Comments on: Renewable Myths and Nuclear Heresies

By: David Bradley

David Bradley — Mon, 17 Dec 2007 11:29:08 +0000

In the light of the Bali agreement, does anyone have any further comments on this item about nuclear heresies and the environment?

By: Professor matt

Professor matt — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 11:39:32 +0000

I’ve just read this article about old nuclear weapons being used to make nuclear fuel for electricity. I’m not against renewables per se, but that article made a lot of good sense and turning weapons into electricity is yet another nuclear benefit.

By: Charlie Foster

Charlie Foster — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 08:06:15 +0000

Fascinating article, David — adds some much-needed nuance and perspective to the alternative energy debate.

By: David Bradley

David Bradley — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 10:47:17 +0000

Just in from the UK government’s Department For Business, Enterprise And Regulatory Reform (BERR)

Ending gridlock on the grid, Connecting more renewables to Britain’s electricity network

“Delay in linking new wind farms and other forms of clean electricity to the national grid is one of the main obstacles to achieving the UK’s renewable energy aims”, Energy Minister Malcolm Wicks said today as he launched a joint BERR/Ofgem review of the issue.

The Transmission Access Review will recommend changes to the overall framework that will better deliver the connection of renewable generation, taking into account the potential for reduced carbon emissions, cost to the consumer and the impact on security of supply. The time needed to make the essential investments in infrastructure means that many schemes have projected connection dates years from now.

Energy Minister Malcolm Wicks said:

“There are currently around 12GW of projects seeking connection in Scotland along with many more in other parts of the UK. This is enough capacity to make a significant contribution toward the Governments aspiration of 20% of electricity coming from renewable sources by 2020.

“Getting more green electricity connected to the grid is essential if we are to burn less fossil fuels. This review will help us to ensure that renewable generators can supply more low carbon electricity as quickly as possible.”

etc etc etc

By: DV82XL

DV82XL — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 20:01:05 +0000

The proliferation issue should be put out of the debate once and for all. Wake-up and smell the coffee: no country that has decided to develop nuclear weapons has been stopped from doing so, yet despite this none of these ‘rogue states’ has ever used a nuclear weapon in war.

If anyone is interested in an insider’s look at nuclear weapons and the policy imperatives they create there is no better treatment than Nuclear Warfare 101 found here:

http://homepage.mac.com/msb/163x/faqs/nuclear_warfare_101.html

It really should be required reading for those who wish to discuses the topic intelligently.

By: Mike Oliver

Mike Oliver — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 18:29:07 +0000

Nuclear is best. The issue of proliferation will not be resolved by depending more on the phoney renewables, that result in the US buying increasing amounts of oil. It is a world commodity, and its price increases with demand no matter where we buy it. To reduce its price, we must simply provide more oil of our own, or replace it — and the best way to greatly reduce its use is to go nuclear. Meanwhile, we should realize that the more we try to use the renewables, the more we are forced to buy extra oil at ever increasing prices on world markets, thus, directly or indirectly vastly increasing the cash flow to the terrorists. Hostile nations use these funds also to develop and acquire nuclear weapons. Thus , the claim that use of our nuclear power plants cause proliferation of nuclear weapons is a red hearing pushed by green nazis. As a Lithuanian Jew and former imate of nazi concentration camps, I do not use this term lightly, but it is true.

Greens count on the big lie, helped by the LA Times and other so-called “liberal” news outlets, to spread their propaganda — all to the beneift of the terrorists who hate the Jews as much as Hitler did.

As to nuclear residues: much of its effect is resolved by recyling, as is already being done in France, but not in the U.S., again, due to propaganda of the greens. Moreover, the new reactors, such as being designed by GE and other companies, will use nearly all the actinides to produce energy — that is watt-hours, not the watts mentioned by greens to hide the horribly low capacity factors of their solar panels, windmills and other “alternatives” .

We should start NOW to construct pebble bed reactors, as is already being done in The Repubic of South Africa and China. Greens will have a fit if this is done, but let’s ignoe them, and let’s ignore their stooges in the news m dia and Hollywood.

They claim to be the undefudned champions of our planet, but , in reality, are supported by some of the wealthiest foundations, first estblished by the likes of Carnegie, now controlled by graduates fo Ivy League universities, where Marx is still regarded as the messiah. Thus, they have no lack of funds they use to sue everyone they like, with the blessings of the ACLU, another Marxist outfit.

Before we can defeat the terrorists, we must first neutratlize the effect of their most important helpers, — the greens who are doing all they can to insure that the funding of the terroists will continue, as wil the funding of hostile nations that sue our money to buy and/or develope nuclear weapons.

Lincoln said that no outside forces could defeat the U.S., but that it could be lost due to its internal foes. Presently, this means the greens.

Moses Olitzki

By: David Bradley

David Bradley — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 16:30:48 +0000

Yes, the links there – anchored on the phrase “water as opposed to CO2″

Just to simplify though, this is the link http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument/#more-455

By: noumenalself

noumenalself — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 15:56:35 +0000

Did you mean to provide a link in answer to the greenhouse gas question? None came through.

By: DV82XL

DV82XL — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 15:19:52 +0000

A breath of fresh air. (pun intended)

However I have to agree with James Aach, rational discussion on this matter is rare in broad public forums at this time. This is not being helped by fear-mongering from the so-called Greens, hollow promises from the snake-oil selling evangelists of the renewable sector, and the political might of Big Carbon.

Progress is however slowly being made and hopefully Ausubel’s book will turn a few more folks to the truth.

By: David Bradley

David Bradley — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 07:14:24 +0000

I’m glad this post is generating such an interesting discussion. It is certainly a controversial area, and yes, Prof Ausubel is not the first to make such a suggestion regarding whether or not renewables could ever be considered the “answer”.

As to Watt-hours as opposed to Watts. I quote values Ausubel provided in his paper. I presume he discusses them in this way as an average of 24h almost continual demand.

The issue of water vapor as a greenhouse gas has been addressed before. Yes, it is a potent greenhouse gas. Best place for a rationale discussion about water as opposed to CO2 can be found here. Fundamentally, the difference is in the “where” of apparent greenhouse gas production.

As I mentioned at the end of the article, I have a follow-up post on the issue of nuclear security.