2007 "one must pay back from this secret deposit of exquisite moments" - virginia woolf

        by Laurence Lewis on Thu Jun 21, 2007 at 07:44:27 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Rod Adams became familiar with my ideas (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          willb48

          on reading Daily Kos.

          I am sorry that you think I am a liar.   I have you a chance to express as much in the poll.

          Rod Adams, who I have personally met and who I like very much, is a very fine man and a graduate of the United States Naval Academy at Annapolis.   He is smart and he is honorable, quite frankly, an officer and a gentleman.   He majored in the English langauge at Annapolis although later he went on to operate nuclear reactors.   Since Rod Adams has formally studied the English language, I am not going to engage in a piddling conversation with you about his use of prepositions.

          Next comes the part where you troll rate me because you hate my ideas and wish to engage in mindless distractions.

          You are now free to flail away with your silly diversions from the subject at hand, which is in fact, not a personal tirade of the type in which I have regrettably engaged with you before.   Either you have something to say about coal phase outs or you don't.   I suspect you don't have anything to say about coal phase outs.  You never do.

          This conversation is concluded.

          •  Hey kids (0+ / 0-)

            let's have a timeout here, mkay? :-)

            Come see TV from the reality-based community at RealityBasedTV.com

            by MarkInSanFran on Thu Jun 21, 2007 at 07:57:26 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  and if he came up with that on his own (0+ / 0-)

            you still don't believe it your responsibility to correct him? i'm not questioning him, i'm questioning you. you know very well that this isn't about his use of prepositions, it's about the clear implication that you have some sort of legitimacy because you are "of" dailykos. you are not. you do not.

            © 2007 "one must pay back from this secret deposit of exquisite moments" - virginia woolf

            by Laurence Lewis on Thu Jun 21, 2007 at 08:01:35 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Might I suggest (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              mataliandy, Turkana

              that the best step forward is ...

              "NNadir -- will you ask to have this description changed?"

              Personally, I think this thread could have started more productively, even if angrily, with "I'm a bit pissed off to read XXX bio which makes it sound like you are a front-pager or some other major figure here. Could you help me understand it?" And, then, after a post or two, to move to "Are you going to change it/have it changed?"

              And, well, NNadir -- will you ask to have the description changed?

              Blogging regularly at Ecotality Blog for a Sustainable Future.

              by A Siegel on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 12:31:48 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Huh? (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Plan9

                Rod Adams's introduction to his podcast begins:

                NNadir, a popular diarist from The Daily Kos ...

                What needs to be changed? How is this confusing or misleading? I think that Rod has stated precisely what NNadir's connection with the Daily Kos is.

                Essentially, this person (Turkana) is just being a pain in the ass. It wouldn't be the first time that this has happened.

                •  actually (0+ / 0-)

                  maybe you missed this part:

                  NNadir of The Daily Kos stopped by for a visit

                  and to be factual- it's not even honest to call him "popular." if someone who has maybe a dozen fans, has never hit the rec list, and has never even had a top mojo comment is "popular," then there are maybe 100,000 popular diarists on dailykos.

                  © 2007 "one must pay back from this secret deposit of exquisite moments" - virginia woolf

                  by Laurence Lewis on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 02:21:23 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  And? (0+ / 0-)

                    No, I saw that. It's right there, just below the part where Rod introduces him as a diarist. Do you really think that people are going to be confused and assume that NNadir owns the site or something?! Geez! Give people some credit for common sense.

                    "Popular" is a subjective term. Perhaps Rod thinks that NNadir is popular with his listeners. I don't know. How petty can you get?!!

                    Now would you actually like to post something that is relevant to the topic of this diary? Or can you do nothing more that whine about petty BS?

                    •  uh- yeah (0+ / 0-)

                      i do. and the opinion of someone who, curiously, oly appears on this site to support nnadir's diaries doesn't exactly matter to me. or impress me.

                      © 2007 "one must pay back from this secret deposit of exquisite moments" - virginia woolf

                      by Laurence Lewis on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 10:10:26 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Heh ... whatever (0+ / 0-)

                        I'm not here to impress, and I'll talk about what I want to talk about.

                        At least I'm capable of staying on topic, except that is when I'm trading quips with fools like you. Fortunately, that is a bad habit that I am sincerely trying to break, and in that vein, I am ending my part in this petty, trivial discussion.

                        •  actually (0+ / 0-)

                          the petty fool is the one defending someone who is consistently, um, how to be polite- less than honestly engaging with this community (well, with the tiny fraction of the community that notices his "popularity"). and i didn't troll rate you for the personal swipes, because you have no purpose, credibility, or visibility on this site- but next time, i will.

                          © 2007 "one must pay back from this secret deposit of exquisite moments" - virginia woolf

                          by Laurence Lewis on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 10:37:12 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  You disagree with BryFry (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            LIsoundview

                            and that's why you want to troll-rate him.  But that is very poor Kossack etiquette.  If he was saying wise-guy things about an enemy of yours, you would not threaten troll-rating, would you?

                            If you are concerned about the integrity of DailyKos, I encourage you to uphold its values about free discussion.  As it happens BryFry's contributions are often useful, educational, and pro-environment.  He has a good understanding of different forms of energy use.  He just does not agree with your particular ideology.

                            The IPCC predicts average global temperatures to rise enough by 2050 to put 20-30% of all species at risk for extinction.

                            by Plan9 on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 11:04:41 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  no (0+ / 0-)

                            he made personal attacks. i never troll-rate for disagreements, and nadir's characterizing my having tr'd him for disagreement is typical of his "honesty." i tr'd him for, typically, mischaracterizing the arguments of those who disagree with him. you people just can't discuss these things without skewing, can you? nice try.

                            © 2007 "one must pay back from this secret deposit of exquisite moments" - virginia woolf

                            by Laurence Lewis on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 11:18:59 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You are mischaracterizing my argument (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            LIsoundview

                            --but that happens all the time when people feel strongly about something.  It is not cause for troll-rating.

