When I got back to Sweden I received a mail from the ignorant Professor Aleklett reprimanding me for the way I talked to his "friend" Leggett, who told Aleklett that I disgraced my university. What the ___ has my university done for me, I was tempted to say, but then I remembered that Aleklett like Merkel was a teacher of physics, which means parasite in the light of leaving physics to swan around the world trying to make fools of hard working folk.

Let me close by saying that in the brilliant short course I will be giving in Spain soon, nuclear will be one of the topics. Anybody making the mistake of thinking that he or she knows more than I do on this topic will regret it. Habla espanol Signor.

The numbers California's grid operator presents suggest precisely what Tam is saying - a plan for a massive deployment of renewables all backed up by natural gas. Even if these numbers are ballpark instead of accurate, California's existing nuclear will eventually become a much smaller piece of their total generation pie, assuming no new nuclear plants get built along the way.

So unless California builds a lot more new nuclear, and/or unless their plans to deploy massive amounts of “integrated” renewables changes, it will gradually become much easier to justify reasons to shutter all of their nuclear let alone the political ones that seem to exist everywhere today.

The risks in shuttering nuclear completely however are huge. For example what happens if natural gas prices skyrocket 10 years from now, given these things tend to be highly unpredictable that far out into the future. Or what happens if global climate change eventually force all fossil-fuel burning to become prohibitively taxed. It becomes a gamble on a large scale, and if either of these happen by 2020, I for one will be wishing we still have some nuclear plants left to fall back on.

The head of the Swedish Left party may be the most intelligent politician in this country. IQ wise. He wants the working day to be cut to 6 hours, one of the best environments in the world to be improved, and of course nuclear dumped. Over in Finland 'they' wanted nuclear closed, but perhaps the best educated population in the world responded by beginning to install the largest nuclear plant in the world.

In my talk in Singapore I told it like it is: what Merkel is doing in Germany to get another term in office is equivalent to an attack on the living standard of people like you and me. There is no other way to look at it.

California Energy Commission STAFF REPORT SUMMER 2011 ELECTRICITY SUPPLY AND DEMAND OUTLOOK http://is.gd/JXuQzU

+ Readers might want to know about two "new" projects now in pre-construction: 24/7 Solar: http://www.solarreserve.com/technology.html and PG&E makes deal for space solar power: http://is.gd/hwzA8b

Solar Power Year in Review 2011: http://is.gd/8dlYIx The United States finally passed the one gigawatt of PV installed in a year mark, a barrier long eclipsed by Germany and Italy.

===>One thing I learned is that Japan's utilities own their electrical GRID and therefore are the only ones that can "approve" of any forms of energy accessing it! If Japan is to "kick" their Nuclear reactor habit, the Utilities will have to OK that decision, which means a reduction in both Control and Market share for them! snip "I discovered­, however, that the real power in Japan lies with bureaucrat­s who have strong ties to big business. They outlast the politician­s. The Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Industry (METI) is the most powerful bureaucrac­y, with a large budget at its disposal."

==> Another thing I learned is that Northern Japan has a different form of alternatin­g current than Southern Japan so that Energy cannot be easily shared Nationwide­! This is yet another roadblock to low cost energy that the Utilities promote to protect their market share in Japan! snip "Each of the regional utilities jealously guards its borders, so that there is limited cooperatio­n between them. Transmissi­on lines are not large enough to allow power to flow easily between regions. Worse still, the northeaste­rn half of Japan uses a 50 hertz frequency, while the southwest operates at 60 hertz, making it impossible to share power between them without huge transforme­rs."

This to me, is the real "Tipping Point", since without a "up to date" modern (Think SMART) grid energy cannot flow to where it is needed, when it is needed, at a fair price from where it is generated! Imagine installing new solar panels and the Energy produced is not allowed to be added to the grid because the Utility wants to only sell it's own energy!

(Here is the Amazon link: http://is.gd/W3Jcuo )

Solar power may be cheaper than electricity generated by fossil fuels and nuclear reactors within three to five years because of innovations, said Mark M. Little, the global research director for General Electric Co. (GE) May 26, 2011 http://is.gd/L0V2hP

Then consider Japan as a test case; they are a major nuclear "user" and now they have a Trillion Dollar Eco-Disaster that is affecting their entire Country, how would California (and or the USA) pay for a similar event? Where would people relocate to and what would they do for housing, since their home owners insurance has a nuclear exclusion? If this happened in San Onofre, the "coastal" real estate loses alone would be more than a trillion dollars and the rest of the USA is downwind.

If people really knew the true cost of Fukushima, the people would demand CHANGE and that is something that some of those in Government and the entire Nuclear Industry want to avoid at all cost!

What will determine the total cost of their "Trillion Dollar" Eco-Disast­er?

Please feel free to add your comments and or estimates to this list: ? Decommissi­oning costs ? Loss to all other radioactiv­e decontamin­ation caused by this Disaster. ? Loss of revenues by Tepco ? Loss to TEPCO's share holders caused by radioactiv­ity ? Loss of Japanese personal income caused by radioactiv­ity ? Loss to Japanese businesses caused by radioactiv­ity ? Loss of all Japanese health costs related to radioactiv­ity ? Loss due to unusable Japanese Land related to radioactiv­ity ? Loss due to Japanese housing caused by radioactiv­ity ? Loss of Japanese Property Values caused by radioactiv­ity ? Loss of fishing grounds caused by radioactiv­ity ? Loss of manufactur­ing caused by radioactiv­ity ? Loss to the value of the Yen caused by radioactiv­ity ? Loss to other Utilities caused by Fukushima'­s radioactiv­ity ? Loss to Japans credit rating caused by Fukushima'­s radioactiv­ity ? Loss to the Japanese peoples Lives because of radiation

No one will dispute the enormous costs in the wake of the Fukushima disaster. The point is it need not have happened in the first place had the Japanese added some rather basic technical safeguards in place to protect those reactors from the tsunami flooding. I am not a nuclear plant engineer, but others have posted on this website that such safeguards are feasible and would not have been that expensive to implement.

Furthermore, it is totally irresponsible for anyone to claim that the Fukushima disaster was unpredictable. It has been known for centuries that Japan is geologically right in the midst of prominent Pacific earthquake zones that habitually create tsunamis in their wake. Heavens, the very work "tsunami" in the English language comes from Japan itself!!

