Consumer Energy Report is now Energy Trends Insider -- Read More »

By Russ Finley on Dec 2, 2015 with 467 responses

Bill Nye the Science Guy Social Primate and Nuclear Energy

BillandSunnivaBill Nye photo via Simon Fraser University Flickr Creative Commons, Sunniva Rose Via TEDx Talk Screenshot

An article last week in Business Insider discussed Bill Nye’s conversion from anti-GMO to pro-GMO (genetically modified organisms). According to Nye, while attending a political rally in NYC:

“…one speaker insisted that the US president Barack Obama was part of a conspiracy sponsored by large agriculture companies to control minds — and received a great many cheers — somehow that passionate man at the microphone crossed a line for me.”

Was it a desire to distance himself from conspiracy theorist nut-balls or was it the result of his exposure to facts by real scientists at Monsanto that finally convinced him to change his mind? If it was the latter then his stance was largely based on a lack of knowledge. Some are hoping that because Nye was convinced to distance himself from anti-GMO ideologues that he may also one day distance himself from their anti-nuclear energy counterparts, as several highly visible environmentalists have managed to do over the last few years, but I’m skeptical. Nye was not nearly as invested in his GMO stance as he is in his anti-nuclear energy belief.

After reading the above article I typed in the search terms Obama Nuclear Conspiracy and found an article on a conspiracy theorist website titled Nuclear Power Plants–Can We Trust Government Agencies To Tell The Truth? From that article:

“Exelon, the largest nuclear power generator in the USA, was a generous financial supporter to get Barack Hussein Obama elected president. No wonder President Obama supports and promotes building more nuclear power plants.”

At the bottom (no pun intended) was the following crass political cartoon (I’ve censored it for the weak of heart) which encapsulates the big three; anti-GMO, anti-vaccination, and anti-nuclear energy, oh, and fluoride.

CitizenCattle1

Bill Nye the comedian celebrity version of everyone’s favorite high-school science teacher, but funnier, and goofier, much goofier, still thinks nuclear energy is too dangerous while Sunniva Rose, a practicing nuclear physicist and real world embodiment of the lawyer character played by Reese Witherspoon in the movie Legally Blonde demonstrates in her TEDx talk that nuclear energy is actually (ironically?) the safest energy source we have. Click here to see a video of Nye’s view on nuclear energy. A screenshot of the graphic used by Sunniva is shown below. It’s a more colorful version of the one found here, and similar to one published by Greenpeace and one in Wikipedia here.

DeathsPerTWh

 

Bill Nye: “It may be that nuclear power, at our current level of understanding, is just inherently not safe enough.”

Sunniva Rose: “How is it possible to worry about global warming, and not be pro-nuclear?”

As an aside, Sunniva is also trained in classical ballet. Not to be outdone, here’s a YouTube video of Bill Nye doing a series of back flips on the reality show Dancing with the Stars …classic Nye humor. While the shock wears off, the laughing starts as you deduce that the guy doing back flips has to be a stunt double (which you then confirm with a quick Google search), but that fact was lost on the person publishing the video. In this case, all his lack of critical thinking cost him was a good laugh.

All anti-nuclear energy arguments have been losing ground since the advent of the Internet, where the truth can usually be found by anyone interested in finding it. The “nuclear power is unsafe” argument was one of the first to fall. For some reason, Bill never got that memo. Now, of course, you can lead a horse to water …but what about Fukushima?

Contrary to popular depictions (and the conspiracy website mentioned above), Fukushima was actually a test case that bolstered the nuclear safety issue. Not a single fatality resulted from the power plant when, not one, but three reactor cores melted down as a result of a magnitude nine quake and 60 foot high tsunami that killed tens of thousands, devastating the surrounding countryside and infrastructure, severely limiting the ability to respond to the loss of water pumps keeping the reactors that had automatically gone off line from cooling down. The above graphs cover the entire half century of nuclear power use in all countries around the entire planet. A nuclear power plant built in the sixties is about as technologically distant from a new one as your smart phone is from a transistor radio, a 707 from a 787.

What is science? One stripped down definition might be the use of math to uncover reality. It’s close cousin, engineering, might be defined as the application of math and science to create technology. Back when Darwin first published his treatise, debating creationists was even more challenging because at that time Darwin had no idea what the physical mechanism was that caused change. Today, thanks to the likes of Rosalind Franklin who managed to take X-ray diffraction images (worth a thousand words) of a DNA molecule that very likely gave the hint to Watson and Crick that helped them unravel the double helix structure of the molecule, we now know what that mechanism is. The evolutionary process, it turns out, is raw mathematics. Around the world, organism genomes are unraveled and stored in computers daily. 2 + 2 = 4. That’s science. Nuclear energy’s safety statistics are undeniable.

Bill recently wrote a book about evolution called Undeniable: Evolution and the Science of Creation which made it to the New York Times best seller list …which pales in comparison to the seven books co-written by Jerry Jenkins, co-author of the Left Behind series of books that tell …“the story of the end times (set in the contemporary era), in which true believers in Christ have been “raptured“, (taken instantly to heaven) leaving the world shattered and chaotic,” that also reached the bestseller list (three of which made it to the number one spot). Although the science behind evolution is undeniable, Bill is unlikely to ever get a creationist to cede the argument in large part because they are socially invested in their belief. The numbers don’t matter to them. They are members of the creationist monkey troop and ceding that argument will get them excommunicated. In short, there would be a terrible social and emotional cost extracted. And one more thing, if you have ever debated a creationist you soon realize that a big part of the problem is a lack of knowledge as was the case with Nye’s change of opinion on GMOs.

As an aside, Nye’s book on the subject also pales in comparison to the works of an actual scientist:

Over the years I’ve read all but the last two of Dawkins’ books listed above.  I’m presently in the middle of reading Appetite for Wonder. Not expecting to find any epiphanies like memes and selfish genes, I’m going to pass on Nye’s 300 page Reader’s Digest version.

Yesterday, I swung by my favorite bookstore. The employees are all bibliophiles and the new non-fiction tables are typically full of great books. I usually feel like a kid in a candy store and walk out with an armload, but not this time. I found one book of interest. I noticed that roughly a quarter of the books were written by entertainment celebrities, which makes sense from a publisher’s perspective because they have a good chance of being profitable. A book written by Paris Hilton or Kim Kardashian would very likely be a best seller.

So, why does Bill Nye, a guy who purportedly lives and breathes science, continue to “believe” that nuclear energy is unsafe? Certainly, the numbers don’t justify his belief. As with his creationist counterpart, I suspect he was imprinted with this belief in his youth. The belief has defined him socially. His environmentalist monkey troop circle heavily overlaps that of the anti-nuclear energy monkey troop. Ceding that argument may well get him excommunicated (Ed Begley might not want to be seen in public with him). There would be a social cost extracted. For this reason, convincing him to cease and desist parroting old (and new) anti-nuclear energy arguments may be just as difficult as getting a creationist to cede their arguments. In short, Bill is, on this particular subject, as guilty of ignoring the science (numbers) as his creationist counterpart.

Today, what we call celebrity worship is probably a distortion of a basic behavior rooted in our genes that at one time somehow helped move copies of genes into the future. The behavior may have facilitated the status hierarchy inside hunter gatherer hominid troops …or not. On the other hand, a modern day comedic celebrity publicly expressing his or her unqualified opinion on important topics can have a disproportional negative impact, like this comedian’s opinion of vaccination policy, or energy policy which in turn, thanks to climate change and assuming humanity is capable of doing anything about it, can have a negative impact on our children’s futures. Such is human nature. The numbers have little impact on the beliefs of creationists, aging anti-nukers or new-age anti-vaccers.

Max Planck once said “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”

Bill Nye once said “Don’t believe everything grownups tell you,” which includes what Bill tells you, although he may deny being a grownup.

Those anti-nuclear groups that have largely abandoned the difficult to defend safety argument have managed to do so in part because they’re confident they have found a more defensible one in the new cost argument (although it is nearly as weak as the safety one and I will try to get a post up on that topic). This is a good thing overall in my opinion because jumping to the cost argument has made it easier to abandon other misconceptions (they still have an argument to cling to).

I’m a proponent of the use of wind and solar when properly sited, but it has been made very clear by many studies from reputable sources like the NREL, the EIA, and the Google R<C research team that they can’t replace all fossil fuel use without the assistance of existing nuclear technology and/or future technologies not yet proven to be commercially viable or not yet envisioned. I’ve used a version of the following graphic before and I present it here again to demonstrate the lack of progress being made.

 PercentGlobalElectricity

Read:

Google Engineers Conclude that Renewable Energy Will Not Result in Significant Emissions Reductions

New IEA Study: Least Cost Scenario has Nuclear as the World’s Largest Source of Electricity by 2050

 The Exaggerated Promise of Renewable Energy

 

 

  1. By Forrest on December 3, 2015 at 1:55 pm

    So, your a nuclear atheist? I agreed with you post up til the evolution rant. Your proving GMO is safe as nuclear per science of evolution? That’s quite a stretch. Evolution as a science is shallow indeed. No experiment can test the hypothesis. So, I guess anyone can be an expert in this field of study. Evolution appears to be a biological trait of programmed organisms. Meaning the adaptation itself is created. You do know, almost all citizens of earth believe in a creator and God? Evolution is probably a biological factor, but the biology of evolution never created anything.

    Nuclear powering the steam turbine is a bit disappointing. The fuel has tremendous power and 2/3rds of it wasted to make steam and drive a low efficiency turbine. Hopefully, they can utilize the high temperatures to drive hydrogen generation and steam. The cogen would surpass the efficient hot air and steam turbine generation of natural gas power plants. Coal has an advantage over nuclear currently, per the gasification process powering cogen of hot air and steam turbines. Better to be at 60% efficiency than 30%. Co-production of hydrogen of coal and nuclear would push efficiency through the roof.

    [link]      
  2. By PW on December 4, 2015 at 5:22 am

    Russ, that’s a well written piece. I agree with almost none of your conclusions, but it does deserve praise for being well crafted.

    I hope you won’t take this wrong, but i’d like to challenge you one a specific point – the claims made about deaths per TWh.

    If you are a person of science, then you need to verify the legitimacy of that claim. Let me begin with just one of the several ways the numbers have been twisted to arrive at the conclusion posted. The claim that nuclear deaths per TWh are 0.04 is arrived at by extreme data trimming. The open link that used to exist to the entire paper has disappeared, but here are links to screenshots of my copy: Article:

    “Meaning of results: Comparative risk assessments of energy options”
    R Wilson, M Holland, A Rabl, and M Dreicer, Meaning of results: Comparative risk assessments of energy options: IAEA Bulletin [IAEA Bull.], vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 14-18, 1999. Summary of chart sources:

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/h1gca30mcc1uxkn/Screenshot%202015-12-04%2004.52.27.png?dl=0

    Results:
    https://www.dropbox.com/s/mxmzz15zydhyz1k/Screenshot%202015-12-04%2004.51.07.png?dl=0

    You should also review the sourcing for the wind number as I think you’ll find even more egregious misrepresentation of data there. I’m giving you the link to the list of Gipe’s archived datasets that your source used.

    http://www.wind-works.org/cms/index.php?id=41

    As you can see, wind is <0.007/TWh while nuclear (excluding deaths from major accidents) is 0.69/TWh.

    The process for arriving at the number for solar was so speculative I won't even go into it.

    I've been following this since it first appeared and the authors of its various iterations as it migrated our of the blogosphere are unquestionably aware of the nature of their data selection.

    I'd love to hear your thoughts on how this deliberately misrepresentative claim has made it to the status of accepted wisdom among a group hanging their argumentative hat on the claim of accurate science?

    PS: http://www.ratical.com/radiation/KillingOurOwn/KOO14.html

    [link]      
    • By Russ Finley on December 4, 2015 at 11:44 pm

      As you can see … nuclear (excluding deaths from major accidents) …”

      Excluding deaths from major accidents? At what point did this ”…deliberately misrepresentative claim make it to the status of accepted wisdom among a group hanging their argumentative hat on the mantel of accurate science?”

      The one major nuclear power accident out of three in a half century of operation globally, killed the equivalent of roughly ten percent of the annual car deaths in the U.S., while Fukushima and TMI caused no mortality.

      If you are the person of science you present yourself to be you would have calculated those deaths from major accidents rather than insinuate to readers that they would make a meaningful difference. To spur you onto the effort …ah screw it. I’ll run the number for you:

      Sum of nuclear power since 1965 = 79,749 TWh (Source: BP Statistical Review)
      Chernobyl deaths ~ 4,000 (Source: World Health Organization)
      Deaths / TWh = 4,000 / 79,749 = 0.05 / TWh
      0.69 + 0.05 = 0.74 / TWh making nuclear safer than hydro and if you want to include deaths from dam failures, you can start with this one from Wikipedia:

      In 1975 the failure of the Banqiao Reservoir Dam and other dams in Henan Province, China caused more casualties than any other dam failure in history. The disaster killed an estimated 171,000 people and 11 million people lost their homes.

      It’s ironic really, that although coal has always caused far more deaths, safety has never (until recently) been a big issue with it, yet it became a major issue with nuclear, one of the safest forms, decades ago. Testament to how susceptible the general population can be to false information.

      Ask yourself why this topic of nuclear energy safety is so important to you when the mortality rate from wind, solar, and nuclear combined (using your own 0.69 number) is 160 times less than coal? 40,000 Americans are killed in their cars every year.

      If you are the person of science you present yourself to be, then you’ll want to verify the legitimacy of that claim.To spur you onto the effort, I’ll document two of the several ways the numbers have been twisted to arrive at the conclusion posted …I’d love to hear your thoughts on how this deliberately misrepresentative claim has made it to the status of accepted wisdom among a group hanging their argumentative hat on the mantel of accurate science?.

      No problem, using your value of 0.69 for nuclear simply moves the nuclear bar just to the left of wind, making it twice as safe as hydro, 160 times safer than coal, which still fully supports the article’s claim and posted conclusion that nuclear is one of the safest forms we have.

      Why the vitriol? Were you, like Nye, imprinted with a belief in your youth that you now identify with? And why are you using an anonymous moniker?

      This is why I presented three different bar charts, including one from Greenpeace which includes error bands, to demonstrate that no matter how you slice and dice your assumptions and biases, nuclear remains one of the safest forms of energy.

      I chose Sunniva’s version of bar charts simply because she had deliberately made it more colorful. There are no exact numbers for any of the energy sources, including those you present. They are all estimates representing varying biases which is why the three bar charts I linked to are not identical.

      I’ve been following this since it first appeared and the authors of its various iterations as it migrated our of the blogosphere are unquestionably aware of the nature of their data selection.

      Uh huh, so, in conclusion, how many angels will fit on the head of a pin? But you are OK with the chart from Greenpeace and the Italian Wikipedia article on Nuclear Energy shown below that also demonstrate nuclear to be one of the safest forms of energy? All of this vitriol because nuclear is shown to be slightly less than wind in one of the three graphics?

      [link]      
      • By Forrest on December 5, 2015 at 6:10 am

        Wall Street Journal had an interesting piece that is inline with your coal vs nuclear post. Search “A nuclear paradigm shift” .

        Imprinting youth upon religious values not that horrible of an condition for society or well being. Youths always get imprinted by family values, even atheism and immorality values.

        [link]      
      • By PW on December 5, 2015 at 9:02 am

        Since you’ve evaded the point, I’ll ask again – please explain “how this deliberately misrepresentative claim has made it to the status of accepted wisdom among a group hanging their argumentative hat on the mantel of accurate science?”

        Nuclear power involves a lot more than science, it is first and foremost an industry. And, just like the tobacco and fossil fuel industries, it is engaged in an extremely active campaign of misinformation to promote the continued use and expansion of its product.
        That is the significance of the uncritical acceptance of the obviously blatant falsehood related to the relative safety of nuclear power. These proponents are NOT practicing any form of scientific endeavor – they are involved in product advocacy.

        By extension that means their claims should be subject to extremely rigorous examination before being taken as true. It is pretty clear that isn’t what is happening in the article.

        In 2003 MIT released their extremely comprehensive review of nuclear power “The Future of Nuclear”. Their conclusions included the warning that 4 problems areas must to be addressed for nuclear power to become a part of the solution to climate change. Safety, waste, cost and proliferation concerns were ALL deemed critical impediments to the future success of nuclear power.
        The response by the nuclear industry has been largely to pretend those impediments do not exist and instead whitewashing the data while waging a massive propaganda campaign.
        Just like the climate denial propaganda machine, the nuclear industry’s PR agents follow a script where misinformation and false promises are fed into the public consciousness.
        Thank you for your uncritical participation.

        [link]      
    • By Russ Finley on December 5, 2015 at 4:15 pm

      Since you’ve evaded the point, I’ll ask again

      Since you’ve evaded the point I’ll ask that you read my earlier comment again. Review the three bar charts from the three sources again. Although their numbers vary, as is always the case with multiple independent studies, they all come to the same inescapable conclusion about nuclear power safety. You just can’t get better science–multiple independent studies all coming to the same overwhelming general conclusion:

      https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_QdiaBca6EeaUVUQVVZWV9PLVE/view?usp=sharing

      Nuclear power involves a lot more than science, it is first and foremost an industry.