                            I suggest you look up troll-rating on this site: FAQ.

                            As you can see, there are a number of us who are terribly worried about catastrophic global warming--enough so that we are discussing ways it greenhouse gases can be mitigated.  That's what's important here.  I want to hear your ideas about how we can eliminate fossil fuels while still producing enough electricity to preserve public health and the services we enjoy as a civilized society--like being able to have this dialogue online.  I assume you are using electricity that was produced by burning fossil fuels in order to visit this diary, so therefore you have a role, as do I, in this extremely urgent matter.

                            If people make petty remarks, so what? I don't think anyone posting here is a troll from Free Republic or some other loopy nonprogressive nest of vipers.

                            The IPCC predicts average global temperatures to rise enough by 2050 to put 20-30% of all species at risk for extinction.

                            by Plan9 on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 11:26:53 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  actually (0+ / 0-)

                            i use hydro and solar for most of my energy use, but keep trying. my credibility promoting conservation and alternative energy sources is well-known. nnadir's monomaniacal focus on nukes, while disparaging all other alternatives, also is. keep trying. you guys are so alike it's laughable.

                            © 2007 "one must pay back from this secret deposit of exquisite moments" - virginia woolf

                            by Laurence Lewis on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 11:30:16 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  need for many solutions (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Plan9

                            NNadir's disparaging comments, and that of many others who comment here, are based on the reality that conservation, wind, solar, hydro, etc. are going to be insufficient to provide for the energy needs of 6 billion people to 1st world standards, much less new requirements for energy in the future, or population growth. If anything you should recognize it as a progressive perspective. Many people on this site who even you find credible recognize this reality: an energy gap between available "green" renewable resources available (or hard limits on collection, intermittency, siting, etc.) that will need to be filled by a site-independent baseload technology, of which the two main contenders (without any far-future theoretical handwaving) are nuclear and fossil fuels. Either that or mass-migration/die-off, which I have seen a surprising amount of enthusiasm for in certain circles (justified something along the lines of 'Earths Revenge')

                            Hydro and solar are convenient for you perhaps, but keep in mind how many places where the wind doesn't blow, the land is flat, and the sun doesn't shine much. Personally, I began to question what your agenda was after the TR'ing of NNadir and bryfry, which I felt was completely uncalled for.

                            "The answer to fear cannot always lie in the dissipation of the causes of fear; sometimes it lies in courage."

                            by woolie on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 12:05:04 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  another lie (0+ / 0-)

                            where have i tr'd bryfry? and i only tr'd nadir after he again lied about my stance on fossil fuels. there's a pathological dishonesty among those who try to promote nukes as the solution to fossil fuels. keep trying.

                            © 2007 "one must pay back from this secret deposit of exquisite moments" - virginia woolf

                            by Laurence Lewis on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 03:59:49 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  interesting (0+ / 0-)

                            i just realized you're the third person arguing with me who only appears on this site to support nadir. this is getting more and more interesting.

                            © 2007 "one must pay back from this secret deposit of exquisite moments" - virginia woolf

                            by Laurence Lewis on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 08:56:37 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Our vast nuclear conspiracy (0+ / 0-)

                            Since you have noticed that people who read NNadir's diaries are also concerned about catastrophic global warming and the daily death toll from fossil fuel combustion and the wars caused by fossil-fuel demand, I am going to let you in on a little secret.

                            Many environmentalists, like James "Gaia" Lovelock and like the head of Environmental Defense have recognized that nuclear power, as the single biggest displacer of greenhouse gases on the planet, has got to be expanded.  A large-scale technology with the best safety record provides clean energy worldwide and has a small environmental footprint and an extremely small volume of waste that is always shielded and monitored and can be recycled many, many times.

                            So there are not just the people who agree with NNadir on this diary, there are thousands of us pro-nuclear-power enviros out there.  You can go to this top-secret site to find out more.

                            And you might want to take a look at Brookhaven National Lab's analysis about the risks that would accompany ramping photovoltaics up to a greater scale.

                            If you think wind and solar are not being fostered by megacorporations but rather by friendly guys in Birkenstocks in Woodstock and Berkeley, think again.  All the big energy corporations are at the trough slurping up those subsidies and tax breaks.

                            The IPCC predicts average global temperatures to rise enough by 2050 to put 20-30% of all species at risk for extinction.

                            by Plan9 on Sat Jun 23, 2007 at 06:44:57 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  i notice (0+ / 0-)

                            that their only solution is nukes. all roads lead to nukes. people genuinely worried about global warming talk about it, the politics of it, the various possible solutions for it. nadir and hi handful of kool-aid friends talk about nukes. and nukes. and nukes. yes, they're to be taken seriously. you participate in daily kos, and have for a long time. they don't. except to talk about nukes. and more nukes.

                            © 2007 "one must pay back from this secret deposit of exquisite moments" - virginia woolf

                            by Laurence Lewis on Sat Jun 23, 2007 at 08:52:07 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  But your solution seems to be (0+ / 0-)

                            to continue burning fossil fuels to obtain baseload electricity in the hope that somehow the waste gets sequestered.  Am I correct?  You have quoted NRDC and that seems to be their answer to the gap left if you eliminate nuclear power and hope renewables will somehow increase to supply a huge proportion.

                            NNadir does write about other topics, BTW.  And in fact those of us who are interested in what he has to say about nuclear power are treated to his digressions on his decidedly Democratic leanings, interest in certain heroic and maligned figures (Lise Meitner, for example; thanks to her discovery, members of my family and friends have been successfully treated for cancer).

                            And NNadir usually includes alternative energy sources in his vision of the future of electricity production in the US.  You are the one who seems to disparage and exclude, and to support fossil fuel combustion.  In a suspicious person that could raise the question of whether you are a shill for the coal industry and the question of how much the coal industry contributes to NRDC.