If one is going to justify banning nuclear technology because of the ecological costs after accidents like Fukushima, it is hypocritical to do so. Just look at the massive ecological costs to the Gulf of Mexico from the Deepwater Horizon accident in 2010, also due in part to negligence for safe technical practice. I don’t hear any massive campaign to have the world ban all drilling for oil in the oceans greatest depths because of it.

Given that it has been PROVEN that Nature can destroy any land based nuclear reactor, any place anytime 24/7/365! and that Nature does not follow any design guidelines or mass moments (EQ) standards why take a risk that something like that will not happen in the USA? In 2011 a number of US reactors and or nuclear installations had potential MAJOR problems with flooding, fires and who knows what else; some even had their EQ design exceeded!

To think that something like this can be avoided by adding a higher seawall or some more rebar is just Nuclear Baloney (NB), as I like to say.

I also agree that "it is totally irresponsible for anyone to claim that the Fukushima disaster was unpredictable" yet many Professional Nuclear Engineers and or scientists claim it was a 1000 year event and post yet more Risk equations on Huffington Post! Typical sample: http://is.gd/GraE33

RE: Drilling for oil, many in the USA and elsewhere are 100% against deep ocean drilling because of the RISK of that enterprise and especially now that the Gulf has been trashed by the Deepwater Horizon accident in 2010.

I see Solar (of all flavors) as the only really clean, safe solution to the US Energy problem! I think it is important to remember that if Germany can do it so can the USA. The sooner the US partners with other Countries and together begin to generate 24/7 solar energy in Space the sooner the World will become a safer and better place to live for all of mankind, not just the Wealthy that control dwindling Earth based resources!

See these 4 books for an increasing introduction to that concept: The High Frontier by Gerard K. O'Neill, Colonies In Space by A. Heppenheim­er. The Third Industrial Revolution G. Harry Stine The Space Enterprise by Philip Robert Harris

The disastrous potential effects of someone merely dropping a wrench into the system and failing to report it for fear of losing their job, and then the wrench blocks a critical valve... such a potential event was specifically mentioned by a whistleblower at an NRC hearing a few years ago, long before Fukushima showed the world that U.S.-designed reactors are not only no better than Russia's or anyone else's, in some ways they are worse -- yes, including our PWRs and including SanO specifically, which is built on or near some very active earthquake faults, and which has had numerous problems over the years, including with the backup generators, AND the backup batteries, and the required testing of these (tests were skipped...) AND even if they were all working yesterday, that doesn't mean they'll work tomorrow if needed -- there aren't nearly ENOUGH backup systems for SanO as it is, including a reliable enough grid in the event of an earthquake (or someone flipping a switch at the wrong time in Arizona, as happened last fall).

Nor are there enough security personnel, even if the exact number on duty at any one time is confidential. And as they computerize their control rooms to prevent workers from flipping the switches wrong (improved ergonomics) the workers in turn are getting on the Internet and playing games -- or bringing in viruses like Stuxnet from home.

The question is not whether natural gas will go up in price. It surely will. By then we better be well converted to wind, wave, offshore wind, rooftop solar, desert solar, Atmospheric Vortex Engines, and every other benign, renewable, and nearly-benign energy source there is, because the alternative with San Onofre is to keep it running until it melts down: Since new reactors aren't allowed in California and are hard to site anywhere in the country (and for good reason), the industry just keeps rebuilding the old reactors, but leaves billions of dollars worth of old, hard-to-reach, but vital parts just rusting away untouched. The NRC keeps relicensing every nuclear power plant request from any corporate owner. San Onofre will be allowed to run until it dies.

And either way it will leave a mountain of deadly waste that was literally about a ten millionth as dangerous before being used in the reactor. Unused nuclear fuel is about as dangerous as so-called "depleted" uranium, which is currently used in weapons (a practice sure to be banned globally in the coming years, as its effects are seen in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.). You can hold a pellet of fresh nuclear fuel in your hands without too much worry, though gloves are recommended to stop the alpha particles. "Spent" fuel, on the other hand is the most dangerous stuff on earth and you can't go near even a millionth of a gram of it without heavy lead shielding and a long pole. Spent fuel cannot be neutralized or stored safely anywhere. So by leaving SanO running, we are generating mountains of problems along with a daily supply of easily-replaced energy.

The NRC and the nuclear industry don't even talk about preventing meltdowns anymore, post-Fukushima. They talk about "mitigation" instead which can include permanent evacuation of the surrounding cities, farmlands, etc.!

Waiting for catastrophic failure is not acceptable to the 7.5 million people who live within 50 miles and will be directly effected by a meltdown, only a tiny fraction of whom realize the danger they face or the ease with which alternatives can be applied. However, those in the energy business should all know better by now.

I look forward to reading much more from you both here and on HP's link listed just above.!

The Nuclear Fascists* are all about retaining their current market share and making money; safety is only an after thought, as they actually believe that "their" nuclear power is built too perfect to fail!

This is just what led to the Japanese Trillion Dollar Eco-Disaster and I believe that the same "mindset" will allow it to happen yet again, only this time in the USA at some time in the near future! Calling something "a once in a thousand year event" does not "help" if it happens tomorrow or 3 years from now.

Too many of our Leaders and nuclear regulators suffer from "Nuclear Denial," which is the illogical belief that Nature cannot destroy any land based nuclear reactor, any place anytime 24/7/365! If there was a law that stripped every member of Congress and the Senate of all their benefits if anything happened to a nuclear reactor in the USA, none would get re-licensed or built! It is all about Utility Power (pun intended) instead of SAFE low cost Energy for all!

*Nuclear Fascism http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=nuclear+fascism snip The International Nuclear Industry working with all Governments to control the masses use of nuclear power and to limit the spread of Green Energy.

I think the real question is: why not phase out renewable energy? Such actions would certainly save ratepayers a lot of money. Further, because renewable energy’s actual impact on global CO2 emissions is already inconsequential, the phase out of renewable energy would also have negligible impacts on greenhouse gases.

All you renewable energy fans need a strong dose of reality. The only valid reason to use renewable energy is to save money; the environmental advantages are essentially “bug dust”. To the extent that deploying renewable energy is cheaper than alternatives, then by all means do so.