      Because that is also the case with wind and solar, you can’t rationally use it as an argument against nuclear energy.

      And, just like the tobacco and fossil fuel industries… </blockquote

      Conflating tobacco and fossil fuels with the world's largest source of safe, clean, low carbon energy is (somebody pick a word for me). I get it. It certainly worked on you and you certainly are not alone.

      …it is engaged in an extremely active campaign of misinformation to promote the continued use and expansion of its product. </blockquote

      All industries actively promote their products, including wind and solar. It's your claim that the nuclear energy is engaged in an extremely active campaign of misinformation that is pure conspiracy theory. If you want to see someone using a campaign of misinformation, read Did Tesla Just Kill Hydro Electric Power? where Elon Musk obtains a veracity score of 3.9 out of ten claiming his Panasonic battery packs will allow homes to affordably go off grid (my calcs found it would cost me well over a million dollars to use his batteries to do that).

      That is the significance of the uncritical acceptance of the obviously blatant falsehood related to the relative safety of nuclear power. These proponents are NOT practicing any form of scientific endeavor – they are involved in product advocacy.

      Obviously blatant falsehood related to the relative safety of nuclear power? See graphic above. So, because an aerospace company promotes its product, a jet airliner, as safe, it cannot be trusted because it is part of the aerospace industry? I don’t think so. It has to prove its safety, as nuclear energy has.

      By extension that means their claims should be subject to extremely rigorous examination before being taken as true.

      As is the case with Musk and his batteries, wind, and solar, the Pope, and just about anything else. The nuclear safety argument has undergone rigorous analysis by several independent entities, including Greenpeace, and was found to be one of the safest forms of energy. See above graphic.

      It is pretty clear that isn’t what is happening in the article.

      It is pretty clear that isn’t what is happening in your comments. Your argument that nuclear energy isn’t safe isn’t really with me. I’m just the messenger here. You need have a discussion with the entities that did the studies, maybe starting with Greenpeace.

      In 2003 MIT released their extremely comprehensive review of nuclear power “The Future of Nuclear”. Their conclusions included the warning that 4 problems areas must to be addressed for nuclear power to become a part of the solution to climate change. Safety, waste, cost and proliferation concerns were ALL deemed critical impediments to the future success of nuclear power.

      2016-2003 = 13 years ago. Here is a quote from the 2009 update to that study:

      In sum, compared to 2003, the motivation to make more use of nuclear power is greater, and more rapid progress is needed in enabling the option of nuclear power expansion to play a role in meeting the global warming challenge. The sober warning is that if more is not done, nuclear power will diminish as a practical and timely option for deployment at a scale that would constitute a material contribution to climate change risk mitigation.

      The response by the nuclear industry has been largely to pretend those impediments do not exist and instead whitewashing the data while waging a massive propaganda campaign.

      None of that is true.

      Just like the climate denial propaganda machine, the nuclear industry’s PR agents follow a script where misinformation and false promises are fed into the public consciousness. Thank you for your uncritical participation.

      Just like the anti-nuclear energy propaganda machine, the anti-nuclear energy industry’s PR agents follow a script where misinformation and false promises are fed into the public consciousness. Thank you for your uncritical participation.

      Nuclear power plant deaths from the three major accidents since 1965 ~ 4,000. 2016-1965 = 50 years. 4,000/50 = 80 deaths per year. According to the World Health Organization, 1,200,000 (1.2 million) people were killed in cars last year.

      ETA: My brusque attitude is related to the fact that too many technophiles believe themselves to be objective evaluators of information on this topic.

      Actually, your brusque attitude is exactly the behavior one can always expect whenever a strongly held belief is being challenged, in short, propaganda victims.

      They know how they are in their area of specialization and when presented with information they believe to be coming from that process they uncritically grant it far too much weight.

      ….says the pot to the kettle. Like I said earlier, your argument is with the groups that authored the three independent studies. I find it …interesting, that you continue in that vein when faced with all of this data.

      For example, even after being shown that isn’t true, your belief that your evaluation is valid remains unchanged. Why?

      Likewise, even after being shown that nuclear energy is one of the safes forms we have, your belief that your evaluation is valid remains unchanged. Why? And can you point to where you demonstrated that that nuclear energy is less safe than fossil fuels or hydro?

      Because you don’t know what you don’t know. If it were your specialty, you would have a very deep body of knowledge that would inform you there are real problems.

      Because you don’t know what you don’t know. If it were your specialty, you would have a very deep body of knowledge that would inform you there are no real safety problems relative to all other forms of energy.

      That is how successful propaganda works. It traps the target with their own preconceptions, and virus-like, inserts new core elements rerouting the programing to serve an unintended purpose.</blockquote

      That is also how successful anti-nuclear energy propaganda works. It traps the target with their own preconceptions, and virus-like, inserts new core elements rerouting the programming to serve an unintended purpose. >

      Most people equate nuclear power with science, not industry.

      No they don’t.

      A large subset rightfully and automatically trusts science. Therefore, they automatically and erroneously trust the information that an industry can package as being ‘of science’.

      I try not to spend a lot of time with conspiracy theorists, but one of the three graphs was published by Greenpeace, which, honestly, I find it remarkable that they had the integrity to do so.

      If you were a reviewer and you encountered a graph that had been overtly manipulated in this fashion would you do as you did here and attempt to minimize the significance of that manipulation or would you start subjecting the entire paper to extremely critical scrutiny?

      I gave you three graphs to choose from. They all come to the same overwhelming conclusion. Here, read this article by an anti-nuclear energy wind enthusiast caught publishing complete gibberish about bird deaths.

      Just so you know where I’m coming from: I am an energy policy analyst specializing in moving us away from the carbon economy.

      Why the anonymous moniker then? And considering that nuclear energy is by far our largest source of low carbon energy, your stance is highly unproductive.

      The fact is that nuclear and renewables are not compatible.

      That isn’t a fact. That’s anti-nuclear energy propaganda. This article covers the safety issue. I would appreciate it if you would resist the urge to divert attention to other topics. Feel free to comment on a future article I will be writing covering that topic.

      One is economically viable only in a highly centralized system, while the other is viable only in a widely distributed highly interconnected network.

      Again, that isn’t a fact. And again, I would appreciate it if you would resist the urge to divert attention to other topics than safety. Feel free to comment on a future article I will be writing covering that topic.

      The nuclear industry knows this and has been engaged in a concerted program of misinformation intended to preserve and expand their place in a coal centric system.

      Like I said before, I try not to spend a lot of time debating conspiracy theorists.

      If you are really worried about climate change the quickest, surest path away from carbon involves ditching large-scale thermal generation of all types as rapidly as possible.

      Again, that isn’t a fact. And again, I would appreciate it if you would resist the urge to divert attention to other topics than safety. Feel free to comment on a future article I will be writing covering that myth. Read from my earelier comment:

      Google Engineers Conclude that Renewable Energy Will Not Result in Significant Emissions Reductions

      New IEA Study: Least Cost Scenario has Nuclear as the World’s Largest Source of Electricity by 2050

      The Exaggerated Promise of Renewable Energy

      Renewables scale up incredibly fast and are fully capable of providing for all the energy needs of modern culture.

      See graph below for historical proof of how much faster nuclear has proven to scale than wind and solar, and please try to stay on topic.

      [link]      
      • By BasM on December 14, 2015 at 4:00 am

        Your graph and underlying studies are based on the wrong info regarding the number of deaths due to Chernobyl, etc. as they are produced by the nuclear promotion industry.
        Read the review published in the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. That concludes to 825,000 deaths before 2006. You can find it at their WEB-site.
        Or the reviews of the IPPNW, etc.

        Taking into account the long latency before damage due to low level radiation becomes manifest most victims still have to show!*)

        When you consider those than the whole picture changes, It’s the reason Germany gives all nuclear out highest priority.
        ____
        *) 20-60years as e.g. shown by the RERF studies regarding the Hiroshima victims. Similar to the latency with smoking, low level asbestos poisoning, and many other poisons.

        [link]      
        • By Forrest on December 14, 2015 at 7:43 am

          Some comments- Smoking tobacco is unhealthy, but one must temper the stats with real life behavior. First, tobacco smoke is not any more unhealthy than less say smoking corn husks or oak leaves. Inhaling a unhealthy PM stream within the lung is not a healthy habit, period. Same with recent discovery of efficient diesel tailpipe emissions. Thank you EPA for making these emissions deadly per the 2.5 PM. Organic farming of tobacco, removes one of the problems of residue poisoning. To, many citizens turn to pharmacological solutions for mental health. These solutions are less healthy and breaking our ability to pay for health care. If smokers could live without antipsychotics, that would be the better path for enjoying life. Also, the marijuana per trama mental anguish is proving superior choice.

          I think the stats should be tempered per those that not especially concerned of losing maximum lifespan. As I read the stats the smoker typically loses 10 year lifespan. The part some not afraid to lose. Even with all the foul mouth insults and condemnation of the practice with penalty taxation, the habit continues at just a few notches below the conventional wisdom developed.

          Here in Michigan they found radon kills as many per cancer. This is organic earth friendly poison that contaminates air space within homes. On the average, we have the lowest cancer rates and longest lifespans. They think the low solar radiation and many fresh fruit orchards for healthy nutrition. Oh, we live by a very high concentration of nuclear power plants, thanks to Lake Michigan cooling water. Oh, I have never smoked, but my wife’s aunt did die early. Wife’s mother didn’t smoke and isn’t enjoying a long lifespan. Sad.

          [link]      
          • By BasM on December 14, 2015 at 9:36 am

            The difference is that smokers get pleasure in return for their shorter life, while nuclear power plants deliver electricity which can be deliver by any other less dangerous method such as renewable. And now renewable deliver even cheaper than new nuclear, with much (8 times!) better reliability as the figures of Denmark and Germany show

            [link]      
            • By Joris75 on December 18, 2015 at 3:43 am

              Nope. Wind only works when the wind blows. Solar only works when the sun shines. Nuclear works all the time. Nuclear is also cheaper and cleaner than both wind and solar.

              (P.S. to all readers, BasM is a known, long-term antinuclear propagandist. He lies. All the time. Study his comment history. https://disqus.com/by/BasM/ )

              [link]      
            • By Russ Finley on December 19, 2015 at 2:58 pm

              The truth quickly becomes irrelevant for any ideologue where the end justifies the means. If you go over my posts and collect all of the statements he has made that were shown not to be true, they could make a whole new article all on their own.

              I enjoy debating this stereotype because they provide the opportunity to debunk misinformation.

              [link]      
            • By Russ Finley on December 19, 2015 at 2:53 pm

              Ironically, Germany has the largest
              number of cigarette vending machines per capita in the world
              .

              None of the rest of your statement is true.

              [link]      
        • By Forrest on December 14, 2015 at 7:49 am

          “- Sweden decided to stop with all new nuclear and expand wind (as Sweden is at very high altitude solar makes less sense).”

          Why is that? Solar at high altitude doesn’t work well? Because of expensive power line connections per mountain terrain? The Achilles Heal of remote power generation, always to expensive to run power lines. .

          [link]      
          • By BasM on March 27, 2016 at 12:15 pm

            Sorry. My sentence should have been: “…(as Sweden is at very high latitude solar makes less sense).”

            [link]      
        • By Joris75 on December 18, 2015 at 3:44 am

          All lies, as usual, from long-term antinuclear propagandist BasM. Study his comment history here: https://disqus.com/by/BasM/

          [link]      
        • By Russ Finley on December 19, 2015 at 2:42 pm

          Your graph and underlying studies are based on wrong info regarding the number of deaths due to Chernobyl, etc. etc. as they are produced by the nuclear promotion industry.

          As has been pointed out to you four times now, one of the graphs was published by GreenPeace ….none of them were produced by the “nuclear promotion industry.”

          Read the review published in the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. That concludes to 825,000 deaths before 2006.

          I haven’t heard that one in years. I’ll let Monbiot explain:

          …a book which claims that 985,000 people have died as a result of the disaster. Translated from Russian and published by the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, this is the only document which looks scientific and appears to support the wild claims made by greens about Chernobyl.

          A devastating review in the journal Radiation Protection Dosimetry points out that the book achieves its figure by the remarkable method of assuming that all increased deaths from a wide range of diseases – including many which have no known association with radiation – were caused by the accident. There is no basis for this assumption, not least because screening in many countries improved dramatically after the disaster and, since 1986, there have been massive changes in the former eastern bloc. The study makes no attempt to correlate exposure to radiation with the incidence of disease.

          Its publication seems to have arisen from a confusion about whether the Annals was a book publisher or a scientific journal. The academy has given me this statement: “In no sense did Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences or the New York Academy of Sciences commission this work; nor by its publication do we intend to independently validate the claims made in the translation or in the original publications cited in the work. The translated volume has not been peer-reviewed by the New York Academy of Sciences, or by anyone else.”

          In a nutshell, it is a collection of junk science found on the internet and other assorted places that was translated into English and bound into a book that you can buy on Amazon for only $309.00, Kindle version for only $293.55!.

          And last time I looked it had three reviews on Amazon.com. A five-star by “Wizard” who pretends he bought and read it, and two one-star reviews complaining about price. Nobody actually read it.

          Taking into account the long latency before damage due to low level radiation becomes manifest most victims still have to show!*)

          Don’t you think that the scientists involved with the Chernobyl Forum which estimated the 4,000 deaths are aware of latency, or is this where you pull out your conspiracy card?

          Nine UN organizations involved in the Chernobyl Forum:

          the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency)
          the FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization)
          the OCHA (United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs)
          the UNDP (United Nations Development Programme)
          the UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme)
          the UNSCEAR (United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation)
          the WHO (World Health Organization)
          the World Bank.

          The Chernobyl Forum also comprises the governments of Belarus, Russia and Ukraine.

          Not happy with the reports from the Chernobyl forum, in 2006, Rebecca Harms, a Green member of the European Parliament and “declared opponent of nuclear power”. commissioned two members of an anti-nuclear energy group to research this issue who concluded that upwards of 200,000 fatalities could occur …which is almost five times fewer than the $293.55 Kindle book estimate of 985,000.

          Nuclear energy deniers need to get their stories straight. Is it 4,000, 200,000, or 5 x 200,000 ~ 985,000?

          When you consider those than the whole picture changes, It’s the reason the German Energiewende has “all nuclear out asap” as it’s number one priority target.

          Dude, Germany already has a 37% higher cancer rate than Belarus, which is just downwind of Chernobyl.

          20-60years as e.g. shown by the RERF studies regarding the Hiroshima victims. Similar to the latency with smoking, low level asbestos poisoning, and many other poisons.

          Don’t you think it’s strange that the scientists who are all aware of latency effects of tobacco, asbestos, and many other poisons would have ignored those effects when studying the effects of radiation (and keep your global conspiracy card in your hand)?

          Note that nuclear is now following the same path as the tobacco industry (no harm if your smoking behavior is correct, etc) creating and promoting similar fantasies.

          Attempting to conflate a power plant that uses the heat from fission to boil water to spin turbines which has no negative health affects to the tobacco industry is disingenuous in the extreme. Also note that Germany has the largest number of cigarette vending machines per capita in the world.

          You “forgot” to include the fast renewable expansion of Denmark: Wind alone produce 40% now, will be 50% in 2020. They will reach 100% renewable for electricity in 2040 and 100% renewable regarding all energy in 2050! In Germany renewable deliver 30% of the consumed electricity now, which doesn’t fit with your graph.

          You “forgot” that you are the one who claimed that renewables grow faster than nuclear. The graph is to demonstrate how fast nuclear has proven to scale, not a comprehensive compilation of energy growth across the planet.

          And at what point did I suggest that a state rich in hydro power and wind could not decarbonize its grid? Where I live, 95% of our electricity comes from hydro, wind, and nuclear. It’s been that way for decades, long before anyone heard of climate change. The same is true for Brazil and Canada, which all put Germany to shame. As you admit “as Sweden is at very high altitude solar makes less sense”, how much and what kind of renewable energy a state can consume, depends on where that state is. If it has no streams to dam for hydro, little wind and sun, it will be vastly more expensive to try to replace existing electricity generation with renewables. Renewables can be the cheapest option, as where I live or far too expensive in places without bountiful sources of hydro, wind, and solar.

          Sweden decided to stop with all new nuclear and expand wind (as Sweden is at very high altitude solar makes less sense).
          France decided to decrease the share of nuclear from 75% now towards 50% in 2025. And to expand solar+wind.
          Belgium also decided to stop with nuclear allowing present plants until the end of their scheduled life period (they expand wind+solar)
          UAE plans are delayed. You may doubt whether the will build more than one NPP (they need one to gain nuclear know how, because of Iran’s nuclear)

          Your very short litany above of a few countries attempting to reduce nuclear and expand renewables is part of the reason that the world has less low carbon energy today than it did decades ago. See graph below.

          China’s nuclear plans shrink with each new 5years plan, while that for wind and solar increases.

          Actually, from China Shows How to Build Nuclear Reactors Fast and Cheap:

          If anyone thinks nuclear power is on the wane globally, they haven’t been paying attention to China. More than 100 nuclear power reactors will start up in China over the next decade. The strategy is outlined in the draft of China’s new Five-Year Plan that covers 2016 to 2020. It is China’s 13th such plan, and the country has kept pretty close to most of their previous goals.