                            But I am not interested in conspiracies.  I am interested in how best to deal with catastrophic global warming and to clear up entrenched misperceptions that shape the attitudes of well-meaning folks like you, Mr. Turkana.

                            The IPCC predicts average global temperatures to rise enough by 2050 to put 20-30% of all species at risk for extinction.

                            by Plan9 on Sat Jun 23, 2007 at 10:21:47 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I wouldn't say "leanings" exactly. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Plan9

                            I have voted in every election in my adult life and I have voted for as long as I can remember straight party line.  

                            This may sound as if I am something of an automaton, but I feel justifiably proud of my record nonetheless.

                            I am not always thrilled with Democratic candidates - I was hardly bowled over by Michael Dukakis for instance - but I have always been aware of the alternative.   In 1988 I was decidedly unhappy with my party's choice, but I accepted it.

                          •  you can call me if you like (0+ / 0-)

                            I read the front page every day and most of the recommended diaries, but this is the only diary I like to comment on. If you need proof that I'm not a proxy for NNadir, it's easily arranged. I thought you had also TR'd bryfry -- there were alot of tr's going on that day and you had at least a few. I'll go back and double check.

                            "The answer to fear cannot always lie in the dissipation of the causes of fear; sometimes it lies in courage."

                            by woolie on Sat Jun 23, 2007 at 07:59:12 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  actually (0+ / 0-)

                            i only tr'd nadir once, that i recall, on that day. and how interesting that the only diarist you comment on is one of the least popular, and least visible. but he does talk about nukes.

                            © 2007 "one must pay back from this secret deposit of exquisite moments" - virginia woolf

                            by Laurence Lewis on Sat Jun 23, 2007 at 08:53:33 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  yes (0+ / 0-)

                            because I'm interested in nuclear energy and because I enjoy NNadir's prose on the subject. I converse in many spaces online, this is just one of them. I guess if you want to call NNadir the least popular and least visible on this site, fine, doesn't negate the fact his typical diary has 100+ comments, among them jerome a paris, adam siegel, engineer poet, etc., and apparently you also feel inclined to chime in on nearly every diary. Additionally, a number of nuclear professionals enliven and enrich these pages. It's quite a happening spot for pronuclear activists on the internet.

                            Anyway, I find the charge of 'sock puppet' interesting. I used my real name on this site previously (also to comment on NNadir's diaries) but decided I wanted an intermediate step between my real name and my comments. If you care, my real name, contact info, and many details about my life can be found here / here.

                            I plan to start my own nuclear energy diary on this site soon; the first entry will concern the intent of NRG/STNP to apply for a COL license at a meeting NRC is holding in Bay City next Wednesday.

                            "The answer to fear cannot always lie in the dissipation of the causes of fear; sometimes it lies in courage."

                            by woolie on Sat Jun 23, 2007 at 02:46:36 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  how very interesting (0+ / 0-)

                            that the leading left wing political blog should increasingly be spammed by pro-nuclear activists who have no apparent other interest in the site's declared purpose.

                            © 2007 "one must pay back from this secret deposit of exquisite moments" - virginia woolf

                            by Laurence Lewis on Sat Jun 23, 2007 at 11:52:26 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Unless the site's declared purpose ... (0+ / 0-)

                            is "willful ignorance," then I would think that the online community here would be pleased and grateful that people take time to stop by and share information on a topic on which they are quite knowledgeable.

                            But then again, since you are someone who has actually posted a poll with only one choice, I can see that you are a person who is not used to debate and dissenting opinions. It has been my displeasure to have met many people like you, who would rather sit in a room with others who agree with them -- all nodding their heads "yes" and reciting the same dogma -- than go outside to discover an opposing view or try to learn anything new.

                            Fortunately, although you seem to take it upon yourself to speak for this entire site, I don't think that everyone here is as close-minded as you. So if you do not like what is being discussed here, I suggest that you return to whatever little corner of blogspace that you came out of. At least everyone agrees with you there, so you should be happy.

                          •  wow (0+ / 0-)

                            you're clearly too clueless to even understand the way this site works. that little diary actually made the recommended list for its playfulness. that playful little diary was better received by this community than anything the "popular" diarist nnadir has written. i will simply let the site know what you all are up to, and the community can decide how best to deal with you.

                            © 2007 "one must pay back from this secret deposit of exquisite moments" - virginia woolf

                            by Laurence Lewis on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 11:22:59 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Wow is right! (0+ / 0-)

                            that little diary actually made the recommended list for its playfulness. that playful little diary was better received by this community than anything the "popular" diarist nnadir has written.

                            Like the accompanying poll, that little diary was pathetic. It is completely dwarfed, both in content and style, by even the smallest, most hastily-crafted throw-away diary that NNadir has ever produced. Hell! You couldn't even get the math right (hint: 2007 - 1981 = 26 years ... not 25 years, you math wiz you!), making your one poll choice completely stupid. Congratulations on your utter incompetence.

                            If your crappy little diary entry was that popular, then this only speaks to the number of morons like yourself who visit this site. That said, I don't believe that everyone here, coming from the various corners of the internet and from all parts of the democratic party, is as stupid as you. Thus, these diaries -- and these comments, including mine -- are meant for the thinking person, and I believe that they are doing some good. Unlike you, I don't require everyone in the world to agree with everything I say. All I ask is that they give my words a little rational thought. Judging from your comments, that is something that you have never done.

                            i will simply let the site know what you all are up to, and the community can decide how best to deal with you.

                            Ha ha ha ha ha ... go for it!

                            (You know, there are two little buttons on your keyboard that allow you to type capital letters. It's not that difficult to do. Even children can do it.)

                          •  He/She really really (0+ / 0-)

                            likes titling diaries with exclamation points too!

                          •  Thanks, I hadn't noticed (0+ / 0-)

                            So Turkana does know how to use the shift key!

                            Wait ... perhaps I'm being to hasty. After all, some non-English keyboards (e.g., the azerty keyboard) do not require one to use the shift key to get an exclamation point.