Nothing about nuclear is worth taking that risk, especially since other forms of generation ... are more cost effective (see links I posted above) than nuclear!

Michael Keller says that when renewables are more economical than other items, they should be used. I agree. And since we live in democracies, maybe some renewable is OK even when it is not economical. But what people like Tam want is to dump nuclear, which might be alright for his California, but would be a disaster for a country like Sweden. As for Germany, seven or eight months ago Angela Merkel was shouting to the high heavens that Germany needed more nuclear, but when she found out that she could drop that plea and take the opposite point of view, and the net result was more votes, she chose another term in office.

Now let infantry corporal and Professor Fred Banks give you the real deal. They can tear down every single nuclear plant in the Free World, but it will just mean they they will have to build them up again, and when they do .......

Suggested reading for the Corporate Professor: My book from 2008, called The Code Killers. Available for reading online at: www.acehoffman.org

10 strikes: http://www.greenamerica.org/programs/climate/dirtyenergy/nuclear.cfm Energy Options: http://wp.me/P1YIeo-fi Nuclear Down despite connections: http://is.gd/wGsIWS The End of the Nuclear Renaissance: http://is.gd/61Z8KF Nuclear power plants too expensive for Croatia: http://is.gd/FYyldW Gambling on nuclear power: http://is.gd/4qMpgK

The industry is pushing "New Nuclear" but it is like the ice men telling folks to buy new ice boxes instead of the new fangled refrigerators that put the ice men out of business! If people have a real choice and are not made to swallow Nuclear Baloney (NB) by the Industry and or their powerful lobbyists then America and the world will be a much safer place by starting to Shift to Solar (of all flavors) ASAP! Remember America cannot afford a Trillion Dollar Eco-Disaster...

Please continue to spread the word about these 8 Nuclear secrets nobody wants to talk about; 1. Nature can destroy any land based nuclear reactor, any place anytime 24/7/365! 2. Nuclear is no longer cost effective. 3. Nuclear can be phased out and replaced by 24/7 Solar (of all flavors) NOW. 4. No Country can afford a Trillion Dollar Eco-Disaster, (Ask The Japanese)! 5. If Germany can do without it so can the rest of the World. 6. Nuclear is in demand (because it is a stepping stone) by many Countries that want a nuke. 7. Nuclear reactors LEAK, which makes living nearby or downwind from them less healthy! 8. Low, Low levels of radiation are not as "safe" as the Industry maintains.

From the Washington Post ====>‘Crunch time’ at troubled nuclear fuel plant "U.S. Enrichment Corp., which produces fuel for nuclear power plants, is having its own sort of meltdown.

Disillusioned investors have wiped out 95 percent of the company’s market value since 2007. Standard & Poor’s has saddled it with a dismal CCC-plus credit rating. And USEC’s chief executive John Welch says that “clearly we’re coming to crunch time here.”

When USEC was created by the U.S. government in the 1990s, the idea was to privatize the job of uranium enrichment. USEC leased an old Energy Department plant and under a program known as Megatons to Megawatts, it has blended down highly enriched uranium taken from 17,698 Russian warheads under a U.S.-Russia treaty.

Two decades later, however, the Bethesda-based firm is still struggling to stand on its own two feet. Its deal for inexpensive supplies from dismantled Russian nuclear weapons runs out at the end of 2013. A contract for electricity from the Tennessee Valley Authority expires in May and USEC’s outdated plant — which devours as much electricity as the city of Nashville — will be unable to compete with other companies. "

https://apps.facebook.com/wpsocialreader/me/channels/trending/content/kUq5e

Here is a fact I have three grown children, three grandchildren and six year old adopted son whose lives I want to of equal or better quality than my own. My standard to measure correct decisions is simple what is best to preserve our standard of living.

One thing I am tired of peddlers of fear, folks like ACE that knows what is right for us all, he must be god. People that push our children to use hand sanitizer out of fear, but ignore that Polio was a rich persons decease because of the Rich’s cleanliness and lack of contact with human feces that imparted immunity on the poorer segments. They were literal too shielded for their own good. Even if all this fear actually prolongs our lives at what cost? The fear of everything?

I have let it be known here several times that I am opposed to new US nuclear construction based on the its high cost. Which is the same issue I have with renewables and what I have coined the “renewable paradox” they lobby for subsidies since they can’t complete with the technology they claim they will replace. Tam Hunt in previous article had statements about Photovoltaic’s being at parity with combined cycle natural gas. He actually responded to comment about it but I realized he was not to be proved wrong he would make up whatever facts he needed to support his position and I would guess self-interests. Little things like comparing manufacturing cost of panels to the overnight cost of a power plants.

This is a little funny to me back in 1978 and 79 I represented our local FFA in public speaking contests, the speech I wrote was about the potential of Solar Energy to supply US energy needs. I am long time a supporter of solar energy it has great potential. It will be easy to tell when photovoltaic are competitive the price will be determined by the market and there will be a margin between selling and manufacturing cost. A positive for photovoltaic in the desert southwest is its output profile are fairly close to the load profile. Unlike the southeast were the light wanes before the air conditioners peak.

Back to Nucs and ACE and ignorance of scale, 80,000 tons “inconceivably large and unmanageable” that is bull. That is a cube less of depleted uranium less than 60x60x60 foot. I worked at coal plant that burned 12,000 tons per day or 84,000 tons per week. It has been doing that for consistently for 40 years. The coal pile for that single pant contained 1,200,000 tons give or take 80,000 tons. It looks like I was blessed with a larger conceiver than ACE. I see 3500 truckloads as manageable with the US infrastructure.

Zero tolerance for radiation exposure:

“the average person encounters 360 millirems of annual "background radiation" from natural and man-made sources, including substances in Earth's crust, cosmic rays, residue from nuclear tests and smoke detectors. (Scientific American 12/13/07)”

We will all live longer if live lead vaults we just need to be sure not to touch the walls.

If they were so afraid of nuclear radiation, they should consider giving up their cellphones and Ipads and desktop PCs and flat-screen televisions. As an electrical engineer I can tell them confidently that their exposure to electromagnetic radiation from the electronics radio sources in these consumer goods far exceeds any atomic radiation they are likely ever to be exposed to from the nuclear industry in their lifetimes. And just think, there are millions of these radiation sources all around the world working 24 hours a day. So Capt D and Ace, chew on that one for a change.