          It seems as though 5 years and about $2 billion per reactor has become routine for China.

          BasM continues:

          The fast expansion of nuclear in the seventies and eighties was possible because those nuclear plants were very simple and missed most safety measures which are required now (those measures came after the Three Mile Island accident, so little new nuclear thereafter).

          That isn’t true. Today’s nuclear power plants have had those safety measures put in place retroactively and the safety record is undeniable. Although nuclear power plants pay for themselves over time, investors prefer less capital intense, short term investments like cheap natural gas, but in a future with higher gas prices and carbon rules, nuclear will likely become more popular with investors.
          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/e2fa63fb77b15a6de03f707a4ace6f58f12d9a8a55a0567dd294255d15951d44.jpg

          [link]      
  3. By Forrest on December 4, 2015 at 6:23 am

    I’ve noticed a marketing ploy by those whom work to convince audiences of their worthy information. The ploy presents the competition as fools, stupid, and idiots. This leads the audience to accept the presentation more freely as in doing so, they will claim the high ground of superiority. My worthy audience gets it. Not everyone is capable of such a feat per lack of intelligence, but we the gifted ones need to pat each other on the back for accepting the truth. I’ve seen this ploy really stroke the flames of those with an emotional appetite for ego and self worth. Opposing religion really adds fuel to the fire. Dawkins appears to be caught up in this.

    [link]      
    • By Forrest on December 4, 2015 at 6:58 am

      Your depiction of Bill Nye is accurate. He is just riding the popularity wave, an entertainer. He identifies with CW of those whom have the keys to media and pop culture aka left politics. The GMO support switch probably a calculated risk to keep his science moniker. Nuclear is to scary and misunderstood of a technology for him to accept as he knows his audience. The demagoguery of nuclear is unlimited and he wouldn’t dare go up against such.

      [link]      
  4. By Forrest on December 5, 2015 at 5:01 pm

    My little coop (Midwest) utility has provided reliable power, but it is more costly than the nearby larger for profit company AEP. Some years ago, we in Michigan were suffering from enormous political hype funded by out of state influence (California) to change the states constitution to put to law alternative energy production. This act of law was akin to putting a gun to one’s head for elimination of future flexibility. We were indoctrinated on how cheap solar and wind energy was and how powerful the production. Well the info was about as factual as PW’s comment below. We had the Environmental Left claiming utilities were corrupted by fossil fuel and nuclear profits and that wind was cheaper than dirt itself. That the planet would implode soon, as the polar bear wonder the planet looking for ice. Good info was nonexistent. Just crappola, hype, and emotional fear mongering. Meanwhile my little utility purchased the solar and wind hardware. Spec’d out to the typical household needs. The data is simple, real life, and without the free money hype. Check this out

    http://www.teammidwest.com/products-services/danny-young-memorial-renewable-energy-park-2/energy-park-economic-analysis/

    The local paper headlined a left representative that pulled money out of his pocket to purchase a windmill, something like $40k to put his money where his mouth was. This was his election credentials, smart money guy. This was back in the heyday of political antics during Bush years. Another college prof and wife employed by same public college (Western) were headlined in similar fashion per their great thinking skills. They spend a major portion of their retirement funds on solar and wind energy. The wife had to dry her hair at work. Look at the link’s real data and think of the fool that believed this hype of wind and solar back then. It might be a tad better nowadays, but not by 10x. Notice the monthly and yearly variances of solar and wind and understand the industry told us in Michigan we had ideal conditions for both. Isn’t their a law for truth in advertising. Maybe the AG should actually work for the people instead of politics and bash those that utilize propaganda and miss truths?

    [link]      
  5. By Rod Adams on December 6, 2015 at 8:18 am

    Russ

    Excellent article. I’ve published similar information about Nye on Atomic Insights, but did not include anywhere near the background information that you provided. Well done.

    One hopeful addition, however, is to remind you and your readers that the video evidence you provided of Nye’s position comes from a television show aired in 2005. He has had a lot of recent encouragement to revise his thinking and seems to be making progress.

    [link]      
    • By Russ Finley on December 6, 2015 at 1:33 pm

      Thanks, Rod. There’s a link to one of your posts on Nye in the article. I was motivated to write this piece by some of your articles on Nye and Sunniva. Your comment gives me the opportunity to link to your post on James Hansen’s press release, which shows what some world class scientists think about nuclear energy:

      Dr. James Hansen, Dr. Tom Wigley, Dr. Ken Caldeira and Dr. Kerry Emanuel will present research showing the increasing urgency of fully decarbonizing the world economy. However, they will also show that renewables alone cannot realistically meet the goal of limiting global warming to 2 degrees C, and that a major expansion of nuclear power is essential to avoid dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system this century.

      The scientists will outline how only a combined strategy employing all the major sustainable clean energy options — including renewables and nuclear — can prevent the worst effects of climate change by 2100, such as the loss of coral reefs, severe damages from extreme weather events, and the destruction of biodiversity and ecosystems worldwide.

      The challenge from the scientists comes as nuclear power is back on the table at Paris as a major climate mitigation option, appearing as a significant component of the Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) of major emitters including China, the U.S. and India. The four scientists call for an increase in ambition in the deployment of improved light-water reactors, with the accelerated development of advanced fission technologies to accompany planned increases in solar, wind and hydro power generation.

      In light of the urgency of tackling climate change and nuclear power’s essential role in limiting temperature rises, the four scientists will therefore challenge environmental leaders who still hold anti-nuclear positions to instead support development and deployment of safe and environmentally-friendly nuclear power. For example, the Climate Action Network, representing all the major environmental groups, still insists despite all evidence to the contrary that “nuclear has no role to play in a fully decarbonized power sector.” The four scientists will state that the anti-nuclear position of these environmental leaders is in fact causing unnecessary and severe harm to the environment and to the future of young people.

      [link]      
  6. By BasM on December 8, 2015 at 11:56 am

    Even French governmental study concludes that:
    - 100% renewable is a realistic option for 2050
    - 80% renewable in 2050 is the cheapest scenario compared to 40% and 100% renewable which are slightly more expensive: http://www.ademe.fr/sites/default/files/assets/documents/renewable-electricity-mix-final-report-ademe.pdf

    This German presentation shows how easy it’s done: http://www.agora-energiewende.de/fileadmin/Projekte/2015/integration-variabler-erneuerbarer-energien-daenemark/EER-Academic_Seminar_No_6-DTU_-_Wind_Integration_in_Germany-Nov2015-SR.pdf

    [link]      
    • By Russ Finley on December 11, 2015 at 9:26 pm

      Even French governmental study concludes that 100% renewable is a realistic option for 2050.

      No it doesn’t. From the Foreword:

      The electricity mixes examined in the ADEME study are theoretical: they are created from scratch and do not take into account the current situation or the path needed to achieve a 100% renewables-based electricity system.

      We believe these results to be sufficiently robust to serve as a basis for debate among the stakeholders. Some will probably object that the scope of the study is too narrow, as we do not take into account existing structures and have not programmed the way in which investment will progress. They are right. Others will observe that we have not pushed our analyses to intervals of less than one hour. They are also right and we are well aware of the challenge represented by network stability management, which is not addressed in this study.

      Of course, we should recall that electricity only represents a quarter of total energy consumption in France. The best ways to improve the sustainability of our energy system overall will come about in the context of careful analysis and attention to all the sectors, not by tackling each vector separately (electricity, gas, petroleum products and heat). This study is therefore only a contribution inviting subsequent work to build upon a shared understanding of our energy future.

      Note that the study does not attempt to replace total energy consumption in France with renewable energy, only 25% of it. In addition, to achieve higher renewable use, the plan is to try to cut total energy use in half by 2050. In theory, renewables today would go from about 15% to 30% without building one single new renewable energy generator. So, either

      a) You didn’t read and understand the study and its limits or …
      b) You are trying to deceive readers.

      The French Government, after reviewing the study and many similar ones, drew its own conclusions. Use of nuclear for electricity generation will be reduced to 50% of total electricity generation, which is a wise move in my opinion. Just as renewable enthusiasts want too much renewable energy in the mix, nuclear enthusiasts want too much nuclear. A diverse mix is better.

      This German presentation shows how easy it’s done

      Not so much. From Bloomberg last year:

      Germany Can’t Bear $32 Billion-a-Year Green Costs, Minister Says

      Germany must reduce the cost of its switch from atomic energy toward renewables to protect growth, Economy and Energy Minister Sigmar Gabriel said.

      German companies and consumers shoulder as much as 24 billion euros a year for renewables because of subsidy payments, Gabriel told an energy conference in Berlin.

      “I don’t know any other economy that can bear this burden,” Gabriel said today. “We have to make sure that we connect the energy switch to economic success, or at least not endanger it.” Germany must focus on the cheapest clean-energy sources as well as efficient fossil-fuel-fired plants to stop spiraling power prices, he said.

      Chancellor Angela Merkel has made the top priority of her third-term government, which took office last month, reforming clean-energy aid after rising wind and solar costs helped send consumer bills soaring. Germans pay more for power than residents of any European Union nation except Denmark.

      While renewable aid costs are at the “limit” of what the economy can bear, Germany will keep pushing wind and solar power, the most cost-effective renewable sources, Gabriel said. Biomass energy is too expensive and its cost structure hasn’t improved, he said.

      Germany is demonstrating the real world cost of trying to reduce its emissions with only renewables; $25 billion a year, according to Germany’s economics ministry. $25 billion a year would pay for 34 AP1000 reactors over ten years. Add those to existing reactors and they could supply about 80% of Germany’s electricity by 2025.

      And they are failing. See chart below. The reduction in CO2 emissions have gone flat.

      [link]      
      • By Forrest on December 12, 2015 at 6:02 am

        Excellent post, I’ve never understood the mentality to complain of energy sources that can’t scale up to power the nation are to deemed worthless. Example, waste methane or biofuel. Agree with you, that it is good to have variety of technology, even coal. Good to keep the technology advancing from all fronts. Environmentalist were foolish per attempt to qualify nuclear as evil and kill the development. They have no omniscient ability to offer such wisdom. Same with coal. They need to quit rating the fuel and focus on results.

        i think France is onto something. It is better to green up the grid and decrease power needs of the grid as a driver to drastically cut CO2 emissions. The grid is poor technology to transport high BTU loads. Pipeline technology reigns supreme for this. We’re really at the stage where low energy need households need no grid. Very interesting to read of RV technology and how they adapt.

        [link]      
        • By Forrest on December 12, 2015 at 6:26 am

          Germans are reliant upon coal power. It is yet to be determined if they can replace these power plants. So, what would their cost of power zoom to if no cheap power to offset costly wind and solar? Probably, their economy would implode. They utilize a small percentage of biomass power within these coal plants. Not a particularly good use. Alabama biomass company is building a deep water shipment port for biomass pellets. The European market is very lucrative. Pellet stoves operate at high 80′s% efficiency for space heating. Space heaters 100%, but like efficient EV’s filling up on 24%-27% efficient grid energy per steam power and ensuing losses, not so smart. So, wise to consider those in U.S. that claim running a pellet stove in Vermont to replace fuel oil is multiple times more effective than taxpayer paying for solar install upon ski chalet. We as a nation should work to put the most cost effective solutions to forefront.

          [link]      
          • By BasM on December 12, 2015 at 12:43 pm

            “… if no cheap power to offset costly wind and solar? Probably, their economy would implode,”
            In recent years, wind and solar became much cheaper than new nuclear.
            The costs of these technologies (as well as storage) are decreasing since decades:
            - solar with ~8%/a
            - wind with ~3%/a
            - batteries with ~10%/a
            - power-to-gas (P2G) not clear for me. Rough estimate ~5%/a.
            P2G allows to cover seasonal dips.

            Btw.
            I believe that burning biomass for electricity will become too expensive as electricity costs will decrease further in coming decades.

            [link]      
            • By Forrest on December 12, 2015 at 5:33 pm

              Good to become less expensive, but expensive it is. Last I read hydro energy storage was the lowest cost power storage. Hopefully, within natural reservoir. P2G, has a great future and most think that future lies with keeping it hydrogen. Hydrogen is more valuable. Germans are blessed that they didn’t obsolete their coal plants. Oh, why are they using coal plants? If as you imply alternative energy is cheap and easy? Heck, if wind and solar so lucrative and profitable it would naturally attract capital without government help. Why do you need such coercive government regulation? Don’t tell me your private enterprise is just lazy and ignorant.

              [link]      
            • By BasM on December 13, 2015 at 4:11 am

              Wait and see how wind+solar+storage+hydrogen take over in coming decades.
              While German economy does not implode but expands.

              [link]      
            • By Russ Finley on December 13, 2015 at 12:39 pm

              May I borrow your crystal ball, just for a few minutes while I adjust my investment portfolio?

              [link]      
            • By BasM on March 27, 2016 at 8:58 am

              Yes. To help you further:
              Last year, Germany’s renewable share increased towards >30% (32.7% of total electricity consumption).

              In the past 5years their av. transition speed towards renewable was not the scheduled 1.5%/a, but 3%/a! At that speed they will be at 90% renewable in 2035. Catching up with Denmark.

              But let’s be careful. In the past 10years their migration speed was 2.2%/a. Using that, they will reach >80% before 2040.
              A decade ahead compared to their scenario!

              Advice: Try to invest in 100% renewable virtual power plants (preferable those without biomass generators*) as those (will) compete classic power plants off the market.

              Germany’s biggest utilities try to get rid of all classic (incl. nuclear) power plants asap. E.on put them in a separate company (Uniper) at the end of 2015, which they want to sell this summer.
              ____
              *) Biomass price decreases are too slow, hence they will loose against the competition of P2G2P and batteries.
              Similar may occur with hydro (pumped storage facilities loose money, while batteries become cheaper and cheaper).

              [link]      
            • By Joris75 on December 18, 2015 at 3:46 am

              It will implode. Germany will be a great example of how *not* to solve the energy/climate issue.

              [link]      
            • By Joris75 on December 18, 2015 at 3:47 am

              What is the cost of solar power at night? What is the cost of wind energy on a calm day?

              [link]      
            • By BasM on March 26, 2016 at 8:26 pm

              @ Joris,
              The marginal & operating costs of wind and solar are near zero.

              That is the reason they compete nuclear & ff power plants off the market, as you can see in coming years in Germany (NPP GrafenRheinfeld closed already prematurely for economic reasons last summer).

              [link]      
            • By Russ Finley on March 26, 2016 at 11:42 pm

              The marginal & operating costs of wind and solar are near zero.

              Do you know what a rhetorical question is? You aren’t supposed to try to answer them.

              And it was the German Energy and Economics minister
              who said that the cost of integrating renewables was costing Germans $25 billion a year. That would pay to build about three AP-1000 reactors a year. In just ten years at that rate 85% of Germany’s electricity would be zero carbon nuclear. Not to say that much nuclear in the mix would be optimal, but when it
              comes to cost, I believe the German Energy and Economics minister above everyone else.

              That is the reason they compete nuclear & ff power plants off the market

              German nuclear is being taken off line for political reasons, not economical ones. U.S. Nuclear is having a tough time with natural gas, the tiny amount of wind and solar has negligible impact.Chinese nuclear is going gang busters.

              [link]      
            • By BasM on March 26, 2016 at 11:59 pm

              Last summer the German 1.3GW Grafenrheinfeld NPP closed prematurely for economic reasons!
              Explicitly stated by the owner,

              [link]      
            • By Forrest on March 27, 2016 at 6:35 am

              German power market is unique. Citizens want renewable power at any cost. German law is making traditional power uneconomical. For example, by German law utilities must utilize renewable power if it’s available. So, I can image the cost to utility to quickly shut down base load power in the event of a temporary wind gust. The citizens of Germany demand renewable power, so they regulate the competition away. Renewable power is more important than GHG reduction as it makes no sense to pull the plug on hydro or nuclear if such concerns were a priority.

              [link]      
            • By BasM on March 27, 2016 at 7:52 am

              The Germans don’t pull the plug on hydro, They even installed ~30 pumped storage facilities, which all make losses as they cannot compete in the highly competitive German market.

              They prioritize nuclear out because it is by far the most dangerous, creating a lot of genetic and health damage, as shown by the aftermath of Chernobyl in Germany:
              http://goo.gl/fmIidY
              The genetic harm around nuclear storage (5-40km away!):
              - http://goo.gl/991pAx
              - http://goo.gl/JfO256

              etc.

              [link]      
            • By Joris75 on April 28, 2016 at 5:34 am

              You are a liar.

              The plant closed early because of the special ‘nuclear fuel tax’ that all nuclear power plants must pay in Germany.
              http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/C-Nuclear-tax-robs-seven-months-from-German-plant-2803141.html

              [link]      
            • By Joris75 on April 26, 2016 at 8:22 am

              The reason solar and wind compete in Germany is because they get paid for the energy they produce by the German government. Even when the market price of electricity in Germany is zero, German solar and wind get paid in full for every kWh they produce. Nuclear power plants get paid nothing. That’s it why they are being shut down permaturely. This is not for economic reasons, but for political reasons.

              [link]      
            • By Sanne on April 26, 2016 at 12:15 pm

              The many solar and wind installation that ran out of the guarantee period (20yrs solar, 15yrs wind) continue to compete as their marginal costs continue to be near zero!