                          •  excuse me? (0+ / 0-)

                            I come from a family of progressives (in action, not just ideology) and have been a progressive democrat my entire life. Despite what you may think, you are not the arbiter of acceptable discourse on this site. As I said earlier, I believe nuclear power is a progressive cause. It's an environmental cause. You've really failed to convince me otherwise in this space.

                            Actually I think my diaries here will be even more rewarding, knowing it's going against your dictums about acceptable progressive causes. I'll be sure to spam them all over the place.

                            "The answer to fear cannot always lie in the dissipation of the causes of fear; sometimes it lies in courage."

                            by woolie on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 10:01:22 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Might I suggest .. (0+ / 0-)

                            that your first diary (under this pen name) be about what you think it is to be progressive. I know that I would be interested in reading about that. Thanks.

                          •  first diary under this pen name (0+ / 0-)

                            so he has used previous ones? i would be vdery interested to know which ones, why he's using a different one, and how you know so much about it.

                            © 2007 "one must pay back from this secret deposit of exquisite moments" - virginia woolf

                            by Laurence Lewis on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 11:25:00 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Can you read? (0+ / 0-)

                            Or do you just shoot off your mouth at random?

                            This commenter has clearly stated above that he used to post under his real name, but now he uses the identity that he is using to post here. I have no idea when or where he has posted what on the internet, but it is true that he has not yet posted any diaries under this identity. He has stated, however, that he intends to begin his own series of diaries, and I wish him luck. Thus, the next diary that he posts will be his first ... duh. That's right, I forgot that you have trouble with math.

                          •  you nuke trolls are fun (0+ / 0-)

                            and i've enjoyed revealing you. as i will continue to.

                            © 2007 "one must pay back from this secret deposit of exquisite moments" - virginia woolf

                            by Laurence Lewis on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 12:26:45 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I am glad (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Matthew B, woolie

                            that we "trolls" can provide you with some entertainment. Hopefully, one of these days, you will actually write something that is relevant to the topics that are being discussed here.

                            On the topic of trolls, it is interesting to see what the site has to say about this:

                            What all these things have in common is that they represent content that is irrelevant to the thread, or intentionally disruptive of the goals of the conversation, or seek to poison the atmosphere in which conversation can take place at all. That is trolling.

                            In my opinion, and I hardly think that I'm alone, every one of your comments in this diary entry fall into this category. Add in the little bit about the pro-nuclear conspiracy theories that you have insinuated in some of your later comments (see the section on "Conspiracy Trolls"), and I think that your behavior here makes you a first-rate troll. Congratulations.

                          •  interesting (0+ / 0-)
                            Apparently you comment not to further discussion, but to provoke others, an activity which defines a troll.  Being a troll is nothing to be proud of.
                          •  hope you do (0+ / 0-)

                            the community can decide how to deal with your spamming. if you do it with the charm and wit of nnadir, i'm sure you will be just as "popular."

                            © 2007 "one must pay back from this secret deposit of exquisite moments" - virginia woolf

                            by Laurence Lewis on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 11:24:09 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I'm one too (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Plan9

                            I came here because of a link provided by NEI.

                            I think what NNadir is doing is wonderful.  For some reason us on the left have missed the boat on nuclear.  We should be the lead in promoting it over the fossil fuel industry that's the darling of the right.

                            The only reason I can think of for you bring up NNadir's groupies is to make an ad hominem logical fallacy.  Can't refute what they say, so attack the person.

                          •  Not all of us missed it. (0+ / 0-)

                            Hans Bethe, Democrat, was a tireless promoter of nuclear energy.

                            I only recently became aware of the fact that Glenn Seaborg was also a great Democrat besides a great scientist, and a great diplomat.

                            Many of the nuclear pioneers were on the left.   On some level this is entirely natural.

                          •  But you also favor fossil fuels (0+ / 0-)

                            You happen to live where hydro power is available.  You happen to be rich enough to buy solar technology.

                            But you like to quote the NRDC argument favoring coal-fired plants over nuclear ones (though NRDC is softening its anti-nuke stance).  And I think about your position and wonder whether it is actually possible to invent a coal-fired plant that does not emit deadly, global-warming waste.  I hope someone can bring that off--seriously.

                            Neither NNadir nor I have ever opposed wind and solar power. From what I can tell NNadir is in favor of them.  So am I. We only acknowledge that these resources are highly unlikely to replace fossil fuels since they require backup. That just happens to be a limitation these renewables have until some breakthroughs in storage technology occur. This is not to disparage these cleaner resources but to be realistic. Even if wind and solar supply 20% or 50% of our electricity, in your (zero-nuclear) world that leaves fossil fuels doing the rest of the job.  Unfortunately, wherever nuclear plants are shut down, coal-fired plants spring up.

                            If anyone is doing disparaging, you are--you don't like nuclear power.   Fine. Chacun a son goût. I don't find that a reason to troll-rate you.

                            The IPCC predicts average global temperatures to rise enough by 2050 to put 20-30% of all species at risk for extinction.

                            by Plan9 on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 12:30:48 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  nnadir's only diary talking about solar (0+ / 0-)

                            was to disparage silicon chips, and, typically, he ignored responses about the new developments in alternate chip technologies, including organic compounds. and maybe you should learn a little about csp technology.

                            © 2007 "one must pay back from this secret deposit of exquisite moments" - virginia woolf

                            by Laurence Lewis on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 04:03:12 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I know about csp technology (0+ / 0-)

                            But do you know how a nuclear plant works? How a reactor works? The difference between low-enriched uranium, depleted uranium, and highly-enriched uranium?  Do you understand how the chain reaction works?  

                            Are you aware of what comprises nuclear waste and what percentage is lethal and needs to be isolated and what percentage rapidly becomes harmless?  Do you know what the volume of nuclear waste is in this country per year in comparison to the volume of coal combustion waste?