And for radiation exposure from Nuclear Plants (ACE you might want to read this): Mining uranium to fuel nuclear power plants leaves "mill tailings", the residues from chemical processing of the ore, which lead to radon exposures to the public. However, these effects are grossly over-compensated by the fact that mining uranium out of the ground reduces future radon exposures. By comparison, coal burning leaves ashes that increase future radon exposures. The all-inclusive estimates of radon effects are that one nuclear power plant operating for one year will eventually avert a few hundred deaths, while an equivalent coal burning plant will eventually cause 30 deaths. (Benard L Cohen )

I realize it not about facts Tam has interest in Renewables not in what is best for the most people. If the state were to export it will not effect your market will save many lives by offsetting coal.

If you want to complain about the cost of new nuclear power plants, fine. However, try considering the broader picture.

How much better off are average folks and the environment because of the use of nuclear energy? Fact is, the older nuclear power plants produce very inexpensive energy and that is a big plus for the economy. Consider the impact on the environment if coal was generating the power instead. The air would be dirtier and we would have even more massive piles of sludge and ash.

Now consider how well off we'd be if renewable energy was attempting to cover all our power needs. Our electric bills would be thru the roof and we could get to be just like 3rd world nations with the power showing up more or less randomly. Fact is, economically harvesting renewable energy is very difficult to pull off

What we need is a good mix of cost effective power plants that have reasonable impacts on the environment, not “politically correct” plants foisted on everyone by con artists and corrupt politicians lining their pockets with our money.

Bob Amorosi: Your logical fallacies include that you say that other pollution occurs, therefore nuclear pollution is okay (in moderation). All you're saying is that two wrongs make a right. A belief that "everybody's doing it" is no reason to do something that will destroy the planet for your children, grandchildren, and many generations beyond. And I seldom use a cell phone, but that's not because I've grasped why they're dangerous, it's just because the research that they are in fact dangerous -- regardless of why -- is very strong.

Jerry Watson: Your logical fallacies include that you seem to think that radon released from uranium mine pilings is "grossly over-compensated" (whatever exactly that means) by the fact that some quantity of uranium is no longer in the ground to be mined later. Had it been left in the ground, it would have eventually decayed to stable elements without bothering anyone. There's no compensation for radon victims. And no, you don't have to replace nuclear with coal. That's a logical fallacy as well. And by the way, I don't have a degree but I hope you'll read the book anyway, and argue the facts I present any time, if you can. I'm old enough so one of my teachers had polio as a child. Your logic breaks down all over trying to compare polio with damage from radiation, but worst is you are ignoring the severely deformed children from Chernobyl. And that 60X60X60 cube you want to put the nuke waste into? You can ship tens of millions rail-car loads of coal and if any of it spills, so what? But we'll need at least 100,000 shipments of highly toxic, dangerous, impossible-to-handle after a catastrophic accident spent fuel rods, and IF/WHEN an accident happens, permanent evacuation of a large surrounding area, and global contamination, will be the result -- same as Fukushima. Even if you got the nuclear waste in one general location, try packing it into that 60X60X60 cube without having a criticality event! Nobody has ever proven that background radiation is harmless, it's just unavoidable. It should not be increased, as it was by Fukushima. And lastly, did you read in the LAT about how Southern California Edison is BLOCKING all sorts of solar projects? Your logic on why photovoltaics haven't succeeded breaks down right there.

(end of part one)

Michael Keiler: How many people died in Japan from the accident at Fukushima? How would anyone know? And has everyone forgotten that radiation's health effects at low (cumulative) doses is generally long-term, not immediate? And has anyone noticed that Japan is doing everything it can to make it difficult or impossible to prove radiation was the cause of anyone's illness, including burning the radioactive waste all over Japan, dumping it in Tokyo Bay, diluting contaminated foods with non-contaminated foods to bring the Bq per Kg down to legal levels, grossly increasing those levels even for children, shunning anyone who complains about radiation's effects, ignoring those who proudly said everything was safe, ate the food, then got sick and died... are you engineers so stuck on a "cheap" way to boil water that you are not noticing these things? Because the public IS noticing, even if the media is still taking tours of the new reactor pressure vessel head at San Onofre rather than publicize all the reasons the public is demanding it be shut down now and forever.

And Mr. Keiler, renewables ARE cheaper than nuclear. Ask any unbiased source. The only time they're not is when nuclear gets billions of dollars in loan guarantees with closed markets and fixed prices, doesn't have to pay for waste disposal or accident insurance, and benefits from decades of federal investment in a deadly and useless technology. THEN, renewables might have a hard time competing -- as it is today. But in a real capitalist/democratic society where money talks but you pay for the damage you do if you do damage while making money, nuclear wouldn't stand a chance.

Ferdinand Banks: You obviously didn't read my book. But if you go to page 6 (Radiation: What's in You Today?) Bernard Cohen is one of my sources, along with Raymond Murray and other "geniuses" who don't quite understand where their logic falls apart, even though they (sometimes) do good research. Let's say, for example, Cohen's coal-vs.-nuclear numbers given by one of your cohorts here are correct. So what? That's for a properly operating nuclear power plant, and leaves a mountain of waste, whose dangers I've discussed above. It doesn't include Fukushima, which spewed about a million years' worth of legal annual releases in a matter of days -- not to mention, it's still spewing. It doesn't include special-permit releases or leaks that went unnoticed. And lastly, it doesn't include skipping the coal solution and going straight to renewables now. Thousands of megawatts of renewable energy WILL be installed in America this year, and it will pay for itself in a cleaner environment and in many other ways over the coming years. There's no reason a few thousand more megawatts can't be installed in California just so we can close San Onofre and Diablo Canyon -- no reason at all -- other than the billions of dollars still being foolishly invested in nuclear power even today, post-Fukushima.

Meanwhile, who here things Iran only wants to build "peaceful" nuclear power plants?

The High Frontier by Gerard K. O'Neill, Colonies In Space by A. Heppenheim­er. The Third Industrial Revolution G. Harry Stine The Space Enterprise by Philip Robert Harris

and considering that Solar could power the Planet using Earth based Solar with in 20 years why put up with the meltdown RISK or invest in any more nuclear which takes so long to deploy and or clean up from?