              [link]      
            • By Joris75 on April 27, 2016 at 9:12 am

              Sanne = Bas Gresnigt = BasM = Darius Bentvels = Som Negert. Antinuclear fearmonger, misinformation repeater and serial liar.

              [link]      
            • By BasM on April 27, 2016 at 9:26 am

              Seems you’re no longer capable to a normal discussion.
              What’s the problem with you?

              Pursued by misfortune?

              [link]      
            • By Joris75 on April 28, 2016 at 5:42 am

              If I had more time, I would spend more of it on calling out your deadly lies. I consider you a public menace.

              [link]      
            • By Sam Gilman on April 27, 2016 at 9:41 am

              Good grief. He’s sockpuppeting. Or perhaps he’s been banned from more sites?

              [link]      
            • By BasM on April 27, 2016 at 12:23 pm

              Sam,
              Only the Energy collective has a strict censor policy regarding nuclear: Negative comments regarding nuclear, especially if well founded and correct, are censored.

              The site was started to promote nuclear, using the covert method of embedding nuclear promotion in other posts. Because there are enough sites that promote nuclear openly.

              Such as e.g. Atomic Insight. There I still post comments. Sometimes annoying Rod Adams who is strongly pro-nuclear. But he respects the first amendment of USA.

              But Jesse Jenkins of the energy collective (who studies nuclear) is narrow minded.

              [link]      
            • By Sam Gilman on April 27, 2016 at 12:28 pm

              So why are you using two different Disqus accounts on this page, BasM/Sanne/Darius/Som?

              [link]      
            • By BasM on April 27, 2016 at 7:06 pm

              Joris consider it his task to follow me with name calling, etc.
              Sometimes I get tired of him.

              [link]      
            • By Sam Gilman on April 27, 2016 at 7:10 pm

              Bas, are you unable to post at least once without telling fibs?

              You used your other account to reply to Joris. You deliberately drew his attention to your sock puppet.

              [link]      
            • By BasM on April 28, 2016 at 1:58 am

              The stalking of Joris is a little strange. Somewhat like a little boy.
              May be I should spend some time to his stalking.

              [link]      
            • By Joris75 on April 28, 2016 at 5:38 am

              If you want me to stop, then you should just stop lying.
              And also, please take out your Delft University MSc diploma and burn it. Fear- and hatemongering liars like yourself don’t honour the scientific method so you don’t deserve an MSc diploma.

              [link]      
            • By Sam Gilman on April 27, 2016 at 7:41 pm

              Just as a second reply:

              No, the energy collective was not set up to promote nuclear. No, Jesse Jenkins does not “study nuclear” as you want people to understand it. He studies grid integration. He’s an MIT researcher. He’s focused on solutions to global warming, the effects on people of which you have described as a “fantasy”.

              [link]      
            • By BasM on April 28, 2016 at 2:04 am

              Copied from TEC: “Jesse Jenkins is a graduate student and researcher….”
              You’re right regarding his discipline. Sorry.

              [link]      
            • By Sam Gilman on April 28, 2016 at 2:43 am

              Let’s look at that full biography to see who Bas Gresnigt thinks he can dismiss lightly as narrow-minded.

              Jesse Jenkins is a graduate student and researcher at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he earned an MS in Technology & Policy in 2014 and is currently pursuing a PhD in Engineering Systems. Jesse works as a researcher with the Utility of the Future project, a multidisciplinary MIT Energy Initiative research consortium studying the evolution of the delivery of electricity services and the role of distributed energy resources in the power system of the future. He is also a National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellow and an Enel-MIT Energy Initiative Energy Fellow.

              Before attending MIT, Jesse served as Director of the Breakthrough Institute’s Energy and Climate Program, leading the development of the Institute’s research and recommendations on energy, climate change, and innovation policy. He is the lead or co-author of numerous Breakthrough publications and reports, including “Beyond Boom and Bust,” “Bridging the Clean Energy Valleys of Death,” “Where Good Technologies Come From,” “Climate Pragmatism,” “Taking on the Three Deficits,” “Post-Partisan Power,” and “Energy Emergence.” As co-founder and Associate Director of Breakthrough Generation, Jesse also helped lead the Institute’s competitive 10-week fellowship program for early-career policy professionals and graduate students, designing curriculum and research, and training, mentoring, and managing 39 fellows over four summers.

              Jesse has written widely on energy, climate change, technology, and innovation, including for Discover Magazine, Making It: the Magazine of the UN Industrial Development Organization, the San Francisco Chronicle, the Baltimore Sun, the National Journal, Issues in Science and Technology, Forbes.com, Grist.org, and TheEnergyCollective.com. His research and analysis has been featured by National Public Radio, Fox News, MSNBC, the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Time Magazine, Newsweek, Fortune, and other major media outlets. Jesse has also delivered invited testimony on clean energy innovation policy before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.

              PhDs at MIT are usually pretty serious research.

              [link]      
            • By BasM on April 28, 2016 at 5:12 am

              Amazing Jesse Jenkins is still so narrow minded, censoring anti-nuclear comments away before they are published!
              And banning anti-nuclear commenter.

              [link]      
            • By Sam Gilman on April 28, 2016 at 5:15 am

              No, he banned you because you persist in reproducing junk science regardless of how clear it is to everyone else that it’s junk.

              You know this.

              [link]      
      • By BasM on December 12, 2015 at 12:23 pm

        The authors of the ADEME study were aware of the effects their study results would have in 75% nuclear France. So they used the foreword to arm themselves against possible critique stating a few possible attacks (which you highlighted).
        But they stick to their study results. From the same foreword:
        “We believe these results to be sufficiently robust to serve as a basis for debate among the stakeholders.”.

        So now France migrates nuclear out with a much higher speed than the Germans: in 10 years from 75% towards 50% share. When you look at the study results 80% renewable cheapest, there is no reason to assume that this migration will stop 2025. It will continue, probable at a slower pace, e.g. 1.5%/a similar to the speed of the Germans..

        Germany; Gabriel
        Bloomberg misinterpret what’s going on. Almost as usual. Bloomberg also predicted that Germany would suffer large and long outages when Merkel closed 8 NPP’s after Fukushima. Non occurred. Germany even stayed net exporter of electricity in 2011.

        Gabriel is under pressure to increase the speed of the Energiewende by closing coal plants (in addition to the nuclear closure scheme).
        But he signed that the costs of the Energiewende would not increase, so he cannot. He uses the costs of the present Energiewende for defense.

        Note that:
        - 90% of the Germans support the Energiewende according to a recent poll (in line with last year election results; then the only party who wanted to delay the closure of nuclear by 10year, suffered a devastating defeat as they lost most of their voters).

        - the prime targets of the Energiewende are not lower CO2 but:
        1. All nuclear out (as that is far too dangerous)
        2. Democratize energy (citizens, etc generate 50% of renewable)
        3. Of electricity consumed in 2050, >80% generated by renewable.

        [link]      
        • By Joris75 on December 18, 2015 at 3:48 am

          “the prime targets of the Energiewende are not lower CO2 ”

          This is the first time in years that I’ve seen you write a sentence which is not a lie. Well done BasM. Try to do this more often. The other sentences in your comment are still lies, as usual, so you have a long way to go.

          [link]      
          • By BasM on May 16, 2016 at 8:39 am

            I always stated that the priorities of the German Energiewende are:
            1. All nuclear out asap, as that is by far the most dangerous.
            Will be accomplished in 2022.
            2. Democratize electric energy.
            ~50% of renewable, which generate 33%, are in the hands of citizens, farmers, etc.
            3. 80% renewable in 2050
            Will probably be increased towards 90% as they are ahead of the scenario.
            4. 40% less CO2 and other GHG’s in 2020.
            They are at >27% decrease. That is more than we ~10%,
            or USA ~0% (all compared to Kyoto’s reference of 1990).

            [link]      
  7. By Russ Finley on December 12, 2015 at 8:48 pm

    BasM said:

    The authors of the ADEME study were aware of the effects their study results would have in 75% nuclear France. So they used the foreword to arm themselves against possible critique stating a few possible attacks (which you highlighted).

    That reasoning does not help your argument. Your are suggesting that either …

    a) The authors are lying in the forward or …
    b) They meant what they said; the electricity mixes examined in the French study are theoretical etc.

    But they stick to their study results. From the same foreword: “We believe these results to be sufficiently robust to serve as a basis for debate among the stakeholders.”.

    Note that I had already included that quote because it supports what they said about it being theoretical. The study results assume a 50% reduction in total energy consumed, significant control over demand (when you charge your car, do your laundry, heat your water etc) and the use of technologies not proven economically viable, like converting electricity into methane to store for later use to make electricity etc, in addition to all of the other limits listed and not listed in the forward.

    So now France migrates nuclear out with a much higher speed than the Germans: in 10 years from 75% towards 50% share … It will continue, probable at a slower pace, e.g. 1.5%/a similar to the speed of the Germans.

    The French reduction works out to be = 33.3%/10 = 3.3% per year. Germany has gone from 140.6 tWh in 2010 to 97.1 in 2014, which is 31%/4 = 7.75% per year, over twice as fast as France. Source: 2015 BP Statistical Review. Is anything you say factual?

    When you look at the study results 80% renewable cheapest, there is no reason to assume that this migration will stop 2025.

    The French government has no plan to reduce nuclear below 50%. As the author’s make clear, the study is theoretical. Note that the 40% scenario in the graph below still has about 50% percent nuclear and, as the authors make clear, the difference in the theoretical cost of power produced between all scenarios is less than the error band of the study. Because the author’s also make it clear that the study does not account for existing nuclear power, or what it would cost to transition to 80% renewables, there is little reason to assume they will further reduce nuclear in the mix after 2025.

    But most importantly, because nuclear energy use in France and its resulting low carbon emissions and costs are demonstrated facts as opposed to estimates from a theoretical study, it would be unwise for France to risk closing more nuclear when the carbon reduction benefits are proven.

    Bloomberg misinterpret what’s going on.

    ? Those are direct quotes from the German Economics Ministry. Did you mean to say that he does not know what is going on?

    Almost as usual. Bloomberg also predicted that Germany would suffer large and long outages when Merkel closed 8 NPP’s after Fukushima.

    No they didn’t.

    Germany even stayed net exporter of electricity in 2011.

    Assuming for the sake of discussion that is factual, it would only mean that they exported a lot less low carbon electricity than had their nuclear stayed on line, and lost all of the income that would have generated for Germany as well. It also meant that emissions were higher than they would have been. Nothing to brag about in either case.

    Gabriel is under pressure to increase the speed of the Energiewende by closing coal plants (in addition to the nuclear closure scheme). But he signed that the costs of the Energiewende would not increase, so he cannot. He uses the costs of the present Energiewende for defense.

    I have no idea what you are trying to say here.

    Note that:- 90% of the Germans support the Energiewende according to a recent poll (in line with last year election results; then the only party who wanted to delay the closure of nuclear by 10year, suffered a devastating defeat as they lost most of their voters).

    At what point did I suggest that the closure of nuclear in Germany was not the result of a badly misinformed voting constituency?

    …the prime targets of the Energiewende are not lower CO2 …

    …you made that up.

    All nuclear out (as that is far too dangerous)

    Strange thing to say in the comment field under an article demonstrating nuclear safety. So, in other words, German citizens are afraid of one of the safest forms of energy we have. The power of propaganda.

    [link]      
    • By Russ Finley on December 12, 2015 at 8:53 pm

      Graph from study shown below with nuclear being the primary source of electricity in the 40% renewables scenario.

      [link]      
      • By BasM on December 13, 2015 at 4:17 am

        That share of nuclear may be the reason that the 40% renewable scenario is more expensive than the 95% renewable scenario,
        and substantial more expensive than the 80% renewable scenario.

        [link]      
        • By Russ Finley on December 13, 2015 at 12:06 pm

          “…and substantial [my emphasis] more expensive than the 80% renewable scenario.

          From the study:

          A comparison of electricity supply costs in 2050 for various scenarios is shown in Figure 4. In the absence of any specific constraints, the difference in costs between the 100% renewables baseline scenario and the 40%, 80% and 95% versions is relatively low (cost falls from €119/MWh at 100% to €117/MWh at 40% renewables level at the scale of the detail of the model). Nevertheless, the additional cost for the higher percentages is significant. To increase from 95% to 100% renewables-based generation, the additional megawatt-hours of renewable energy to be generated would cost about €183/MWh.

          And these are just the theoretical costs of operation. It isn’t really possible to accurately predict the cost of energy three decades into the future. The cost of removing all nuclear from the French grid and rebuilding the entire network (which is not part of this study) would be even worse than what Germany is going through, which is why France is sticking to its proven source of energy at 50% with a 50% reduction in total energy consumption (and I wish them luck with that).

          And you need to step back and put this into perspective. We are only talking about 25% of France’s energy. Extrapolating the 100% scenario to the entire world would only replace roughly 15% of total energy used today with wind and solar. That is why we need to keep nuclear in our energy mix.

          You are straying further and further from the topic. The article is about the safety of nuclear. The cost argument will be the subject of another post.

          Note that the % difference in residential cost of electricity in Germany and France is roughly 90%. In light of that, rather than use the word “substantial” you should have used the word “negligible.” Broken down into percentages:

          [link]      
          • By BasM on December 13, 2015 at 2:11 pm

            1. Look at history:
            Nuclear surpasses the cost projections again and again greatly; while
            Solar underspend the costs projections again and again

            2. Why should anyone take the risk of nuclear with its possible huge disasters, when a cheaper alternative is available…

            [link]      
            • By Joris75 on December 18, 2015 at 3:45 am

              Nuclear is the cleanest and safest energy source. Only crackpots like BasM try to use lies to create fear and doubt about nuclear power.

              [link]      
        • By Joris75 on December 18, 2015 at 3:46 am

          Nope. Nuclear is a proven, competitive energy technology. Renewables are not.

          [link]      
    • By BasM on March 27, 2016 at 12:05 pm

      “French reduction works out to be = 33.3%/10 = 3.3% per year. Germany has
      gone from 140.6 tWh in 2010 to 97.1 in 2014, which is 31%/4 = 7.75% per
      year”

      German Energiewende started in 2000. Nuclear production was then 170TWh (29%), In 2015 nuclear produced 92TWh (15%). So the decrease according to your measure was 46%/15 = 3% per year.
      Using % the decrease was (29%-15%)/15 = 1% per year

      My 1.5%/a referred to the scheduled transition speed toward more renewable.
      That is: (yearly renewable increase)/total consumption.
      Sorry that I didn’t state that correct.

      “German citizens are afraid of one of the safest forms of energy …”
      German scientists show again and again how dangerous nuclear is for next generations!
      It’s a matter of priority…

      [link]      
      • By Russ Finley on March 27, 2016 at 4:44 pm

        Sorry that I didn’t state that correct.

        I don’t know what you were trying to say, but you are always free to change your story.

        German scientists show again and again how dangerous nuclear is for next generations!

        …yet many many more scientists show again and again that it is not dangerous. Do you think climate change is real, and if so, why?

        [link]      
        • By Joris75 on July 19, 2016 at 10:30 am

          For your information, BasM has elsewhere (for example on Rod Adams website) implied that he is in fact a climate science ‘skeptic’.

          So what we have here is a nuclear fear mongering climate science denier.

          I think I know what Bas’ real problem is. He wants to be unique. And you’ve gotta be pretty darn crazy to be unique in this world. I think Bas has what it takes to make the grade though. XD

          [link]      
          • By BasM on July 19, 2016 at 11:17 am

            Ha, my personal stalker again.
            A pity you are mainly scolding, mostly with fantasies.

            [link]      
            • By Joris75 on July 19, 2016 at 11:22 am

              No fantasies. Everyone can study you comment history and find out the truth for themselves.

              [link]      
        • By BasM on July 19, 2016 at 11:39 am

          Thanks. I corrected it already.

          …yet many many more scientists show again and again that it is not dangerous
          An interesting statement. For a start I would like to see research which show that the genetic damage that such nuclear facilities cause, is not real?

          The shown genetic damage caused the premature closure of Germany’s prime nuclear waste site Gorleben (while the huge storage building for the dry casks is still largely empty).
          An introduction and overview of research results which started the sequence of closing events: http://goo.gl/a27Vj4

          The results are in line with other solid research results around NPP’s in W-Europe: http://goo.gl/p0aUGk
          The research line started after the health damaging results found regarding small (mainly Cs137) fall-out in districts 1800km from Chernobyl: http://goo.gl/NyTk8f

          [link]      
          • By Russ Finley on July 21, 2016 at 10:26 am

            This is essentially the same comment you have made several times before which was totally debunked. Go find it. Ever see the movie Memento?

            [link]      
  8. By Russ Finley on December 15, 2015 at 12:53 am

    Look at history

    Maybe you look at the history. See the chart below that demonstrates how much faster nuclear has proven to scale than renewables.

    Nuclear surpasses the cost projections again and again greatly; while Solar undercut the costs projections again and again

    I used the actual cost to build the latest AP 1000 nuclear reactor to calculate that the cost of renewables to Germany would pay for 34 AP1000 reactors over ten years. Add those to existing reactors and they could supply about 80% of Germany’s electricity by 2025.