                            Are you aware of what emissions enter the environment in the US from nuclear power as compared to other power sources?

                            Are you current with epidemiological studies of radiation exposure and their conclusions about health effects in regard to nuclear power, nuclear workers, and populations who are chronically exposed to higher than average natural background radiation?

                            Are you aware that a billion people get some or all of their electricity from nuclear power?  That the lifespan in countries without electricity is 43 years? That about 435 reactors operate safely around the world and have avoided trillions of tons of greenhouse gases?

                            Just wondering....

                            The IPCC predicts average global temperatures to rise enough by 2050 to put 20-30% of all species at risk for extinction.

                            by Plan9 on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 08:27:01 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  yes (0+ / 0-)

                            and i also know the costs, the risks, and that nuclear waste will be with us, effectively, forever. csp has no negatives.

                            © 2007 "one must pay back from this secret deposit of exquisite moments" - virginia woolf

                            by Laurence Lewis on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 08:34:26 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  polymers last forever; nuclear waste decays (0+ / 0-)

                            CSP relies on polymers.  They will be around until the end of the solar system. Nature does not know how to dismantle most plastics.  But it has been taking apart uranium, thorium, radium, etc. for billions of years and is quite good at it.

                            Do you know anything about the decay series for uranium? All but 1% of high-level waste in spent nuclear fuel decays rapidly to the level or uranium ore.

                            The IPCC predicts average global temperatures to rise enough by 2050 to put 20-30% of all species at risk for extinction.

                            by Plan9 on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 08:42:31 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  and they won't hurt anyone (0+ / 0-)

                            while radiation is forever. it's fascinating how you nuke fans are so enamored with such a dangerous, costly, centralized, and corporate profitable technology rather than clean, renewable, decentralized ones. very curious.

                            © 2007 "one must pay back from this secret deposit of exquisite moments" - virginia woolf

                            by Laurence Lewis on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 08:49:23 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Please provide me with an accurate instance (0+ / 0-)

                            of a single civilian in the U.S. being hurt by spent fuel rods from a commercial nuclear plant over the past 50 years.

                            No hearsay, please.  I need documentation from a reliable source.

                            Thank you.

                            The IPCC predicts average global temperatures to rise enough by 2050 to put 20-30% of all species at risk for extinction.

                            by Plan9 on Sat Jun 23, 2007 at 06:07:38 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  if 'alternative' energy is really a solution, (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Plan9

                            it will only be a handful of years before it's "centralized, corporate, and profitable." Regardless, this is the worst kind of bogus argument, because many nuclear plants themselves are owned by state electricity or cooperatives. Also, it's just pure wishful thinking if you believe the grid is going to become more decentralized, "democratic and equitable." This is projecting a political ideology into an engineering space, and it doesn't work. You should look at the existing distribution of power generating stations overlaid on a population density map. Additionally, the term 'renewable' is abused in this instance because there's not exactly a shortage of fissile/fertile material easily obtained on earth.

                            "The answer to fear cannot always lie in the dissipation of the causes of fear; sometimes it lies in courage."

                            by woolie on Sat Jun 23, 2007 at 08:08:43 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  As usual, you are mistaken (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Plan9, bryfry

                            and unwittingly making the case for nuclear power.

                            CSP technology is best known for its spectacular disaster:

                            Solar power plant explodes
                            DAGGETT, Calif., Feb. 26 (UPI) San Bernardino County authorities say a tank of chemicals at a solar power plant in Daggett, Calif., has
                            exploded, spawning a fire that may burn throughout the night. Fire Department spokesman David McLees says all the employees at the SEGS2
                            plant were accounted for shortly after the explosion rocked the plant at about 6:05 p.m. today. McLees says the fire is being fueled by a
                            700,000-gallon tank of Therminol, a fluid used in heat transfer because it can be heated to 850 degrees. The fluid is heated on solar panels, where it reaches maximum temperature, then runs through pipes in a heat transfer area, where it turns water into steam. The steam powers turbines that create electricity. Sheriff's deputies say a 1/2-
                            mile area along Interstate 40 near Barstow is being evacuated because of Therminol's slightly toxicity. McLees says firefighters have no estimated time of containment for the fire.

                            Pictures here:

                            CSP Explodes on the Scene

                          •  oh, gosh (0+ / 0-)

                            one harmless accident at one plant. gosh. compared to the record of nuclear, that's just devastating. "best known"? same old same old.

                            © 2007 "one must pay back from this secret deposit of exquisite moments" - virginia woolf

                            by Laurence Lewis on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 08:53:04 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  That's an awfully nasty (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Plan9

                            accident, especially in light of the tiny amounts of electricity that CSP produces. You said there are no negatives due to CSP, yet there's a set of pictures showing a CSP up in flames. How do you pooh-pooh this as nothing? That black filth billowing in the sky - that's an accident. And yes, amongst people who make megawatts for a living, this incident is one of many reasons why CSP is roundly dismissed as a flop.

                            Despite producing orders of magnitude more energy than any CSP plants, the nuclear power industry in the U.S. has never had an uncontrolled release of toxins like this. Note several things about the CSP: no engineered safeguards; no containment; no fire suppression system; no recovery actions. No accident management or evacuation plans. No nothing: it just burned and burned and burned. By the standards set and maintained by the nuclear power industry, this thing would never have been allowed to operate.

                            I am one of NNadir's biggest fans.

                          •  i get it, now (0+ / 0-)

                            nadir doesn't have many fans on this site- a dozen or so. he or a friend has recruited some people from off-site to come in here and act like they're part of the community here, like he matters, like he has friends or something. it's kind of cute, in a pathetic sort of way. yes- nukes good, renewables bad. sure. keep it up.