Notice I am answering your comment without resorting to "unadulterated fear mongering and political puffery" because the truth is that a Fukushima "event" could just as easily happen in the USA or any where else thanks to Nature or any other cause! That is a reality some choose to deny!

BTW: I could post a number of links by serious Professionals that believe the numbers will be high, yet other Professionals discount those reports... That is what Science is all about trying to figure out what is happening; Time will tell.

As far as electrical costs through the roof, better reconsider that since Solar (of all flavors) is cheaper to install and use than nuclear... That is a fact, see the links I posted above for more...

That said, I believe that many will die and that Japan and the rest of the Planet was really lucky that Fukushima was not orders of magnitudes worse!

The Japanese are in the process of planning to install mega solar in Argentina (and many believe in Australia) then use the Energy to produce Hydrogen which they will ship to Japan and or sell on the market. This is a great example of planning ahead by not just building more nuclear...

BTW: I believe that the nuclear Industry does itself more harm than good by not leading the discussion and helping people redefine the risks instead of resorting to the such tactics as name calling and or using phony science which I refer to as Nuclear Baloney (NB) to promote their industries market share!

I believe that once California consumers and especially California property owners realize that they are NOT covered for any type of fallout, leakage or contamination caused by radioactivity, they will begin to reexamine their "trust" in nuclear because of their financial liability!

Question: How many in Southern California (for example) could afford to just walk away from their homes if one of the reactors in California had a meltdown for any reason; without even considering the health implications later? The answer of course is NOT MANY! We have only to see what has happened in Japan to get a good idea; in short America cannot afford a Trillion Dollar Eco-Disaster any better than Japan.

Remember most of the "rest" of America is downwind from the West Coast! Japan has been "lucky" in that regard ,since most of Fukushima's radioactivity has move toward eastward North America and the rest of the planet; yet most of Northern Japan is now contaminated as is the Pacific Ocean offshore!

Japanese have (on the average) the longest life spans in the world, aside from maybe Monte Carlo, and I suppose Beverly Hills. No matter how ignorant you are, you should be able to check that contention, and if you cant, write the CIA and tell them to send you their yearbook.

THE JAPANESE HAVE THE LONGEST LIFE SPANS IN THE WORLD, AND EVERYTHING CONSIDERED, THEY ARE PROBABLY THE MOST NUCLEAR INTENSIVE COUNTRY IN THE WORLD. Do you have enough intelligence to understand what that means?

As for familiarity with Asia, I have held guest professorships in Hong Kong, Singapore and Bangkok, and was in the US Army in Japan and ...... And Ace, no I haven't read nor do I intend to read your book until you learn how to add two plus two. The Captain of course is a captain in his high school ROTC.

I will however give you two and Tam credit for one thing. The lies and misunderstandings that you have spread have prevented the US and elsewhere from putting together a sensible energy policy. But, as a brilliant teacher and researcher I do not really expect you to get the message, surrounded as you are by mediocrities. Instead, I hope that you keep studying this subject until you find out the right answer to the energy future: NUCLEAR + RENEWABLES AND ALTERNATIVES is the way to go.

I don't dispute that nuclear has its environmental risks and problems, but so does practically everything else in our modern world. The risk of getting killed or injured driving a car is far greater for example, but most of us educated people ACCEPT taking ALL of those risks for a better life in return. This is what cheap and plentiful energy supplies provide us, as professor Banks is trying to tell this forum.

Renewable energy is not cheaper than new nuclear power plants, even at $7 or $8 billion dollars a plant. The reason for that is actually quite simple; the period of time in which renewable energy produces power is quite short and erratic. That means the ability to pay-off the debt is quite limited. The current cost for building renewable energy facilities is quite high and that is why the price of their power must be high. The only way to get around that is to lower the cost of building the renewable facilities and/or figure out a way to cheaply store the energy (or you could force the hapless taxpayer and ratepayer to pay the excess cost). Welcome to the world of economics.

As to the public's risk from nuclear power: vanishingly small. Radiation is something that is not instantly lethal or instantly occurring. That means the public has time to get out of the way - just like in Japan. The risk from catastrophic nuclear accidents is essentially economic.

I do not know what the study would conclude. But my guess is the following: 1) California will have very little, if any, excess capacity in 2020 because (intermittent) renewables require larger reserve margins, and 2) if there will be excess capacity in 2020, the best plants to shut down are the oldest, dirtiest, highest cost, and least efficient plants (not nuclear).

A good study by CAISO would nevertheless provide valuable insights to help California chart its energy future -- and these insights may also be applicable in electricity markets outside of California.

Sorry about my poor editing. That whole passage is quote from Bernard L Cohen an awarding winning physicist. If you feel his conclusions are wrong let him know I was merely quoting his work but in my rush used poor form so it was unclear that it was not my words. This was a coal or Nuc argument, but I thought it fit. To quote Mr. Cohen:

"Mining uranium to fuel nuclear power plants leaves "mill tailings", the residues from chemical processing of the ore, which lead to radon exposures to the public. However, these effects are grossly over-compensated by the fact that mining uranium out of the ground reduces future radon exposures. By comparison, coal burning leaves ashes that increase future radon exposures. The all-inclusive estimates of radon effects are that one nuclear power plant operating for one year will eventually avert a few hundred deaths, while an equivalent coal burning plant will eventually cause 30 deaths." Benard L Cohen.

Whether Cohen is right I have no idea I am not physicist but he is and should know more than me or you. That is why I quote experts it adds a little credibility on matters in which I have no expertise.

One more quick point. "Impossible to handle," ACE do a little studying If a truck load of dry shipped concrete encased spent fuel rods wrecks it would be shovel back with a little surrounding soil. At that point it is more benign than the original ore. It is depleted to the point it is no longer suitable as fuel. It does still produce some limited heat just like it did as raw ore before it was mined. It is a big warm chunk of cement.

100,000 Trucks? Trucks typicall carry around 28 tons of feight. My quess is one ton of depleted uranium is not going to be mixed with 27 tons of concrete.

Will some areas around the plant be "off-limits" for some time? Probably, but that is an economic concern.