    Solar undercut the costs projections again and again

    According to the NREL, I would lose $3,000 a year if I cover my roof in solar panels over the life of those panels. See graph below.

    Why should anyone take the risk of nuclear with its possible huge disasters

    Three incidents in half a century. One killed 4,000 people and created Europe’s largest wildlife preserve, the other killed nobody and created another superfund site to clean up. The third did nothing at all. German’s are terrified of having to clean up a superfund site? The Twin Towers terrorist attack with airliners killed almost as many people as Chernobyl. Vastly more people die in airliner accidents every year than the total of nuclear but air travel is still, like nuclear, the safest at what it does.

    when a cheaper alternative is available

    The source you gave us showed that it isn’t cheaper. The 40% renewable scenario is cheaper than the 100% renewable. Like I said to you a few times before, the study you gave us only accounts for 25% of France’s energy, and it’s all theoretical, solar and wind making up only part of that 25%. That’s all the renewables they could squeeze out. That leaves 75% of their energy to be dealt with.

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/2ca0f50af80ea760fbec373be3ab37e4097f5a3786ff4f9952a56c869c755c47.png https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/7880e1c3b59b2dcd3570a26d019b3ad82a659d31af3262f36589e0e1170de127.jpg

    [link]      
    • By Forrest on December 15, 2015 at 5:44 am

      I like to see analysis with raw numbers such as your chart for solar home generation of power. It brings down the cost to a personal level. Wind and especially solar proponents always present their data to obviscate true cost. Solar power to date is so minimal, production profile is laughable, and cloud dependent. However, solar does have its narrow cost effective applications.

      The U.S. would experience what the French suggest if going solar and wind. A dramatic drop in grid power. It is a market still and consumers have a choice to eliminate electric power. So, given the cost of solar and wind power generation, they will do everything possible to avoid the use. Industry, would relocate power hungry manufacturing within a more hospitable country. Probably a more polluting grid country. They will keep low energy use offices and light manufacturing and offer to support the solar wind industry per marketing effort.

      Currently, I could justify going off grid. I have avoided expensive power already and sit at 3,000 kWh annual. If avoiding A.C., purchasing a $2k refrigerator, avoid freezer, and space heater the kWh drop to easily power by solar and battery. Battery reserve are very costly, since solar so unpredictable. They suggest max as the reserves may have to carry household for days. I did the cost justification for auxiliary natural gas power generator and numbers look very good if modifying exhaust for hot water heating. This is an easy modification for CHP generation that achieves lower cost power as compared to grid. The management of system the hassle and inconvenience that is not accounted for. The auxiliary power would be tasked to fulfill hot water heat needs. This reduces expensive battery storage needs as well as expensive solar. The combination works if doing a diy install and avoiding roof mounting per tax and insurance avoidance. Also, the home should be vacant much of the time upon future travel.

      [link]      
    • By Forrest on December 15, 2015 at 5:59 am

      Yes, the AP 1000 the future of nuclear. The integrity, install cost, reliability, all should be exponentially improved. As BasM had already disclosed the industry has been regulated to death spiral upon the old huge scale power. I spend many years upon Manufacturing Engineering to abide to Nuclear specs of steam traps and witnessed regulations attempt to assassinate nuclear industry with ever increasing prohibitive regulations that offered no benefit to reliability. We have to much of this government activism. They should mandate diversity upon college campus professors and government employees. Of course where upon the potential for unlimited revenue exists and negotiators that aren’t directly responsible for cost, the union labor organization should not occur. Same with critical national security positions.

      [link]      
      • By Forrest on December 15, 2015 at 7:39 am

        I did notice the Administration redefined nuclear energy as renewable. You notice how activist pound the notion to decarbonize our energy with only carbon free renewable energy. Those two qualifiers mean nothing, just emotional directive to chose wind and solar. GW foundation of concern (supposedly) is reducing CO2 within atmosphere. However, that is accomplished makes no difference.
        I was listening to news chatter that appears directed to position CIC within history as savior of planet earth. Yes, that extreme. Also, all nations of the world, now hold the U.S. to top level integrity and respect as they position the U.S. President as primarily responsible to events coming from Paris. Wow.
        But, funny that while GW proponents claim absolute accuracy, they also raise the question that glacier ice melts could unleash GW gas drawfing all combined emissions. They just don’t know. Huh, that doesn’t instill confidence in me that they have any accuracy within GW science.

        [link]      
        • By BasM on May 19, 2016 at 1:56 am

          … Administration redefined nuclear energy as renewable…
          That would be a big mistake as nuclear ‘s GHG emissions are roughly halfway between wind/solar and natural gas.

          And it’s increasing with the exhaustion of the rich uranium layers at the mines. So it may surpass that of natural gas in the coming decades: https://theconversation.com/sure-lets-debate-nuclear-power-just-dont-call-it-low-emission-21566

          [link]      
          • By ben on July 28, 2016 at 5:38 pm

            Again bad stats. That data was cheery picked on the high end and over exaggerates most factors by 80X. Nuclear is averaged between 7-16g/kWh of CO2. Besides the sea has a 100 trillion ton geologic sink for uranium that is already less carbon intensive than strip mining low grade ore. But we currently use a low energy method of dissolving it out of the ground.

            BasM just admit the some anti-nuke organization pays your salary or bring something current to the conversation.

            [link]      
            • By BasM on July 28, 2016 at 6:41 pm

              Even nuclear physicist and nulear energy advocate Manfred Lenzen found CO2 emissions from the nuclear fuel cycle
              to be ~100g/KWh.

              Your 7-16g/KWh of CO2 concerns only the NPP and conveniently ‘forget’ the other steps in the nuclear power generation process: uranium mining, milling, fuel fabrication, enrichment, reactor construction, decommissioning and waste management (during how many centuries?).. .
              Those all use fossil fuels and hence emit carbon dioxide.

              A real estimation which also accounts for the huge staff involved in all those steps end at ~300g/KWh carbon emissions. That is 50% of natural gas and >10times more than wind and PV-solar!

              [link]      
            • By Forrest on July 28, 2016 at 7:18 pm

              I doubt it. The land change and cost to afford power line connection of remote wind is substantial. Compare wind’s value to nuclear’s magnitude of power production and the ability to locate the power generation close to point of use. This will facilitate minimal grid investment and maximize the grid power distribution efficiency. Thank your nuclear.

              I will project the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel will be the fuel of choice for society. The choice appears to most logical and safe. When politics and activist flame out per their loss of credibility, the solution will become popular. Most realist think bankrolling the fuel not so bad. It’s much to valuable to bury.

              Also, solar is nice, but not a serious replacement of base power. It’s value is niche, temporary, and not dependable. Nonetheless if the cost is but a fraction of current costs one would think the power source could supplement some higher priced fuel generation power plants. Solar can’t replace power generation plants, just supplement some of the fuel costs. Now, you invent a super duty cheap power storage device that can store an incredible quantity of energy, solar could get a tick up in value.

              [link]      
            • By BasM on July 29, 2016 at 4:07 am

              The power density of wind is >10times higher than nuclear. (power density: land needed per MWh production).

              Nukes are usually far away from consumption / population centers as people don’t like it to have them near.
              They also need back-up, incl power lines. Even more as they stop sometimes within a few seconds, while wind with its many small generators is highly predictable nowadays….

              So new nukes require major grid investments as shown with e.g. Hinkley C.; and full CO2 emitting spinning reserve (a nuke as spinning reserve is too expensive, hence is not done).

              Reprocessing of spent fuel is not done at all in USA, and only a little (one time) for small part of the EU fleet (France+NL) in La Haye.
              Reasons: expensive, radio-activity pollution around the reprocessing plant and more dangerous to utilize the resulting MOX fuel.
              Pollution: Beaches now forbidden at La Haye and Sellafield. UK stopped after polluting the Sellafield beaches and even the Irish sea so much that it’s still forbidden to catch & consume its fish.

              Base power is gradually becoming something from the past. Denmark has days in which wind alone produces >100% of all electricity needed (will be >100days/year in 2020). Similar is occurring gradually elsewhere.

              No one wants to replace with solar alone.
              100% renewable implies a combination (wind+ solar+ hydro+ batteries+ P2G+..) which complement each other.

              Earth cavities can cheaply store enough renewable gas for a year or more. Such cheap storage is done by Germany in order to be less dependent of Russia, and by NL so the NG processing plant is smaller (capacity only for average consumption and not the winter peak periods).
              Many major P2G pilot plants (`6MW each), using different methods, now. Great improvements in the process.
              An overview: http://goo.gl/kvDTps

              Those P2G plants will run when electricity is cheap (<2cnt/KWh) so the whole cycle (incl. storage) produce electricity for <5cnt/KWh.

              [link]      
            • By Michael Mann on July 29, 2016 at 5:31 am

              Is that new math? Nuclear energy has a power density thousands of times greater than wind or solar, when you tell a lie you really make it a whopper! Why do you insist on making up such easily disproven statements? It ruins any credibility that you may have! https://www.masterresource.org/energy-density/energy-density-is-key/

              [link]      
            • By BasM on July 29, 2016 at 6:43 am

              It’s easy math:

              US most dense operating power plant is Indian Point (read it’s data at the NRC site). With 90% CF, it’s av. power is 1654MW (av. net power ~1600MW) for which it occupies 239acres = 967,185m² and produces 1600x8760MWh/a. Or 14,492KWh/a per m².
              Assume 15MWh/a per m².

              An 8MW wind turbine has a CF of ~30% (high nacelle, etc) and occupies an area of ~100m² land. So it produce 210MWh/a per m². Assume 200MWh/a per m².

              Notes:
              - Occupies implies that the land cannot be used as usual. There is a fence around the NPP, so the 239acres is correct.

              The land between the wind turbines is used as usual.

              I assume it’s at a farmers land. The farmers here are happy to bring the few maintenance people (only once in ~2years) with their tractor. Hence the footprint is also correct.

              - You may want to change the wind turbine to some av. situation (e.g. assume access road) but then you also should compare with an av. NPP. Then the comparison becomes even worse for nuclear as you can read at the NRC site!

              - The difference is gradually increasing with increasing power and capacity factors of wind turbines (higher nacelle, longer flexible blades allowing to produce during a larger range of wind speeds). It may end at 20MW wind turbines with a CF of 40% (>50% in windy areas such as the plains in USA, or the Maroccan coast).

              - Offshore wind and rooftop solar do not occupy any land, so their power density is at least 100times better.
              Each alone can produce more electricity than the country needs!

              [link]      
            • By Forrest on July 29, 2016 at 5:34 am

              Your points are misleading. Nuclear is not a remote power generation facility. The power plant has much flexibility, unlike wind. Nuclear is placed close to markets within easy grid connections. Now, since the power plant produces enormous quantities of power an expensive high voltage line must be utilized for the hookup. This is a good thing.
              Your power density per land mass is highly misleading. One could express lithium supplies upon earths land mass and have similar bad indicator for battery car.

              Base power and capacity must be maintained as wind and solar are neither dispatchable or reliable.

              Utilizing solar and wind for hydrogen may become practical. It was always thought to be per the hydrogen economy. This makes sense for energy storage potential as well. High temperature nuclear facility appears mighty capable for this task. I do think all indicators suggest the fuel cell hydrogen economy with natural gas will displace much of the grid. Gas lines are more efficient and cheaper to lay. Remote wind would become economical with gas line hookup.

              [link]      
            • By BasM on July 29, 2016 at 7:05 am

              … fuel cell hydrogen economy with natural gas will displace much of the grid. Gas lines are more efficient and cheaper…
              Sorry, but it’s opposite.
              There are developments to supply new suburbs in NL with only electricity lines as it saves costs. It’s expected that the cost price of electricity will fall below that of gas (no boiler needed, etc), due to its decreasing price (thanks to widely expected improvements in wind and solar power).

              The tanks of hydrogen cars will be filled with hydrogen gas produced at the car refuel station by an unmanned P2G plant housed in a standard sea-container. Check the developments in Germany: http://www.powertogas.info/

              [link]      
            • By BasM on July 29, 2016 at 7:16 am

              Base power and capacity must be maintained as wind and solar are neither dispatchable or reliable.
              Sorry but that is opposite to the expectations and planning (by major utilities, e.g. RWE and E.on), in Germany! They try to get rid of their base power plants asap.

              All base power and capacity will vanish as those cannot compete in an high renewable environment.
              Storage will take over when wind +solar +hydro +bio-mass(waste, gas, etc) +geothermal, etc, don’t produce enough or not cheap enough.

              For short periods batteries (~50% of German households install also a battery when they install rooftop solar; SMA has integrated inverter/batteries).
              For long periods (up to years) P2G with extremely cheap storage in earth cavities.

              [link]      
    • By BasM on March 27, 2016 at 9:44 am

      The days of the unsafe very dangerous NPP’s, which could be constructed fast, are gone. New nuclear plants now take >10years in the western world.
      While wind & solar require usually a year.

      As renewable wind/solar/storage incl P2G, now require less investment per KWh/a production than nuclear, you get not only a faster but also a bigger CO2 reduction for the buck!

      The slow migration speed of Germany is caused because they want to keep the costs insignificant for German households, so the won’t loose support for the Energiewende (now ~90%, where do you find similar for nuclear?).
      In their democracy that support is necessary to continue.

      But of course the migration speed can be much higher as shown by Denmark, Scotland, etc.

      [link]      
      • By Russ Finley on March 29, 2016 at 9:33 pm

        New nuclear plants now take >10years in the western world.

        Some can take that long. Some road projects can take that long. China is churning them out by the bucket load.

        While wind & solar require usually a year.

        … because it could take roughly 3000 wind turbines to match the
        output of one nuclear plant, you’d have to install 300 a year (a turbine
        installed every 1.2 days) for ten years. Your math isn’t adding up

        As renewable wind/solar/storage incl P2G, now require less investment per KWh/a production than nuclear

        Germany is demonstrating the real world cost of trying to reduce
        emissions with only renewables; $25 billion a year, according to Germany’s economics ministry. $25
        billion a year would pay for thirty three $7.5 billion AP1000
        reactors over ten years ($25 x 10 =250, 250/7.5= 33). Add those to existing
        reactors and they could supply about 80% of Germany’s electricity by 2025. And
        their emissions reductions have been flat for the last six years …six years
        of carbon in the atmosphere we can’t get back.

        you get not only a faster but also a bigger CO2 reduction for the buck!

        Germany hasn’t reduced its emissions for six years.

        The slow migration speed of Germany is caused because they want to keep the costs insignificant for German households, so the won’t loose support for the Energiewende

        You guys need to get your stories straight. Markus Steigenberger, an analyst at Agora, the think tank said “Indeed, the German people are paying significant money. But in Germany, we can afford this — we are a rich country. It’s a gift to the world.”

        But of course the migration speed can be much higher as shown by Denmark, Scotland, etc.

        Where I live we have been 95% renewable for decades. It’s actually very easy to do if you happen to be surrounded by mountains and hydroelectric dams.

        [link]      
        • By Forrest on March 30, 2016 at 7:14 am

          Good post. Pretty much says it all. It won’t stop BasM as he is a neophyte of wind power. He’s just a mud mudslinger or parrots the propaganda to make wind power look good. When reviewing the progress of alternative power’s rising star, not that impressive despite all the excitement of rapid growth. I like wind power and it does have a good place in the mix, but the hype is off the charts. Nuclear should be utilized to full potential as well as wind. We need both. Solar is a novelty power source. Geothermal seems to not have much gusto, even upon countries that are loaded with the energy source. What’s up with that?

          [link]      
          • By BasM on March 30, 2016 at 9:48 am

            In 2020 Denmark expects that wind will produce >100% of what the
            country needs during 100days a year. Similar will happen in other
            countries (Germany with wind+sun at ~2030, etc).

            Due to its high investment and fixed operating costs, nuclear then becomes very uneconomic. Especially since the operating costs of wind and solar are near zero….
            So any nuclear plant which then still exist will be competed off the market…
            Of course in archaic areas where they still have monopolies, nuclear will survive longer as consumers are obliged to pay more.

            Solar may take over from wind as predictions are that the cost price ($/KWh) will be lower than wind.

            Geothermal is hampered by inadequate remote sensing technology into the earth. The technology has great problems to predict:
            - the quality of the hot water (a major project in The Hague near my house, failed after major investment in deep boreholes, because the water contained to much mud, etc)
            - the quantity of hot water which the hole will produce.

            But may be progress with remote sensing can solve these major issues.
            We have a gardener nearby who started a project to heat his greenhouses which is unexpectedly successful. He now also heats his neighbors, the local swimming pool and starts with a suburb.

            [link]      
            • By Forrest on March 30, 2016 at 10:22 am

              So, if your estimates are half right, why should the U.S. bother to do anything? We should invest zero in new power production because the technology floor is changing so fast. Let the Germans run the experiment. They can be the bleeding edge. If we wait the vantage point is clearer on what to do or not do. We have enough generating power. We can off load more power from the grid by utilizing more efficient natural gas at point of use. Why rush to install technology that is shifting so fast and improving at a rapid rate? The U.S. has abundant natural gas to power generators for the midterm. Best to do that and watch how many mistakes and missteps the Germans make. We can learn how not to implement change and when the time or return is better we can improve the grid more cost effectively. U.S. should lose no sleep over avoiding running down the path that the Germans routed to finish first. We will see if our Kwh cost is less than theirs. We have more than enough worthy projects for GW emissions to absorb our efforts and available capital. We needn’t be stressed upon reinventing the grid to wind and solar ASAP. Maybe decrease the coal power and change to CC natural gas as the best current course of action for the economy and environment. We can watch if the Chinese are idiots for building nuclear power plants as BasM would suggest. I would wager this course of action will result in superior GW emissions decrease over all and the accomplishment would cost a dime for every mark.