                            © 2007 "one must pay back from this secret deposit of exquisite moments" - virginia woolf

                            by Laurence Lewis on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 10:01:16 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  No you don't get it... (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Plan9

                            In the face of direct evidence that you are wrong, you respond churlishly by saying that accidents at solar plants don't matter. Only accidents at nuclear plants matter, even if they are only hypothetical, or trivial. Rather than addressing the crux of my comments, which is that CSP would seem susceptible to the process safety issues common in many industrial facilities, you simply say that this accident is not as bad as those in the nuclear power industry. What cost-benefit analysis or risk assessment did you use to come up with this conclusion? The fact remains that CSP is notable mainly for this explosion, rather than for producing electricity.

                            NNadir is perhaps the best pro-nuclear blogger out there. Noone preaches like the converted. The NEI is very good at presenting the facts, but they lack directness and zeal. NEI maintains a measured tone, rather than simply telling the antinukes that they are full of crap. Energypulse.net is great, but it is not specifically pro-nuclear.

                          •  whatever you say (0+ / 0-)

                            find whatever unique events you want to disparage anything non-nuclear. you're so transparent, now, it's no longer even worth bothering- except to warn others, when you clowns show up.

                            © 2007 "one must pay back from this secret deposit of exquisite moments" - virginia woolf

                            by Laurence Lewis on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 11:43:04 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  There's nothing unique about it... (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Plan9

                            You, like many, are inured to fires and explosions as real risks, but treat the tiniest level of radioactivity with complete dread. The Daggett CSP explosion is not especially unique. I'm sure that if we built hundreds of plants of similar design, we would have many more such events. It's simply a matter of luck, rather than good design or smart engineering, that noone was killed in that explosion.

                            That's why I continually remind readers here that diffuse power sources are not without risk, and their benefit in relation to their risk cannot stand comparison to nuclear power. Trying to cull power from solar insolation, which amounts to 1000 watt/m^2 at best, may have made sense to the ancient Greeks. But in 2007, very few of us could stand living in an economy where the sun and the wind are the major sources of power.

                          •  continually? (0+ / 0-)

                            you're brand new. or are you? are you even a democrat? yes, i take you very seriously. ~yawn~

                            © 2007 "one must pay back from this secret deposit of exquisite moments" - virginia woolf

                            by Laurence Lewis on Sat Jun 23, 2007 at 08:47:42 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Why thank you. (0+ / 0-)

                            NNadir is perhaps the best pro-nuclear blogger out there.

                            I'm sure you're a connoisseur of these things.

                            Let's not forget Ruth Sponsler.  She is a very fine writer and an excellent thinker.   I have corresponded with her privately and she is a very fine person as well.

                            Rod Adams has been a presence on the internet for many years.   The first nuke stuff I read on the internet was from him.   It was a great pleasure to visit him at his home and to meet him.  He is an original thinker.

                            The NEI is getting a more edgy.   I learn quite a bit on their site.   I like those folks.  Eric McErlain, Lisa Stiles, Dave Bradish and many others do a good job.   Of course they are paid to do what they do, but one should work at what one loves.

                          •  I think Turkana is paid to come here (0+ / 0-)

                            and set forth attitudes and misinformation that we who are aware of the urgency of doing something on a large scale to address global warming get to correct for the edification of lurkers.  I believe he or she must be in the employ of the Nuclear Energy Institute.  Curious how Turkana always turns up when you write a diary. I bet Mr. T has a whole closet full of those NEI golf shirts.

                            Fess up NNadir:  you and Turkana are obviously in cahoots to make your diaries lively.

                            The IPCC predicts average global temperatures to rise enough by 2050 to put 20-30% of all species at risk for extinction.

                            by Plan9 on Sat Jun 23, 2007 at 10:35:57 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I probably shouldn't comment. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Plan9

                            I have only scanned his/her/its comments that refer to me by name.   In only one case since the early development of this diary have I been inclined to respond, and this only in connection to the claim that I have only written about solar energy only once.   I produced evidence that I have written extensively here on the subject of solar energy.

                            I am known as a "nuclear shill," but really my raison d'etre is about climate change and energy, all energy.  Anything that works against climate change is fine by me and I like to examine the nuts and bolts of all systems.

                            I have nothing against solar energy by the way.  If someday solar PV energy were producing more than 25 exajoules of energy per year, I would be a happy camper, like most Kossacks.  Currently though, I think solar energy doesn't quite live up to its marketing - it doesn't produce even one exajoule - but that hardly makes it worthless or implies that development of whatever potential it has should be arrested.    

                            Chiefly I am concerned with the arrest of the use  of dangerous fossil fuels.   When dangerous fossil fuels are replaced I will be happy to debate the relative merits of what has replaced them.

                          •  Amen, Bro (0+ / 0-)

                            Anything that works against climate change is fine by me and I like to examine the nuts and bolts of all systems.

                            Me too.

                            The IPCC predicts average global temperatures to rise enough by 2050 to put 20-30% of all species at risk for extinction.

                            by Plan9 on Sat Jun 23, 2007 at 11:48:53 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  and, btw (0+ / 0-)

                            i notice that you're yet another who only appears on this site to support nadir. how interesting.

                            © 2007 "one must pay back from this secret deposit of exquisite moments" - virginia woolf

                            by Laurence Lewis on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 08:53:57 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  more and more interesting (0+ / 0-)

                            how do you know i'm "mistaken" "as usual"? you've only been on one thread, prior to this one, and i wasn't even there. you guys are so obvious it's absurd.

                            © 2007 "one must pay back from this secret deposit of exquisite moments" - virginia woolf

                            by Laurence Lewis on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 09:07:26 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  csp is promising but... (0+ / 0-)

                            It is still very expensive.  And one way to make it cheaper is to combine it with burning fossil fuels:

                            What Does It Cost?
                            Concentrating solar power technologies currently offer the lowest-cost solar electricity for large-scale power generation (10 megawatt-electric and above). Current technologies cost $2–$3 per watt. This results in a cost of solar power of 9¢–12¢ per kilowatt-hour. New innovative hybrid systems that combine large concentrating solar power plants with conventional natural gas combined cycle or coal plants can reduce costs to $1.5 per watt and drive the cost of solar power to below 8¢ per kilowatt hour.