If you want to object to something, fine, but kindly engage your brain and dispense with hysteria driven emotional drivel.

FYI - spent nuclear casks do not burn up, as has been amply demonstrated in some pretty impressive tests.

Mr. Hunt and his readers might also want to take a look at a recent report that "Maps California's Energy Future to 2050" (link here: http://www.ccst.us/publications/2011/2011energy.php). In that report, one of the options on the table is a sizable increase in nuclear power, in part to help tide the state through periods when there's not enough sun and wind to meet electric demand.

The notion that modern society can rely exclusively on wind and solar energy is absurd, because doing so requires either an enormous investment in transmission to capture the diversity benefits across a wide geographic footprint, or it requires enormous amounts of very costly storage capable of meeting most of California's electric demand for several days. Perhaps we'll be able to do that in 20 years, but even attempting to do something like that today would be politically unacceptable.

The very fact that enough solar energy strikes California every day to meet the entire country's energy needs is interesting, but it does not mean that energy can be harnessed and put to productive use at reasonable cost. In my opinion, this is where selective and poorly informed use of available information by renewable advocates ends up misleading policymakers and the public.

Like Dr. Banks and some of the other commenters, I agree that renewable energy has its place, as do gas-fired and nuclear generation. Phasing out nuclear power would be a mistake - instead I suggest taking a hard look at coal-fired plants, which are environmental disasters even without considering CO2.

Jack Ellis, Tahoe City, CA

I have no problem at all with people who want a minimum of nuclear, although their minimum would probably be less than my minimum, but this busness of eliminating nuclear is exactly what I called it in Singapore: AN ATTACK ON THE STANDARD OF LIVING OF GAINFULLY EMPLOYED PERSONS LIKE MYSELF AND YOU. I first ran into this kind of thing at parties here in Sweden, but I must confess that I didn't stop going to those parties.

I didn’t believe logic or facts would change your fear since it comes from the inside. I am curious are you mysophobic or agoraphobic?

It is humorous, that me being opposed to further construction of Nuclear Plants at least in the short term in the US would be labeled as a nuclear evangelist. I find myself at one turn be labeled as a left wing liberal and at the next as a nuclear evangelist.

Be gone evil demon!! Let me know if anyone disappeared.

And two more Solar stations are coming on line because they are in pre-construction!

BTW: What the needs will be in 2020 are jst estimates and they can be made to show anything!

Here is my “low cost” solution!

Make use of our MOA’s (Military Operation Area’s) out west, which are really huge tracts of land (think tens of thousands of acres) used ONLY by the military and already secured by them 24/7!

Placing very large (heavy) concrete casks in a poke-a-dot pattern will allow for at least a 100 years of storage safe from everything except a War, (in which case every reactor is just as vulnerable) and then revisit the storage problem then; at which time, probably a future solution will allow for an even better lower cost “final solution”…

Because these casks would be very large and all look alike nobody would know what was in which one of them which would be yet another level of security for the nuclear waste!

Relative to new power generation, you need to evaluate what options you have and then decide what the most economical solution is. Right now in the US, that is natural gas. New nuclear power sits towards the back of the pack with renewable energy generally at the rear end.

Discovery will hopefully be applied to get answers. ___ Based upon all of the above, Mr. Payne’s request to intervene in this case, as an individual ratepayer, should be granted, subject to the legal standards that govern Commission proceedings. ___

BEFORE THE NEW MEXICO PUBLIC REGULATION COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF NEW MEXICO GAS COMPANY FOR APPROVAL OF 2012 ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAMS AND PROGRAM COST TARIFF RIDER PURSUANT TO THE NEW MEXICO PUBLIC UTILITY AND EFFICIENT USE OF ENERGY ACTS. NEW MEXICO GAS COMPANY, Applicant. ))))))))) Case No. 11-00369-UT

SECOND PROCEDURAL ORDER ___

http://www.prosefights.org/nmgco/intervene/granted.doc ___ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE AND REQUEST FOR DISCOVERY _ 1 Nature of interests in the proceeding are:

A Ensure that decision for rate increase is based on facts provided by natural gas engineers and scientists as opposed to liberal arts verbal and essay analysis.

B Determine if there is or is not a natural gas supply problem.

... http://www.prosefights.org/nmgco/intervene/intervene.htm#motion

Google 'ryan crocker j orlin grabbe' to see reason for visibility ploys.

In fact Tam I would highly recommend the strategy to California. They could easily use power from Palo Verde in Arizona (may be build another unit or two) and then you could claim that all the power is coming from windmills (just like Merkel is). The perfect strategy.

It is a lie but who cares in the image game. I mean you are already doing the same with hydroelectric since a big chunk of it is coming from the Hoover Dam (on the border between Arizona and Nevada and not in Califiornia). OK to dam up the Colorado and starve the Mexican farmers of water downstream so you can have air con in California. Don't hear you asking for Hoover to be shutdown do we? But it's all an image game. So definitely the strategy to use. Politically correct. Makes enviro twits look great, satisfies the anti nukes as well as the pro nukes. Go for it.

In the meantime China has 28 new plants under construction for a total of 62 new plants worldwide and plans to build another 102 before 2020. TVA is completing construction and starting operation of Bellefonte Unit 1 the 2 Units at Watts Bar and all three units at Browns Ferry. Canada is extending the lives of its fleet of CANDU plants for another 30 years. The United Arab Emirates is building 4 units with the help of the South Koreans who themselves are building another 18 units. So the "nuclear is dead" flavor of your article is of course completely incorrect. But please adopt the strategy for California then Arizona can charge you an arm and a leg for your power. It will look good on you.

However along the coast from Fukushima there is (was) a coal burning plant. It was completely destroyed and most if not all the plant workers were killed. Coal plants are not built as robustly as nuclear ones are - but I guess that is OK with you as long as radiation is not involved. The plant collapsed on the workers - it was NOT as earthquake resistant as Fukushima but steel work falling on your head is an OK way to die. Radiation exposure - even minimal amounts with no health effects are something to shout about. You are a hypocrite.

When thousands of people die in the worst earthquake of modern times I find galling that you use the deaths of those people to showcase your ill thought out opposition to nuclear energy. Zero for persuasion and 100% for pure hypocrisy.