              [link]      
            • By BasM on March 30, 2016 at 11:45 am

              You indicate the untold idea behind the Dutch policy of wait and see. We are increasing our interconnection capacity with Germany greatly, so we can enjoy more of their cheap electricity.

              The only problem may be the continuation of climate change,
              Many countries will wait with effective action until the biggest polluter by far, USA, takes action.

              [link]      
            • By Forrest on March 31, 2016 at 6:47 am

              Oh, I thought you were German. I had attended the Poet cellulosic plant opening that King Willem-Alexander spoke at. My neighboring city is Holland.

              You speak of urgency of minimizing CO2 emissions. The quickest route for U.S. is to adapt more natural gas power generation to displace coal. Also, to avoid using grid power as what you say it is the most polluting. Consumers can save money and limit emissions by utilizing more natural gas at home instead of the unneeded step to first burn the gas to generate electricity at much lower efficiency. Also, U.S. is the world leader in biofuel production. They should maximize that production as it could be easily pushed to make substantial contribution to fuel transportation and do so with no expensive change in current fleet of vehicles. Past the quick turnaround solutions, yes steadily improve the grid per adapting wind energy, smart grid, and improve interconnections. Also, much benefit from increasing nuclear, hydro, geothermal, and rooftop solar. We should accelerate the adaptation of anaerobic digestor or ethanol to handle polluting waste. We need to convert our high torque heavy duty truck fleet to natural gas or better yet ethanol. Also, maximize the use of CHP technology to greatly improve efficiency. However, at the present time we should be aware that hydrogen with fuel cell technology has potential to displace most of what was discussed and that includes a great deal of the grid. If that becomes apparent, the investment dollars should be directed to this ultimate solution.

              [link]      
            • By BasM on March 31, 2016 at 7:10 am

              From here it seems that USA follows no route towards lower CO2 emissions, while many US people criticize Germany’s Energiewende which brings gradually near emission free electricity.
              They are now already at >30% renewable for electricity, though the influence of that on CO2 emissions is restricted as electricity is only ~20% of German energy consumption.
              Nearly all heating is with natural gas, as nearly every house is connected to the gas grid.

              In NL ~30% of electricity is generated by CHP installations. Those are mostly used to heat, and insert CO2 into, the many greenhouses.
              Everybody has a NG boiler. The introduction of micro-CHP (e.g. the one of Remeha) boilers to heat houses and generate electricity, goes slowly.

              [link]      
            • By Ike Bottema on May 18, 2016 at 10:59 am

              We are increasing our interconnection capacity with Germany greatly, so we can enjoy more of their cheap electricity.

              You mean the electricity they will pay you to take just to make sure their pinwheels don’t become helicopters?

              [link]      
            • By BasM on May 19, 2016 at 10:17 am

              It would be great for us if they would pay us to take their electricity! Alas doesn’t look like that.

              [link]      
            • By Andrew Newman on May 17, 2016 at 4:17 am

              And yet Denmark is struggling to reduce Greenhouse gas emissions, which is the point. When compared to it peers in Europe it is performing below average.
              UK is performing best if the exclude the former east block countries.
              *

              [link]      
            • By BasM on May 17, 2016 at 4:34 am

              Of course and they reduce it, while USA is still around the 1990 level despite being by far the biggest polluter per person!

              [link]      
            • By BasM on May 17, 2016 at 5:32 am

              Note that the GHG of 75% nuclear France is above;
              - 50% renewable Denmark; and
              - 33% renewable Germany.
              Despite the much friendlier (warmer) climate of France.

              It generates questions about the reliability of your graph.

              [link]      
        • By BasM on March 30, 2016 at 9:20 am

          … roughly 3000 wind turbines to match … one nuclear plant

          1.2GW NPP with 80% CF (incl refueling) produces 1GW on av.
          7.5MW wind turbine with 27% CF produces ~2MW on av.
          So only 500 needed.

          Anyway, it’s only ~50% of the wind capacity Germany installed last year (6GW).

          Germany … cost of trying to reduce emissions with only renewables … reductions have been flat for the last six years

          - Emission reduction is only the 4th target of the Energiewende (nuclear out is prime).
          - As electricity is ~25% of German energy consumption, the influence of more nuclear/renewable on CO2 emissions is rather small.
          - Since 2010 nuclear declined with 49TWh, but renewable increased with 91TWh…

          - Gabriel made the high cost statement as an argument in his fight against the greens who want an acceleration (doubling the speed) of the Energiewende (which is already ~3yrs ahead of schedule).

          Most of those costs are due to very high guaranteed Feed-in-Tariffs (up to 70cnt/KWh for 20yrs for solar) in the first years in order to create a mass market, which did bring great price reductions (now 8-13cnt/KWh).

          That implies that any new starting country will have only a fraction of the costs Germany has to carry until ~2023 (then a long decline follows). Especially since the cost reductions of renewable are widely expected to continue during next decades.

          German people are paying significant money

          90% of German population does support the Energiewende! You may assume that German population isn’t crazy.
          Any country where support for nuclear is >60%?

          we have been 95% renewable … very easy to do if you happen to be surrounded by mountains and hydroelectric dams.

          Yes. So I didn’t state Norway, Iceland, etc.
          Denmark’s and Scotland’s transition to 100% renewable is primarily wind driven.
          Denmark will have >50% of its consumed electricity produced by wind alone in 2020 (now >40%).
          Scotland similar.

          [link]      
          • By Russ Finley on April 2, 2016 at 10:36 am

            So only 500 (wind turbines) needed.

            Insane: Germany Will Need 3,000 Wind Turbines To Replace This Workhorse Nuke Plant

            Anyway, it’s only ~50% of the wind capacity Germany installed last year (6GW).

            You don’t understand the difference between capacity and production.

            Emission reduction is only the 4th target of the Energiewende (nuclear out is prime)

            Exactly. I wanted to point this out to readers. The Germans have made climate change the fourth item on their list, not the first. Their irrational fear of nuclear energy is killing people with coal emissions and GHG emissions.

            As electricity is ~25% of German energy consumption, the influence of more nuclear/renewable on CO2 emissions is rather small.

            Correct. I wanted to point this out to readers as well. Assuming German renewable energy only affects about 25% of energy consumption, 100% renewables for electricity leaves 75% fossil fuel use for all energy. Good luck doing that without assist from nuclear.

            Since 2010 nuclear declined with 49TWh, but renewable increased with 91TWh

            I have no more idea what you are trying to say than you do. German emissions have been flat for the last six years. If you are comparing capacity to output, that may explain why emissions reductions have ended.

            Gabriel made the high cost statement as an argument in his fight against the greens who want an acceleration (doubling the speed) of the Energiewende (which is already ~3yrs ahead of schedule).

            You say this every time I point out the $25 billion annual cost of the German energy transition. You don’t seem to understand that his motive for saying it is irrelevant. The $25 billion cost is relevant. Divide that cost by the cost of the latest nuclear plant going online next year in the US and you find that renewables in Germany are far more expensive than nuclear in the US.

            That implies that any new starting country will have only a fraction of the costs Germany has to carry until ~2023 (then a long decline follows). Especially since the cost reductions of renewable are widely expected to continue during next decades

            I try not to spend a lot of time debating those claiming they can predict the future when they find themselves on the losing end of a debate.

            90% of German population does support the Energiewende! You may assume that German population isn’t crazy.
            Any country where support for nuclear is >60%?

            Every time you say this I point out that their support of the high cost of the Energiewende isn’t relevant. It’s the high cost that is relevant.

            Denmark will have >50% of its consumed electricity produced by wind alone in 2020 (now >40%).

            Read Danish wind power is Norwegian hydropower

            [link]      
            • By BasM on April 2, 2016 at 12:02 pm

              @Russ,
              The 3,000 wind turbines are nonsense. You find no calculation at the article written by pro-nuclear.

              3GW to compensate for 1GW continuous production implies that a CF of 33% is enough.
              You seem not to understand the simple calculation in my previous comment. Suggest that you ask somebody with more mathematical skills.

              Germans (incl. most of their scientists) estimate that nuclear causes far more health damage than climate change/

              Also to their next generations via the substantial genetic damage that nuclear causes.
              E.g.: http://goo.gl/HrNkQO

              Nuclear is far to expensive to tackle the other 75% of energy consumption. So you see the first trials only with renewable generated electricity, such as the many P2G pilots in Germany.

              Since 2010 renewable produced 42TWh more than the decline of nuclear, That implies 42TWh less fossil fuel used, hence less CO2!

              Gabriel exaggerated the costs greatly in that discussion.
              Relevant is that the Germans experience the costs as insignificant.
              Btw. The new nuclear plant at Hinkley, UK, is estimated fo cost £24B = $36Billon. And the costs overruns still have to come!

              Danish wind power isn’t really Norwegian hydro power for the simple reason that their interconnection capacity is too small (the sea cables).
              The northern states of Germany now generate more than 100% of their electricity using renewable being mainly wind.
              So export to Germany won’t deliver much income, as they have same overproduction. .
              Hence more P2G, etc.

              [link]      
            • By Ike Bottema on May 18, 2016 at 11:14 am

              Germans (incl. most of their scientists) estimate that nuclear causes far more health damage than climate change

              Indeed the Germans have allowed radiophobia to cloud their better judgement. It certainly explains why they haven’t reducing their CO2 emissions in spite of billions spent on wind and solar. Indeed German authorities have insanely determined that the imagined radioactivity deaths must be stopped at all costs yet their actions prove they don’t mind offing themselves with coal emissions proven to kill millions!

              [link]      
            • By Sam Gilman on May 18, 2016 at 11:59 am

              Er…I don’t think what BasM claims there is actually true. Unsurprisingly.

              [link]      
            • By BasM on May 18, 2016 at 12:38 pm

              Sam,
              Reading my claim again I realize it should be:

              Germans (incl. almost all their scientists) estimate that nuclear causes far more health damage…

              [link]      
            • By BasM on May 18, 2016 at 12:35 pm

              German reduced their CO2 emissions already >27% compared to the Kyoto 1990 level (USA nothing, other EU countries are still far below the 20% Kyoto reduction target for 2020)!

              Considering the results of this solid study: http://goo.gl/NyTk8f
              and realizing the Cs-137 half life is ~29years, those very real extra deaths and serious health damage (stillbirth, Down, neural tube defects, etc.etc.) still continue.

              Also shown by hunted boars in their woods. The meat of about half of those boars still cannot be consumed as it is to much radio-active (all such meat has to be tested), for similar reasons wild mushrooms cannot be eaten….

              Nuclear should compensate the victims and the extra costs. But none! So it’s another huge subsidy to nuclear.

              [link]      
            • By Ike Bottema on May 21, 2016 at 12:52 pm

              German reduced their CO2 emissions already >27% compared to the Kyoto 1990 level (USA nothing, other EU countries are still far below the 20% Kyoto reduction target for 2020)“!

              Oh really? Does this look like CO2 emissions are being reduced in Germany? https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/800fbc3110cf174d82e2e252c4d26cf0f35f0948311c1e0112253c4bc1691728.jpg

              Perhaps you should read >Energiewende and Caliwende – the Heavy Cost of IdeologyThe Lightbulb Moment<.

              Considering the results of this solid study: http://goo.gl/NyTk8f and realizing the Cs-137 half life is ~29years, those very real extra deaths and serious health damage (stillbirth, Down, neural tube defects, etc.etc.) still continue.

              You keep regurgitating these studies that have been debunked many times already. Why keep doing that … unless you really don’t care for the truth ? Is that it? To better understand just what radiation is, does, and does NOT do; i.e. how to combat radiophobia, my recommendation for one and all, and especially you Bas, is to read either or both of Wade Allison’s books available on-line:

              Radiation and Reason
              Nuclear is for Life

              [link]      
            • By BasM on May 22, 2016 at 5:01 am

              Your constructed misleading graphics shows the fraudulent like attitude of pro-nuclear, similar to the tobacco industry (or worse).

              [link]      
    • By BasM on March 27, 2016 at 10:16 am

      “German’s are terrified of having to clean up a superfund site?”
      No.
      They are afraid about the major genetic and health damage that nuclear causes to them and their (grand-)children. Effects shown by many research published in peer reviewed scientific journals. Some easy to read overviews with links to research results:
      - http://goo.gl/991pAx
      - http://goo.gl/RJYMdH
      - http://goo.gl/IccwK2
      - http://goo.gl/gmQyQ7
      etc. etc.

      Note that UNSCEAR reported that genetic damage by low level radiation already in its 1958 report to the UN general assembly (before it became infected by pro-nuclear fanatics). Check Annex H at: http://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/publications/1958.html

      Sunpower panels are guaranteed during 25years (incl performance!). Other producers start to follow that guarantee standard,
      Normally the av. life is 4 times longer than the guarantee, which implies 100years. So why the unreal 25years for panel life in your graphic?

      [link]      
      • By Russ Finley on March 27, 2016 at 4:28 pm

        They are afraid about the major genetic and health damage that nuclear causes to
        them and their (grand-)children.

        I match your “genetic damage” internet links with an equal number of “vaccines cause autism” links …raise you one, and call.

        So why the unreal 25years for panel life in your graphic?

        I didn’t choose that life. It is the life chosen by the National Renewable Energy Lab to put in their spreadsheet to calculate the cost of installing solar. You might want to send them an email to correct their mistake.

        [link]      
        • By BasM on March 27, 2016 at 6:23 pm

          “I match your “genetic damage” internet links with an equal number of “vaccines cause autism” links ”
          Don’t see the links you promised.

          [link]      
    • By BasM on May 18, 2016 at 6:04 am

      “… faster nuclear has proven to scale than renewables.”
      That was before major disasters showed those NPP’s are unsafe.
      New NPP’s now have to be more secure which increases construction time and costs. So no fast increase since then.

      Note that in China wind alone already increased much faster than nuclear.
      5 yrs ago wind was nowhere and now produces more than nuclear.
      Now solar alone started also to expand faster than nuclear.
      It implies that In next decade wind+solar will produce >2x more electricity in China than nuclear.

      “… actual cost to build the latest AP 1000″ “(renewable)…it isn’t cheaper…”
      Nuclear costs increase so much and
      wind+solar decrease so much
      that US largest nuclear utility decided not to build new nuclear anymore.

      Financial analysts of the London city called the Hinkley C new NPP financially ‘insane’.

      ” the risk of nuclear.”
      Just put the exclusion zone of Chernobyl on Germany. It will cripple the country. Same for Fukushima, despite that the wind blew 99% of it radiation directly towards the ocean. That will not be the case in dense populated Germany.

      Why accept such unnecessary risk for a more expensive method of electricity generation?

      [link]      
  9. By Forrest on December 16, 2015 at 6:48 am

    The Environmental Left has a burning desire to force solar and wind solutions to GW and to do so ASAP. I’ve seen this tactic utilized before and always upon the realization of possible trend and new technology for an alternative solutions. Some examples. The beloved library. The employee of very strong and political union workforce was in jeopardy years back per the power and convenience of internet. The politics mushroomed, in Michigan, per the urgent need to invest heavily to rebuild crumbling libraries. All the usual suspects circled the wagons and utilized coordinated attack to push through amazing debt to invest heavily and do so ASAP. We just have to much invested now to cut the library budget. Magnificent buildings all across the state. Same thing with the need to reinvent k-12 education. Huge investments upon the public ed buildings that look more like Junior Colleges. The health care industry was really within the throws of improved quality and lowering cost per invention, internet communication, and computer software. Notice the urgent need of federal control?

    Nuclear power should be utilized upon rational ratings of the benefits, cost, and danger to properly informed public. Why do Environmentalist fight the progress so vehemently? Why do they utilize the traditional propaganda tactics to axe such a good solution? My guess they just in love with their solutions and will fight competition to them.

    [link]      
  10. By Forrest on December 17, 2015 at 8:23 am

    Just to get a taste of what the nuclear industry is up against read some of this blog per citizen concern of smart meters. http://jeaninedeal.blogspot.com/

    Note, that the information and concern is wide spread in Michigan. I can’t discount the concern, because not much scientific research or statistical evidence upon the subject. We had to spend a fortune disquieting similar concerns decades ago upon stray voltage and high line power. Thank you 60 minutes. Anecdotal evidence was extreme as emotional citizen concerns. They could prove nothing from the science of harm. The subject has since faded away . I remember hype from cell phone use, again it has faded away.

    I do think politics, personal popularity, and entertainment ratings upon public media loves this stuff. They can fear monger the herd to their direction. It is a pollution as costly and caustic as air and water pollution to health and happiness of society and goes without taxation or regulation. You notice how many healthy or deadly eating habits information published on internet.