                            With some luck, csp will be down to 4¢–5¢ per kilowatt-hour in 20 years.

                            Average costs of nuclear power have been below  2 cents/kwh for the past eight years.

                            The IPCC predicts average global temperatures to rise enough by 2050 to put 20-30% of all species at risk for extinction.

                            by Plan9 on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 08:38:48 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Actually I write about solar quite often. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Plan9

                            Here is my commentary on the Maine Solar House:

                            The Cost of the Maine Solar House to the Environment:  A Crude Calculation.

                            Here is my comment on the supplies of materials to make solar PV cells:

                            Report:  Polysilicon Shortages to Restrain Solar Power Growth for Years

                            Here is my comment on the solar business of one of the world's largest solar companies, the dangerous fossil fuel company, BP, which bills itself as "Beyond Petroleum" even though it continues to have dangerous fossil fuel accidents:

                            BP Solar Talks Up Its Solar Capacity.

                            (By the way, as we're speaking of one of the largest solar companies, BP, if you wrote a diary calling for the phase out of gasoline after the deadly explosion in BP's dangerous fossil fuel facility in Texas City, I'd love for you to link it here.   I'm sure that we'll be very interested to learn about your outrage.   Further if you wrote a diary calling for fossil fuel bans after BP's leaks of dangerous fossil fuels on a multimetric ton scale from dangerous fossil fuel pipelines in Alaska, that would also be an interesting read.   I'm sure you trust BP to handle the toxic heavy metals and chemicals used to make solar cells though.)

                            I explained my position on renewable energy in this diary while using renewable industry data:

                            German Renewables Report:   External Cost of Carbon Dioxide Vastly Underestimated

                            I discussed renewable energy, including solar, in Germany (and the world) in this dairy:

                            Bait and Switch:   German Nuclear Phase Out, Renewables, Coal and Carbon Dioxide.

                            I discussed solar energy as a possible component of a motor fuel in this diary:

                            http://www.dailykos.com/...

                            I discussed Irish renwable energy policy in this diary:

                            http://www.dailykos.com/...

                            I discussed the data on the renewable energy for the entire planet in this diary:

                            How well Is Renewable Energy Keeping Up With Demand Growth?

                            My very first diary on this site was about solar energy:

                            Solar Energy Production Fell Slightly in 2005.

                            I have made my positions on solar energy abundantly clear:    I don't object to middle class and upper class consumers who can afford it using it.  

                            However, to pretend that a form of energy like solar electricity - which is now more than 50 years old and has yet to produce a single exajoule of energy per year - is a reasonable approach to addressing climate change is absurd.   Basically it's a middle class conceit and largely represents a form of dangerous complacency, denial, and even on some level, an abnegation of personal responsibility through an appeal to wishful thinking.

                            It is amazing how often I am required to discuss solar energy, given that it remains what it has been for 50 years, a trivial form of energy.  

                            You may now return to trying to make a conversation about the climate crisis and energy into a high school popularity contest.  

                            I've been trying to avoid reading your comments, to be frank, but could not avoid this one.    I note that the word "popular" has you really ramped up.

                            What a surprise.

                            I should warn you though, that I am not engaged in popularity seeking.   I am much older, much uglier, much less appealing than say, Paris Hilton, or one of those other popular interests.    Frankly popular opinion distresses me deeply and given the state of affairs in modern times the last thing I'd want to do is to be associated with the popular imagination.

                  •  Turkana, are you jealous of NNadir's popularity? (0+ / 0-)

                    If you dont like his ideas and you are obviously are unwilling or unable to conduct a discussion about these ideas, so why do you bother to stick around?  

                    Your fabricated ad hominem attacks and other fallacies are just plain pathetic. May I kindly ask you to grow up please, maybe get some life and stop behaving like a little bratty drama queen?

              •  on the last part (0+ / 0-)

                don't hold your breath.

                © 2007 "one must pay back from this secret deposit of exquisite moments" - virginia woolf

                by Laurence Lewis on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 10:39:59 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  Oh please! (0+ / 0-)
          You're reading the diaries of "the guy who is known as NNadir at DailyKos", what the fuck is there to be misunderstood about "NNadir of DailyKos"?!  Everybody with half a brain understands that.  But you, sir, are a troll and a waste of time.
          •  wow (0+ / 0-)

            a fourth.

            © 2007 "one must pay back from this secret deposit of exquisite moments" - virginia woolf

            by Laurence Lewis on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 11:58:52 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  um everybody around here knows who (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            NNadir
            turkana is, but everybody, i would hazard a VERY good guess, have very little knowledge of you OR nnadir.

            wow.

            blanket statements cover massive amounts of hyperbole here!

            That's the problem! That's the problem! The liberal groups are jumping around without knowing what the hell is in the bill! - dave obey

            by edrie on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 07:05:15 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Everyone? (0+ / 0-)

              It would seem that the both of you like to speak for all of DailyKos.

              Have you polled all of the members to discover this fact or only the members who agree with all of your opinions?

              I have been writing here for some time.   Overall my diaries tend to be technical in nature, and undoubtedly they appeal to a smaller cross section of the population here.  

              Let me introduce myself.   I am a technical nerd.   My name is NNadir and I try to write about energy in human terms.

              The people who engage me are often, but not always, people who are concerned with energy technology.  

              But you're right.  Now everybody knows who Turkana is.   He/she or it as certainly fully described himself/herself/itself here in this diary and if there was anyone who was unfamiliar with him/her/it, they are familiar now.

              Until a short time ago, I was blissfully unaware of her/him/it.   But now I have some insight.   He/she/it is a person who is unable to discuss coal phase outs, but who does turn out a platitude quite well.