Malcolm

That says it all as far as I'm concerned; in essence you don't give a hoot as long as you can make money from it, RISK and or radioactive pollution not an issue to be concerned about! I pity folks like you if a Fukushima type event happens in North America,; having to explain that beyond design basis "does not count" and folks will just have to accept it as part of the nuclear Industry doing business! With that attitude, I'm not surprised by you or you statements on this thread!

I suggest that you get your "neurotic urges" check out ...

You make it painfully obvious that you know a lot about rhetoric and nothing about energy and even less than zero about nuclear energy since your facts are wrong. Since Mr D you have adopted a comic book name I can only conclude, judging by its accuracy, that your knowledge of nuclear energy comes from Spiderman and similar comic books. Clearly Mr Hoffman basis his rhetoric on The Simpsons and has never ever spoken to a control room operator at a nuclear power plant

I have operated nuclear power plants and worked in the industry for well over 40 years and what you say is and I am being polite here - complete and utter crap.

Nuclear power is the safest industry in the world bar none.

Malcolm

You may disagree with that and that is your right but in my opinion (without any name calling), that is no longer true. Every land based nuclear reactor is a potential Trillion Dollar Eco-Disaster and just because it has not happened yet, does not reduce the actual risk one bit. When "whatever" happens, there will be a financial disaster of epic proportions; we have to look no farther than Fukushima to see a perfect example of that; because they, like you thought their reactors were "perfect" before 3/11/11.

The article starts out by telling us that the votes of people even less qualified in a list of countries have decided the future of nuclear energy. I don’t know the laws in these countries but I do know we Americans have a vote for president/vice president and a senator and representative for congress. That’s it on the national level. We don’t have a vote about taxes, war or peace, or how we are to generate electricity.

I’m a bit of a living fossil. Except for the military, the IRS and the then federal mail system I was almost totally unaware of how the federal government impinged on me. I didn’t think it did. And I was already a veteran of two wars. I had never known or even talked to a federal employee and wouldn’t have known how to find one.

So it seems to me that it is sorta crazy to expect voters to know how to vote on generating electricity. I read not long ago that a man-on- the street interviewer had difficulty finding many people who could solve, “What is 50% of 70?” A typical excuse was,” I wasn’t a math major.” I am grateful we do not ask citizens to vote on energy problems. And I find it easy to discount votes in other countries.

In perusing all the learned comments above I did not see mention of two overriding problems. CO2 emissions and over population. If we did not have nuclear generators our CO2 situation would be worse. If we shut some down (Germany) and replace some of the capacity with coal (Germany) we are either making things worse in the case of CO2 or ignoring the population question.

We were told by all the premier scientists, with only the nuts demurring, that the CO2 level of emissions must be no greater than those of 1990 or we would have passed beyond the point of no return. We are about twice that level and still annually increasing. (Any word from those premier scientists?)

The countries where people voted against nuclear energy were countries where people had adequate electric service. Don’t the people (billions) who don’t have electric service have a vote? Why should they not opt for the cheapest (even if the most polluting) generating plant?

Ferd Banks-------" I won't see your links Captain because you obviously don't know what you are talking about. Let me put that another way: you have come to the wrong forum to circulate what you think of as your wisdom, because many of us here know a great deal more than you do about this topic - and that is a great deal more about both the engineering and the economics of nuclear."--------

With Pr. Banks penchant for winning friends and influencing people----nuclear energy is dead.

I hope you give a lot of seminars this year Fred----we can use the help in making nuclear energy industry a footnote to history.

I doubt anyone needs help from Fred Banks in killing the nuclear industry, as you can see in this forum there appears to be far more opposition to nuclear than supporters. I'm sure this is the case worldwide too.

If we are facing a future of widely deployed integrated renewable energy generation as Tam reveals about California's plans, the natural gas industry is in for a booming future given solar and wind must have backup generation, and most if not all of this backup is surely going to be from more NG plants.

Don't get me wrong, I like NG as an energy source, it heats my home up here amongst the polar bears in Canada. And I know most internal combustion engines in cars can be easily converted to use NG too. What I worry about is putting so much future dependence on NG when its price is subject to supply and demand market forces just like oil is, and also when the emerging global climate change crisis is bound to lead to reductions of fossil fuel burning, one way or another.

Consider solar and wind generators are usually sited geographically in their most favorable regions with lots of sunshine or lots of wind, based of course on regional “normal” climate history. Well gentlemen, it is safe to say today that climate change may very soon change normal climate history everywhere around the globe. A great wind-farm site today may be tomorrow’s white elephant. Get my picture? Shuttering the entire nuclear fleet someday means some regions could be left crippled without enough generation should they need another source besides NG or renewables.

In my humble opinion, the risk of shuttering all nuclear plants outweighs the environmental risks associated with potential nuclear accidents. It is much more prudent to keep SOME nuclear plants in the mix of generation sources. As they say, it is unwise to place all your eggs in one (energy-source) basket.

Speaking of Einstein, Tam Hunt once rated the previous head of the Swedish Social Democratic Party, Mona Sahlin, as somebody almost on that level, Actually she was probably the most ignorant and lazy politician in Sweden, and she has cost the Social Democratic party at least a decade in the 'wilderness'.

But let's get something straight. I'm not debating nuclear here. If you want to debate that topic contact one of these moronic academics who give the orders at universities the Stockholm-Uppsala area, and tell them that you want to teach Fred Banks a lesson about energy economics. One thing though, you won't put in another appearance in this country.

Precisely Murray, you would make a good engineer.

Sometimes political opposition to things are overstated due to irrational thinking based on emotion, not based on logic. I suspect the anti-nuke guys fall largely in this category. But, nevertheless, it is up to engineers (and marketing people) to restore confidence in an established technology if such confidence has been lost to fear. Customer and public perceptions have a huge influence over its acceptance, whether those perceptions are true or false.

Let this be a lesson for the nuclear industry - they had better get their act in gear and do a lot of selling to restore the public's confidence if they hope to survive in future. And while they are at it, it would help a lot to work towards getting the costs for new nuclear plant construction down too, way down.

http://www.powerpulse.net/story.php?src=r4;storyID=25158

Energy efficiency may be a better route than trying to generating more electricty?

Especially by solar and wind?