    A particularly distasteful ploy currently gaining much favor and power. That of utilizing personal testimony to maximize acrimony within the sphere of politics. The effort maximizes political harm to opponent. Some examples: Retirees crying and standing in line to get their flu shot, Katrina, and a whole buffet of gun crime miss information bundled with emotion. This is reactionary emotional energy that quickly must be generated to achieve the desired political advantage. At its base it’s just propaganda to fuel misinformation. Not a healthy result for a much needed rational decision making process for lawmakers or citizens.

    [link]      
  11. By Forrest on December 18, 2015 at 8:04 am

    If you were to distill to the basics of improving grid power per environmental benefits at minimum cost. You would work to obsolete the oldest and most polluting of coal power and do so upon a cost efficient time span. You would displace as much electric power dedicated to heat energy as possible. Utilizing the grid for low value heat is inefficient, polluting, and costly. We shouldn’t waste electricity per this energy requirement. Either biofuel or natural gas will do a superior job. Same for EV transportation upon a large scale. Biofuel hybrid technology is a superior choice for both environment, cost, and can be applied across the entire transportation sector. You can do more with this technology and accomplish more quicker. These actions will result in improving the grid at a faster rate that, to date, has the largest footprint of pollution per btu. The grid is upon a steep rate of innovation, as the power generation. Make the job easier, less risky, and lower the need for critical quick results first by removing inefficient loads. To that extent, the endeavor should look at alternatives and fully exploit and access the value to micro grid, energy parks, cogeneration, thermal storage, and do so at grid scale and private household scale at the retail level. The grid will always be a expensive solution and fragile. Best to utilize hard wire connections per best use.

    I read that California is suffering per energy production as the drought has decreased hydro power. So, as we know hydro has done all the heavy lifting for the statistics of renewable energy. Even this resource is not entirely dependable. The article claimed old fashioned thermal energy production has vaulted to value per the need to store energy. Like I’ve mentioned before coal has many attractive attributes as a fuel source. The fuel probably is merited with classification of ultimate back up power. It pollutes the most, but upon emergency the low investment is very attractive. No one would suggest nuclear could accomplish this. Natural gas per abandoned oil well storage would be distant 2rd.

    The GE AP 1000 nuclear reactor sure has good specs. Very attractive load adjustment. This technology should be rated prime. Properly sited wind and hydro increase to power production should be most desirable. Solar is interesting technology that solves some problems, but kind of like the seasoning to the meal.

    The western U.S. may benefit from geo thermal resources they have so much of. Cellulosic ethanol production has a by product lignan that has energy content of coal per pound weight. The most modern ethanol processing plants designed to flex production to either increase or decrease upon market demand ethanol fuel, animal feed, corn oil, food, power, fertilizer, and chemical feed stock. The plants have different abilities. The cellulosic process dovetails nicely with sugar and starch ethanol to supply energy needs of the plant. But given an attractive market for power a bio mass processing center could maximize this ability or put it in the mix upon market conditions. Biomass is much easier to gasify as compared to coal and doesn’t suffer high emissions. It’s can be done at smaller and cheaper scale fitting a biomass processing center. The benefit being to power efficient hot air turbine cogen setup. The plant can make maximum use of the thermal power and generate power at double efficiency of typical steam turbine.

    [link]      
    • By Forrest on December 19, 2015 at 7:01 am

      The comment of supplemental power per bio processing plants, very attractive to environmental concerns. First, the flex capability of the process plants to utilize biomass in alternative product paths may contribute to off loading peak power demands. Also, like coal the fuel (energy) storage is easily accomplished. So, during peak A.C. months the stores of biomass could be directed to power production within peak hours of demand.

      Also, the efficient gasification process does produce a byproduct of bio char. This could be merely fanned to combust within the process for thermal needs, but utilizing the char as a co product for farm land soil amendment is hugely powerful for CO2 sequestration and does greatly improve fertility. Currently, no incentive to accomplish this, but environmental efforts should award a premium to this activity. Biochar sequestration of carbon rated within the century scale. Trees rated upon the decade scale. The process is indeed powerful for clipping peak energy needs of electric power generation and hugely powerful per GW needs. All of this with the cogen feature of powering the thermal needs of the ethanol process plant. It wouldn’t be upon a massive scale, just a bump to improve the situation. Of course it depends on the scale of geographically diverse sitings of cellulosic process plants. Having such process plants spread about the entire country very attractive for back up emergency needs of fuel, power, home energy needs in the event of failure of grid and petrol network. Sad we have to think of such things, nowadays.

      [link]      
  12. By Educatainment on December 20, 2015 at 5:28 am

    This is my favorite short explanation of what it is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1loE3b_N2fM

    [link]      
    • By Forrest on December 20, 2015 at 6:34 am

      So, where does evolution fit? No proving the hypothesis upon a present day experiment. Same with notions of creation. How does evolution create? Also, one must understand that science attempts to find solutions or answers. That the process builds on itself, but foundation truths sometimes wrong or inaccurate. I know civilization needs to do what they can, but some awful science has been generated through the ages and yes present day is no exception. Also, the science is wholly capable of being corrupted by politics, power, funding, personal biases, efforts to claim fame and importance. In other words the body of knowledge can set itself up for some horrendous self regulated biases.

      [link]      
      • By Michael Mann on April 28, 2016 at 3:08 am

        Science is a process, not a belief…

        [link]      
    • By Russ Finley on December 20, 2015 at 11:27 am

      …awesome. And the monkeys appear to be anatomically correct.

      [link]      
  13. By Forrest on December 20, 2015 at 7:18 am

    When I bring this technology down to a personable observable level as I’ve trained my myself to question conventional wisdom, some questions arise.

    1. The grid is the most polluting of the energy sectors per every measurement such as Russ posts. So, why are we continually loading up the grid with evermore power requirements? Shouldn’t we offload as much as possible?

    2. Re-inventing the grid is a leviathan effort. It will be a slow process since we do what we can afford. Also, the risk of technology obsolescence is ever present.

    3. When we demand more power from the grid we guarantee an even slower rate of improvement to less polluting power generation.

    4. Recently, near by infrastructure improvements, helped my understanding of natural gas line vs power line. Gas line appears to be a piece of cake. The utilize directional bore equipment to place plastic conduit pipe. The equipment has a small footprint and very productive. Hardly any disruption or loss of aesthetics of landscape. Little change to ILUC. The gas line is plastic reel pipe that has extremely long lifespan and zero leak rate. Just the opposite for power line. Huge equipment, huge swath of clear cut forest land, huge disruption, ugly aesthetics, extremely expensive, oxygen embitterment and corrosion will make the wire less efficient over time, the land suffers huge LUC and can only support low altitude activities meaning no buildings or trees. The loss of energy per induction is ever present threat, the killing capacity ever present, their is no indicator of danger such as odoriferous leak, trees growth is ever present maintenance cost, birds can knock down sub stations, easy to sabotage the power line such as kids shooting the insulators, wires, transformers. Poles are a hazard or threat to safe driving, and the whole shebang can go down if over stressed. How easy is it to store power? Balance load? Improve the grid? Prevent catastrophic terrorism or war time damage?

    [link]      
    • By BasM on March 27, 2016 at 10:50 am

      Answers:
      1. German and Danish grids are moving towards 100% renewable.
      Denmark is at >50% already (will be 100% in 2040), They schedule that 50% of the electricity is produced by wind alone in 2020.

      2. Your question?

      3. Unless renewable investment is increased accordingly.

      4. Here in NL distribution electricity grid is 100% underground, So no such problems. We have some DC long distance backbone lines (to Norway, UK). May increase in the future.

      Underground distribution contribute to increased reliability. SAIDI 20min. In NL, 2hrs in US, 15min. in Germany while their distribution grid is still partly overhead but they have significant more distributed renewable dispersed over the country.

      “How easy is it to store power?”
      Becomes more cheaper and easier. Check e.g. at Sonnenbatterie.

      “Balance load? Improve the grid? Prevent catastrophic terrorism or war time damage?”
      A matter of attitude regarding investment in public infra.

      I see the difference in attitude towards such investments when I drive through USA and compare with NL. As a US guest once told me; “you may have smaller houses, but your better, well-cared-for public space is a real rich asset”.

      [link]      
    • By Joffan on May 15, 2016 at 4:18 pm

      The grid is like the parent to the petulant teenagers of wind and solar. It seems to consume/pollute more but actually what’s happening is that it’s having to provide the basic support and pick up the slack of the half-done work that the teenagers leave behind.

      [link]      
  14. By BasM on March 30, 2016 at 10:07 am

    This site shows that the figures for the “Death per TWh by energy source” diagram are fraudulent: http://goo.gl/VvKJbt

    [link]      
    • By Russ Finley on April 21, 2016 at 1:13 pm

      Your comment above is what motivated me to write this post:

      Terrorists, Nuclear Powerplants, and Snakes

      You asked for a link to the Greenpeace Death per TWh graphic, which I provided. After reading it, you concluded that the diagram used in this article is fraudulent, just as the author of the Greenpeace article intended. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/ad7da715b0ea1a54a8807b782e886aff701056c86097040fa36b6e6434593ac6.jpg

      [link]      
      • By BasM on April 24, 2016 at 12:00 pm

        @Russ,
        Thank you.
        May be you can also write a post about the substantial genetic damage that nuclear power causes?
        As that affects the health of our next generations!

        Some info to start with:
        - http://www.unscear.org/docs/reports/1958,%2013th%20session%20%28Suppl.%20No.17%29/1958final-4_unscear.pdf
        - http://goo.gl/JZsWAa
        - http://goo.gl/rxf8S6
        - http://goo.gl/RWVCA2
        - http://goo.gl/hFeqfZ

        [link]      
        • By Russ Finley on April 26, 2016 at 3:03 pm

          May be (sic) you can also write a post about the substantial genetic damage that nuclear power causes?

          That doesn’t merit an entire article. I’ll just cut and paste my response to the last time you posted those links:

          Almost without fail, Bas, when antinuclear enthusiasts like yourself provide links, they tend to hurt more than help their arguments because for some reason, they rarely seem to read or possibly understand the links themselves. I finally looked at your last two links. They are PDFs for a lecture course and a workshop.

          Below I provide a screenshot of the goofy antinuclear cartoon found in one introduction:

          https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_QdiaBca6EeZkExeW9DdE0zT28/view?usp=sharing

          So, I looked up the real study in a real peer-reviewed science journal (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3765590/) positing the hypothesis that increased radiation may be responsible for the increased sex ratios. It simply lays out a hypothesis to be tested. Stating in the limitation of the hypothesis:

          “…Another major limitation is the general lack of firm evidence that ionizing radiation increases the human sex ratio. It is even possible that certain kinds of radiation exposures decrease the sex ratio or act neutral on gender….”

          Correlation is not causation. Correlation: The number of car deaths continued to increase after the introduction of seat belts

          [link]      
          • By BasM on April 27, 2016 at 8:53 am

            You didn’t look up the last link: http://goo.gl/hFeqfZ
            It shows the real study in a real peer-reviewed science journal, together with critics of pro-nuclear and response of the authors.

            Neither the other links which are presentations together with links to the supporting scientific studies (which you links you can follow to check).

            Your link doesn’t work.

            [link]      
            • By Forrest on April 27, 2016 at 11:03 am

              PBS had a 30 yr anniversary review of Chernobyl disaster yesterday, with up to date analysis. Death rate is highly contested, but best analysis could be as high as 9,0000 deaths including future deaths. Wild life abounds in the restricted zone. Nature appears to be winning out. A wild horse population is doing exceptional well. No detectable injury from the radiation. These animals live, breed, raise their young and feed next to the reactor. Near by residents are violating the “Keep Out” restrictions to hunt game, harvest food, and steal recyclable metal. Big game hunters paying guides to help them bag game in the restricted zone. The conclusion point of interest was the rebirth of nuclear energy popularity in modern times per the need for eliminating CO2 emissions.

              [link]      
            • By BasM on April 27, 2016 at 12:43 pm

              Of the ~1200 who did return shortly after evacuation, no male survived and only few women. Despite living healthy in the forest (no exhaust gasses, daily exercise to chop wood for heating, etc). Not attractive for people who prefer to live long.

              Of course, without hunting animals procreate, especially since the health damage of the increased radiation shows with long delay (for humans 2 – 6 decades). Studies found increased frequency of abnormalities.

              The real damage of Chernobyl is shown in the report by 3 leading radiation professors from the most struck countries, supported by the (then) Chairman of the Ukraine radiation committee (wrote the foreword). Published by the New York Academy of Sciences (despite strong opposition of pro-nuclear).
              You can down load it for free at this page of scientific publisher Wiley: http://goo.gl/VvEf7j
              Please read it.

              The 9,000 deaths is the result of the 2006 IAEA lead cover-up operation called the Chernobyl forum.
              These wrong exceptional low numbers were also possible thanks the language & cultural barriers. They excluded all research reports in non-english languages, etc.

              [link]      
            • By Russ Finley on April 27, 2016 at 4:54 pm

              You didn’t look up the last link …It shows the real study in a real peer-reviewed science journal

              Oh, I see, you’ve added another link to your original list, this time to a “real” peer-reviewed journal. Fair enough.

              …together with critics of pro-nuclear and response of the authors.

              You mean critiques like this one: http://www.fme.ch/cms2/fileadmin/webmaster/dateien/agkis_lettersexodds_lausanne_v1__21_juni_12_.pdf

              Be sure to read their conclusion.

              Link fixed, it was grabbing the parenthesis at the end.

              [link]      
        • By Russ Finley on April 26, 2016 at 3:11 pm
          [link]      
      • By BasM on April 24, 2016 at 1:09 pm

        @Russ,
        Btw.
        Your diagram says; nuclear costs 0.16 deaths/TWh incl. Chernobyl..
        In reality, nuclear incl. Chernobyl costs 12 death/TWh.
        About 4 times more than coal.
        (Nuclear generated 83,000TWh, causing 1 million death)

        It explains why the Germans give ‘all nuclear out’ the highest priority.

        [link]      
        • By Russ Finley on April 26, 2016 at 2:58 pm

          Your diagram says; nuclear costs 0.16 deaths/TWh incl. Chernobyl.

          That’s natural gas.

          It explains why the Germans give ‘all nuclear out’ the highest priority.

          Or does it demonstrate for the second time in the last century how vulnerable German culture is to propaganda? I’m looking at my poor neighbor’s brand new TDI Volkswagen that they are now embarrassed to own.

          [link]      
          • By BasM on April 27, 2016 at 9:11 am

            Sorry. I misread. The diagram states for nuclear 0.12death/TWh.

            Greenpeace’s research was a few years after Chernobyl.
            Long before the true scale of the disaster became visible.
            The researchers Greenpeace cites were also hampered by the same language & cultural barriers as the 2006 Chernobyl forum / cover-up operation of the IAEA.

            Please read the report by the 3 leading radiation professors from the most struck countries, supported by the (then) Chairman of the Ukraine radiation committee. Published by the New York Academy of Sciences (despite strong opposition of pro-nuclear).
            You can down load it for free at this page of scientific publisher Wiley:http://goo.gl/VvEf7j

            [link]      
            • By Russ Finley on April 27, 2016 at 3:38 pm

              Greenpeace’s research was a few years after Chernobyl …Long before the true scale of the disaster became visible.

              I was referring to the TORCH report (which was commissioned by the Green Party and done by two anti-nuclear energy researchers) twenty years after Chernobyl.

              You can down load it for free at this page of (sic) scientific publisher

              Your link takes us to an online version of a discredited book written by the co-founder of Greenpeace Russia, published one year before the Torch report, and even they ignored it’s conclusions. Not even the FOE listed that book’s findings in its summary report of credible research on Chernobyl. Following is what I told you the last two times you pushed that junk science:

              I’ll let Monbiot explain:

              …a book which claims that 985,000 people have died as a result of the disaster. Translated from Russian and published by the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, this is the only document which looks scientific and appears to support the wild claims made by greens about Chernobyl.

              A devastating review in the journal Radiation Protection Dosimetry points out that the book achieves its figure by the remarkable method of assuming that all increased deaths from a wide range of diseases – including many which have no known association with radiation – were caused by the accident. There is no basis for this assumption, not least because screening in many countries improved dramatically after the disaster and, since 1986, there have been massive changes in the former eastern bloc. The study makes no attempt to correlate exposure to radiation with the incidence of disease.

              Its publication seems to have arisen from a confusion about whether the Annals was a book publisher or a scientific journal. The academy has given me this statement: “In no sense did Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences or the New York Academy of Sciences commission this work; nor by its publication do we intend to independently validate the claims made in the translation or in the original publications cited in the work. The translated volume has not been peer-reviewed by the New York Academy of Sciences, or by anyone else.”

              Oh, and downloads are not free.

              [link]      
  15. By Forrest on April 24, 2016 at 2:28 pm
    [link]      
  16. By Brian on May 14, 2016 at 8:54 pm

    Over a million people die from Chernobyl and over 400,000 from fukushima.

    But I bet you heard the WHO and the UN said 4000. Right? That report was written by the UN IAEA: a nuclear power pr agency. Really, that’s their charter. It’ doesn’t even say that, BTW. It says only 4000 deaths will be provable from the Chernobyl meltdown. Duh, because epidemiology only has a 1% resolution.