              Note that if one had a plan to discuss coal phase outs that did not involve the use of nuclear energy, one would be free to offer it, but we can assume, now that we all know Turkana, that he, she or it that since Turkana has shown no interest whatsoever in offering a plan to phase out coal - and thus address climate change, an important issue to many Democrats, that she/he or it has no technical insights whatsoever about how to do it.

              She/he/it apparently believes that one's worth is determined sort of the way one determines the prom queen/king/royal being is determined, by popularity contests.   Maybe you agree.

              I don't know who you are, but if here's a recommend for you just in case you're running for the title prom king/queen/it yourself.

              I'm very pleased to make your acquaintance.   Welcome to a NNadir diary.   Can I get you anything?   Cookies?   Milk?   How about a nice cherry soda?

  •  Interesting info from the report (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Simplify

    Electric power generation capacity is only about 37% from paleocarbon (coal, oil, gas), 37% nuclear, and 25% hydro. They are comparatively pretty good, GHG-wise.

    Come see TV from the reality-based community at RealityBasedTV.com

    by MarkInSanFran on Thu Jun 21, 2007 at 07:22:44 PM PDT

  •  California (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ed in Montana, MarkInSanFran

    is in the process of a coal phaseout.

    State acts to limit use of coal power

  •  Yay France. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MarkInSanFran, NNadir, willb48

    They don't even need a coal phaseout.

  •  Thanks and questions (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Plan9

    ..and I agree completely with NNadir's sentiments that this is a very good thing, and that it is incredible that only Ontario (and, as he notes in the comments, to some extent France) has even attempted this.

    I have several questions.  They're probably answered in the report, but I don't have time to read at the moment.  I'm hoping NNadir or someone else can diary this report in greater detail in the future.  (Note: I'm not criticizing NNadir here, who has been very generous with his time in the past-- especially since I've just admitted my own laziness.)

    --Is Ontario somehow special energy-wise?  On the supply-side, do they use a lot more nuclear?  Is their per-capita demand less?  Do they have better access to natural gas than the rest of us?  (I forget offhand if much of the Canadian natural gas comes from Ontario)

    --Is Ontario somehow special politically?  Are the greens particularly strong there?  Do they have some pro-conservation politicians?

    --The first major use of Smart Meters was in Ontario.  Now they are once again in the lead.  I am assuming this is not a coincidence.  But how much of a backstory is there?

    --Is Ontario somehow special economically?  Do they have a smaller amount of energy-intensive industry?  Does something about their living patterns mean they would have less heating needs than one might expect?

    James Hansen has called for an immediate halt to all new coal plants, followed by a gradual phaseout.  Will Ontario's experience provide lessons for how this might be accomplished?

    •  Ontario (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mataliandy, chapter1

      I can answer some of that without looking anything up.

      Ontario has little or no coal so coal that is burned there is imported from the US. I expect this makes a coal phase out politically easier since there isn't a local economic interest in favour of coal.

      Most Ontario electricity has been from hydroelectricity until almost all the available rivers were dammed & Ontario Hydro started building nuclear plants.

      There is a small amount of oil & natural gas in far southern Ontario near lake Erie, but most of the natural gas burned in Ontario comes by pipeline from western Canada.

      There is plenty of industry in Ontario & the heating needs are only modestly less than in other parts of Canada. So low energy use is not a factor in this.

  •  As always... (0+ / 0-)

    keep up the good fight, NNadir.

    I thought you might enjoy this: Ontario and Nuclear Power

  •  Salute to NNadir (0+ / 0-)

    I've gotta say, I salute NNadir for taking the time and intestinal fortitude to duke it out, hour after hour, with a very small single-digit number of aggressive attackers at this site who make the false presumption that they (the attackers) have public support.  That single digit number of Human Beans who Don't Like NNadir's Diaries appears to be far less than 5.0000 (to the fifth decimal place).

    That's not something I have the time or stomach for.  Too much other, routine stuff going on in my life, between the need to earn, um, y'know, a paycheck (no, it's not in the nuclear industry), and other projects.

    As a matter of fact, it's raining right now.  (Call it drought relief for us in the Southeast).  Because it's Sunday, I'm home.  That's the only reason I'm here.  If it weren't raining...I'd be away from the computer mowing the lawn.

    Isn't it interesting that very few people have turned out in support of the attacker's (screenname begins with a "T") arguments?

    Logic and facts are winning out.  When people learn just exactly how much power is needed to run stuff like 'puters and factories and TV's and A/C's and 'fridges....they see that solar and wind can't do it alone.  If we're gonna get away from fossil fuels (and associated pollution and emissions), nuclear has to be a big part of the picture.

    I'm just looking at the sheer workload involved in a project like converting Nanticoke from coal to nuclear.  Can anybody say "money, jobs, project, societal transformation ...  opportunity" ?

  •  what are we celebrating here? (0+ / 0-)

    I must say I am puzzled. It happens to me often lately and maybe I'll finally write a diary about that. OK, what bothers me - I actually looked into that nicely headlined short report.

    If I read the numbers right, they have now 11414 MW in nuclear and by refurbishing some older ones they get up to 12020 MW, that is 606 MW more, about twice the total wind capacity, thus many times more than the actual production. However put in relative terms it is 'staggering' increase of 5.3%. (No new build is there even mentioned).

    So lets look at the others - which is gas and oil. They will increase from 5103 MW to 9102 MW. That is nearly doubling(!!!) the capacity in the other fossil fuels, actually most of it is natural gas burners, CH4.

    It was already discussed here, that natural gas burners are very very bad idea when it comes to climate change. CH4 leaks in the pipelines, leaks at the re-pressurizing stations, leaks from the plant. CH4 is ~20 times stronger greenhouse gas than CO2, therefore few % leakage is enough to make it as bad as coal.  I've heard the estimate is about 5% (not crosschecked), which would make natural gas a significantly  worse option to coal.

    I agree they are not completely fucked up such as Germany or Italy, but this project does not seem to me as an example to follow.

    Maybe I am too tired today and too negative, mabe I have missed something, which I honestly hope for.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site