Those of us who likely will never make an insurance claim will pick up the bill in premiums and taxes.

Wisely, in almost two thousand years nobody has sought to rebuild Pompeii.

For the US that means 4.4^15/(365X24X.3X10^9)=1674 watts per person.

That means 21X10^15 / (365X24X7X10^9) = 342 watts per person worldwide.

If we say there are 0.1 billion more people every year and we say for each one there is a miserable more 342 watts, then just to stay even we need 342X100X10^6X24X365=300X10^12 more watt hours. Or 34.2 mega watts of generation.

But wait. Of the 21X10^15 Twos of capacity maybe about 2% will be retired. That’s about 0.42 TWh per year or 47.9mega watts of generation.

But wait once again. This 34.2 + 47.9 = 82.1 Megs presumes nobody who had no electric service gets electrical service. It further presumes some who had service do not add air-conditioning. And it presumes there are no new electric cars that now need daily charging. Sure I am crude. But am I wrong? What say the experts?

Specifically, the history of WW2, where Uncle Sam performed miracles, and Sam and friends also made some incredible mistakes. Remember, when the Swedes paniced after the first oil price shock, they constructed 12 reactors in 13-14 months, and they didn't....

Anyway, I know that in the present world none of this is relevant, unless of course Lady Gaga or somebody like this shouts it to the high heavens, but what you have to understand is.....comparatively....

NOTICE OF FORTHCOMIN­G WEBINAR ON DRAFT REPORT FOR LONG-TERM WASTE CONFIDENCE UPDATE January 31, 2012 2:00 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. (Eastern Standard Time) http://pba­dupws.nrc.­gov/docs/M­L1200/ML12­004A107.pd­f Web-based session, co-hosted by The Council of State Government­s’ Midwestern Office (CSG Midwest) and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)

Registrati­on ends today!

The problem is making the right people understand that this is the case, which many of them either do or are on the verge of doing. You see, because of Fukushima, cranks like Tam can hold the attention of other cranks, but that will change. Economics and not crank foolishness like this article will prevail in the long run.

What is going to be more difficult in the short run is convincing voters that solar and wind CANNOT replace nuclear. The ultimate solution is nuclear AND solar and wind. In the long run of course it wont be a problem, because without nuclear those lovely voters will be walking around in fur lined baseball caps and fur-lined T-shirts, watching the Chinese take home the economic gold medals.

Tam accuses me of bluster. Poor guy, I've been blustering since I gave my first real lecture, when I was l8, and informed the congregation that the 2.36 bazooka was a piece of junk. Was I right or wrong?

Midway through the last one I gave, in Singapore, I informed some guy like Tam that I was the leading academic energy economist in the world. That shut him up, because when standing in front of a blackboard with a piece of chalk in my hand I am the man. And Tam, if you and your Greek Chorous want proof about nuclear, I'll give it to you now: Swedens constructed 12 reactors in 13+ years, and the Chinese are..... That's proof, and if anyone is too dumb to interpret it, that's there problem.

Finally, I like these exchanges. In a class or seminar room nobody has a chance against me, It's lonely at the top.

No fossil fuel burning. All three have virtually unlimited fuel supplies. Zero fuel costs for solar and wind. Insignificant fuel costs for nuclear. Implementing nuclear accident prevention technicques is marginally extra cost compared to overall nuclear construction costs.

The REAL problems with nuclear are getting those construction costs down, plus ensuring those accident prevention mechanisms get implemented, plus dealing with spent fuel waste. Until these get addressed, the anti-nuclear movement is not going to go away that easily Fred.

Spent fuel waste can be dealt with by repeated processing in the new generation of nuclear equipment. As for the anti-nuclear movement going away, they have ten or maybe twenty more years to sprout their nonsense. After that they will have to pay people to listen to them.

Incidentally, as I try to tell those morons, commercial breeders will be ready in another decade, if not sooner. Then the thing to worry about will be an excess of plutonium that, together with dumb politicians like George W. Bush, and incompetent politicians like Obama, will really give the TV audience something to worry about. I dont like Amory Lovins and Ralph Nader, but where plutonium is concerned they probably have it right.

Thirty years ago Sweden built 12 reactors in 13+ years, which provided more than 50 percent of the electric power in this country after they were tuned up, and today China can construct a 1000 MW reactor in less than 5 years. Do you get the message fellows and gals. I would think that even a member of a remidial class at Boston Public could understand what this means, although when I tried to explain it to Mr Jeffry Leggett and the moronic Professor Kjell Alekless at my university, they went ballistic.

Are we OK with this or do ye want some algebra - which ye wont get unless some money changes hands.

Of course the Chinese politicians and engineers understand this and are building a breeder reactor with the same idea. Since the Chinese have very little Uranium of their own so the concept of fast breeders fits in very well.

The irony of it all is that most conventional reactors (they are called thermal reactors because the neutrons are slowed down to thermal energy by the moderator) actually produce most of their energy from fissions of Plutonium which is formed by neutron capture in the U238. Very little of the U235 atoms are used up which means that the spent fuel is not waste but a source of Uranium once reprocessed. Once Uranium prices start to go up as they inevitably will do because mined supply is not sufficient to meet reactor demand then reprocessing of spent fuel becomes economic. They already do that in France.

The great advantage of nuclear power is that the fuel supply is virtually unlimited and once fast breeder technology is added to the mix it is unlimited since more fuel is produced than is consumed. Like burning a ton of coal and getting two tons left. Amazing stuff and the Chinese know it well. So while California is busy converting itself to green energy and going broke in the process (or should I say more broke than it already is) China will be acheiving complete energy independence, first by building two or three hundred conventional reactors and then another hundred or so fast breeders. Their fuel imports will be zero. Game set and match to China.

Malcolm

But this is a topic that I stay away from. The governments of many countries are so ignorant and dishonest that I am not certain that they can manage equipment with so much plutonium in the cycle. Of course, if things keep going the way they are going with the international macroeconomy, the voters will insist on breeders.

And the Chinese ARE going to take it all. They remember their history - the humiliations they have suffered over the centuries - and we have forgotten ours: what we accomplished during WW2. But I guess that that is par for the course. I suppose that we will just have to get used to the dumbing down taking place all around us, or maybe win some lottery and move to some Middle East paradise where we cant understand the language.