    Nor do the pro nuclear people count the deaths from mining wastes and nuclear wastes that will never be kept away form the environment for 100,000 years. Humans have never done that. It would cost trillions of dollar per reactor to store the fuel rods for 100,000 years in Dry casks.

    search fukushimariskcalc.pdf 200,000 people will die from the 400,000 cancer they will get.

    Yablokov_Chernobyl_book.pdf

    Consequences of the Catastrophe for
    People and the Environment is a translation of a 2007 Russian publication by Alexey V. Yablokov, Vassily B. published at one time by The New York Academy of Sciences

    Big paper with over a thousand references to peer reviewed data. Estimates over a million deaths

    But we are supposed to believe a pro nuclear power IAEA folks right?

    [link]      
    • By Michael Mann on May 14, 2016 at 9:14 pm

      Brian sites a thoroughly debunked book, full of lies, then asks a question about who to believe? Seriously? http://atomicinsights.com/devastating-review-of-yablokovs-chernobyl-consequences-of-the-catastrophe-for-people-and-the-environment/

      [link]      
      • By Brian on May 14, 2016 at 9:23 pm

        It’s not debunked, it’s smeared by the billion dollar nuclear pr industry. Read it. The pro nuclear folks want you to believe the IAEA which was chartered to promote nuclear power. Do you believe politicians and industry pr groups?

        [link]      
        • By Michael Mann on May 14, 2016 at 9:34 pm

          It’s a piece of poorly written propaganda which doesn’t even make sense to the most casual observer.

          [link]      
          • By Brian on May 15, 2016 at 2:00 am

            Yes your links are. I linked to a compendium of peer review papers. Sponsored by the Russian academy of science.

            Yours was a blog.

            [link]      
          • By BasM on May 15, 2016 at 4:59 am

            It’s written by three leading radiation professors of the most involved
            countries, The professor / Chairman of the Ukrainian radiation committee
            wrote a foreword recommending it.

            Despite all pressure by pro-nuclear (incl. black-mail!), the New York Academy of Sciences and scientific publisher Wiley
            continue to publish the book at their site (the paper version is sold out).
            They wouldn’t if it was a propaganda piece.

            It shows also the lies of the 2006 IAEA*) lead Chernobyl
            forum cover up operation, in which WHO had to take part due to the 1958
            agreement.
            As the paper version is sold out, they facilitate free download: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com

            [link]      
        • By Aaron Oakley on May 15, 2016 at 9:55 pm

          “It’s not debunked”.

          Yes it is. Here is one example:

          http://rpd.oxfordjournals.org/content/141/1/101.full

          [link]      
          • By Brian on May 15, 2016 at 10:01 pm

            http://www.bmj.com/content/331/7508/77.full 1-2% of cancer that nuclear industry workers get are from radiation, proving LNT.

            Look at this photo of a single 1 micron particle of plutonium in animal lung tissue, and then understand that the official lie is that dose, those tracks should be be divided by the whole lung or even the whole body to give the risk of cancer. Cancers start small, not in whole organ, but in small clusters of cells, individual cells. http://nonuclear.se/deltredici.d5.particl.of.pu.html photo of alpha from plutonium particle.

            http://www.nature.com/articles/srep02554 Fuhttp://www.bmj.com/content/331/7508/77.full 1-2% of cancer that nuclear industry workers get are from radiation, proving LNT. kukushima emitted particulate sources.

            A couple of papers does not debunk LNT. Thousands of paper prove LNT.

            [link]      
            • By Aaron Oakley on May 15, 2016 at 10:14 pm

              I wrote to point out that the Yablokov book you linked to had been debunked. The paper I referenced in Radiation Protection Dosimetry does this in no uncertain terms.

              WRT you claim that “1-2% of cancer that nuclear industry workers get are from radiation, proving LNT.” This is absolutely not true. It was a cohort study, and the results were of marginal statistical significance.

              [link]      
            • By Brian on May 15, 2016 at 10:15 pm

              Folks read the links, he’s lying.

              [link]      
            • By Aaron Oakley on May 15, 2016 at 10:23 pm

              “Folks read the links, he’s lying”

              Folks can read the review of the Yablokov book in the journal “Radiation Protection Dosimetry” to see that I am not lying:

              rpd.oxfordjournals.org/content/141/1/101.full

              People can read this review of the relevant literature to see that my claim about the marginal nature of the study (Cardis et al, BMJ, 2005) is true:

              http://www.nature.com/bjc/journal/v110/n1/full/bjc2013713a.html

              [link]      
            • By Brian on May 15, 2016 at 10:32 pm

              Read it folks.

              He’s doing everything he can to stop you from reading it.

              The nuclear power industry spends billions of dollars on pr and influence per year, and i’m sure they have bought many studies proving the Russians were wrong.

              [link]      
            • By Aaron Oakley on May 15, 2016 at 10:35 pm

              So, I cite the relevant scientific literature, and your response is a conspiracy claim “I’m sure they have bought many studies proving the Russians were wrong”.

              I think people will conclude that you write in bad faith.

              [link]      
            • By Brian on May 15, 2016 at 10:41 pm

              I cite the scientific literature and you deny them.

              [link]      
            • By Aaron Oakley on May 15, 2016 at 10:46 pm

              “I cite the scientific literature and you deny them.”

              No. I cited criticism of the book in the scientific literature.

              Once again:

              http://rpd.oxfordjournals.org/content/141/1/101.full

              The reference is Charles, M (2010) Radiat. Prot. Dosimetry 141(1):101-104.

              [link]      
            • By Brian on May 15, 2016 at 10:48 pm

              No, you cited nuclear power industry pr.

              [link]      
            • By Aaron Oakley on May 15, 2016 at 10:58 pm

              “you cited nuclear power industry pr.”

              Wrong. The review I cited was by an academic at the University of Birmingham, and was published in an academic journal. People can read it for themselves:

              http://rpd.oxfordjournals.org/content/141/1/101.full

              [link]      
            • By Brian on May 15, 2016 at 11:05 pm

              I could care less about attack on the Russian papers, I was talking about the claim of 4000 deaths from Chernobyl. That comes from the IAEA. Via WHO.

              desperado. now he distracts. Propaganda 101.

              [link]      
            • By Aaron Oakley on May 15, 2016 at 11:15 pm

              “I could care less about attack on the Russian papers”

              I think you meant to write that you _couldn’t_ care less. But anyhow, it behooves me to point out that it was _you_ who brought up the Yablokov book.

              [link]      
            • By Brian on May 15, 2016 at 11:16 pm

              Because it’s the only independent data there is.

              You want us to believe the nuclear power industry commercials.

              [link]      
            • By Aaron Oakley on May 15, 2016 at 11:19 pm

              “You want us to believe the nuclear power industry commercials.”

              You keep making unsubstantiated accusations. What evidence do you have to show that the review I cited was a “nuclear power industry commercial”? What did the author say that was in error?

              [link]      
            • By Brian on May 15, 2016 at 11:31 pm

              IAEA source of 4000 death number. UN Charter to PROMOTE NUCLEAR POWER. Took over all radiation and nuclear incident analysis and reporting from WHO via contract.

              4000 deaths. who claimed that?

              [link]      
            • By Michael Mann on May 16, 2016 at 3:50 am

              Where have I heard this before? Every anti-science conspiracy theory, from anti-GMO to anti-vaccination…

              [link]      
            • By Brian on May 16, 2016 at 3:50 pm

              Lead, tobacco, radium. Same thing.

              [link]      
            • By Brian on May 15, 2016 at 10:49 pm

              DON”T LOOK! DON’T READ THE RUSSIAN PAPERS! NOOOOOOOO NOOOOOOO! NOOOOOOO!

              [link]      
            • By Aaron Oakley on May 15, 2016 at 10:55 pm

              I never said that people should not read the Yablokov book. I wrote that the work has been debunked. I provided a reference. People can make up their own minds. If you think the critique is wrong, why?

              Your hysterical outbursts do you no credit.

              [link]      
            • By Brian on May 15, 2016 at 10:57 pm

              Now he pretends to backtrack. LOL!

              He want’s us to believe the nuclear power paid pr agencies. Maybe that’s because he’s one of them.

              [link]      
            • By Aaron Oakley on May 15, 2016 at 11:01 pm

              “He want’s us to believe the nuclear power paid pr agencies”

              It seems to me that _you_ are desperate. You don’t want people to read a paper in the scientific literature relevant to the discussion, and smear the author –without any evidence– as a paid shill. That’s pretty poor behavior in my books.

              [link]      
            • By Brian on May 15, 2016 at 11:03 pm

              You trust the IAEA more than a large group of Russian scientists….why is that?

              I

              [link]      
            • By Aaron Oakley on May 15, 2016 at 11:10 pm

              “large group of Russian scientists” That’s the “appeal to popularity” fallacy, isn’t it?

              Anyhow, a major flaw in the book is that the authors assumed that _all_ increases in disease, –regardless of type– were caused by the accident. That is not a reasonable position to take.

              [link]      
            • By Brian on May 15, 2016 at 11:14 pm

              See? he’s already with the flaws. The pro nuclear folks assume all the massive increases in cancer were because of a sudden desire to smoke. Really.

              [link]      
            • By Aaron Oakley on May 15, 2016 at 11:18 pm

              Now you are falsely ascribing to me views that I don’t hold. I never wrote that “the massive increases in cancer were because of a sudden desire to smoke”. I pointed out –correctly– that a major flaw in the book is that the authors assumed that _all_
              increases in disease, –regardless of type– were caused by the accident.

              [link]      
            • By Brian on May 15, 2016 at 11:33 pm

              Distraction. read the compendium. Then read around. the “debunkings” are such obvious nonsense once you have read the papers. The debunkers don’t even get the data, facts or implication right, and make up straw men to attack.

              But first you have to read it.

              [link]      
            • By Aaron Oakley on May 15, 2016 at 11:38 pm

              Critics such as the one I cited (and you dismissed as a shill without any evidence) explicitly addressed data. Its pretty clear when you make dishonest accusations about “paid pr” that you write in bad faith.

              [link]      
            • By Brian on May 15, 2016 at 11:42 pm

              See, how he still tries to keep you away from reading it?

              [link]      
            • By BasM on May 16, 2016 at 9:48 am

              Having read the book, I cannot remember that assumption of the authors.
              Where exactly???

              [link]      
            • By greenthinker2012 on May 16, 2016 at 12:41 am

              And it should be noted that data of the Russian national registry suggest that mortality rates of the Chernobyl workers standardized by age and sex are not higher but lower than the one for the population of Russia (Ivanov et al. 2004).

              [link]      
            • By Aaron Oakley on May 16, 2016 at 12:45 am

              Is this the paper?

              Ivanov VK, et al (2004) Solid cancer incidence among the Chernobyl emergency workers residing in Russia: estimation of radiation risks. 43:35-42.

              http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14762668

              [link]      
            • By BasM on May 16, 2016 at 10:31 am

              If that is the paper of ‘greenthinker’ than the summary indicates an increased risk of 33%.*)

              While:
              - most increase still has to come as the general latency period is 2-6decades before cancers show up (as shown by a.o. the RERF studies: http://www.rerf.jp/library/archives_e/lsstitle.html ) and;
              - the radiation doses are not very high, av. 0.13Gy..
              - the study restricted itself to solid malignant neoplasms, while we know from other studies (RERF, etc.) that other diseases also increase (heart attacks, leukemia, etc).

              As early leukemia, etc are more frequent, that restriction suggests that the researchers hoped to find as little as possible…

              The result suggests 1% increased risk on solid cancer per 3-4mGy or per <3mSv (if the radiation contains ~1% Alpha)
              ___
              *) From the summary:
              "The values of excess relative risk per unit dose (ERR/Gy) for solid malignant neoplasms have been estimated to be 0.33 (95% CI: -0.39, 1.22) … for the follow-up period 1991-2001…”
              (Italics by me)

              [link]      
            • By BasM on May 16, 2016 at 10:01 am

              Too many other indicate opposite.
              Link??.

              [link]      
            • By BasM on May 16, 2016 at 9:45 am

              ” a major flaw in the book is that the authors assumed that _all_
              increases in disease, –regardless of type– were caused by the accident.”
              Having read the book I cannot remember.
              Seems nonsense to me.
              Can you indicate where exactly

              [link]      
            • By Brian on May 15, 2016 at 10:59 pm

              In case it’s not clear: He want’s us to believe paid nuclear power industry pr folks.

              ANYTHING IS BETTER THAN PAID NUCLEAR POWER PR FOLKS.

              Is that NOT clear to ANYONE?

              [link]      
            • By Aaron Oakley on May 15, 2016 at 11:03 pm

              I think it is a sign of desperation when you make baseless accusations like this.

              [link]      
            • By Brian on May 15, 2016 at 11:11 pm

              I think it’s a sign of desperation when you try to stop people from reading the data and when you believe the nuclear industry PR folks.

              You refuse to deal with that fact that YOU suggest we believe the nuclear power industry pr folks.

              A nuclear power commercial is what you think we should believe.

              You play the fool.

              [link]      
            • By BasM on May 16, 2016 at 9:19 am

              You repeat the link which I already summarized here:
              http://www.energytrendsinsider.com/2015/12/02/bill-nye-the-science-guy-social-primate-and-nuclear-energy/#comment-2678256518
              It shows no debunking at all.

              Your second link concerns a review of one of the nuclear workers studies.
              Other studies such as this Sellafield one show strongly increased genetic damage as shown by the 39% more boys than girls: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1060382/
              Which of course result also in reduced health, increased still birth, for their offspring: http://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140673699041380.pdf

              [link]      
            • By Aaron Oakley on May 16, 2016 at 9:24 am

              Cherrypicking. The study you linked:

              http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1060382/

              is contradicted by a better and more rigorous study:

              http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2800%2904748-6/fulltext?version=printerFriendly

              Once again: you write in bad faith.

              [link]      
            • By BasM on May 16, 2016 at 9:37 am

              No. The study you link concerns a fundamentally different group of workers….
              It would be highly suspicious if another study concerning different population in other parts of the country getting different levels of radiation during work would deliver similar levels of genetic damage…

              The study I linked (your first link) shows that the Sellafield radiation workers get 39% more boys than girls. A clear indication of the significant genetic damage!

              [link]      
            • By Aaron Oakley on May 16, 2016 at 8:53 pm

              “The study you link concerns a fundamentally different group of workers….” …who all received a radiation dose that should correlate with gender bias —IF the effect is real.

              “It would be highly suspicious if another study concerning different
              population in other parts of the country getting different levels of
              radiation during work would deliver similar levels of genetic damage” The effect should be observable across multiple study groups –IF it is real. Effects like this don’t magically pop up and disappear.

              “A clear indication of the significant genetic damage!” Utterly wrong. The study you cited was epidemiological. It made no claims to attribute cause. Such causes can only be shown by molecular genetics studies.

              And anyway, more robust studies show no correlation. Your hand-waving is just an excuse to ignore inconvenient data. As the Lacet authors conclude:
              “This is the largest survey ever undertaken of children born to male and female radiation workers. Moreover, this is the first study of the sex ratio of children born to nuclear industry workers in which the information on the children was obtained from the workers themselves and then linked to occupational information held by their employers. Thus the results were based on individual dosimetry records. With over 46,000 reported liveborn children, the large size of this study allowed for more accurate investigation of the sex ratio among nuclear industry workers than has been possible in previous studies.
              No association between occupational exposure to ionising radiation and sex ratio was found. The sex ratios showed very little variation between exposure categories, and no statistically significant deviations from expected ratios were observed. The data do not support the hypothesis that exposure of men or women to low-level ionising radiation at work has any influence on the sex of children conceived after exposure”

              [link]      
            • By BasM on May 17, 2016 at 4:58 am

              Sellafield nuclear waste workers get substantial more radiation than NPP workers,
              So it’s logical that they found those effects with them and not with general NPP workers.

              The results and conclusions are in line with the widely supported LNT framework (only fanatic pro-nuclear and similar try to debunk it because it increases the costs of nuclear)…

              [link]      
            • By Aaron Oakley on May 17, 2016 at 5:59 am

              “So it’s logical that they found those effects with them and not with general NPP workers.” No. The effect should be observable in multiple studies. Its not. And once again, your claimed genetic damage was not been demonstrated in the study to which you linked.

              “widely supported LNT framework” you are lying again. Significant opposition to the LNT.

              http://atomicinsights.com/science-falsified-no-safe-dose-hypothesis-radiation-now/

              [link]      
            • By BasM on May 17, 2016 at 6:42 am

              “… effect should be observable in multiple studies.”
              The two studies showing the significant genetic damage and even health damage to new born are rather clear and got little valid critique.
              Little reason to repeat and find same.

              LNT
              As research designs improve, they succeed measuring health effects due to ever smaller doses of radiation.
              Such as those due to small increase in background radiation:
              - http://www.nytimes.com/1996/04/25/world/inherited-damage-is-found-in-chernobyl-area-children.html
              - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15045533

              Even hardly measurable increases create substantial genetic damage to population as far away as 40km(!) as shown around nuclear waste storage: http://goo.gl/a27Vj4

              When due diligence research by pro-nuclear (who added more districts in the hope to find less) found worse around Gorleben, the authorities closed Germany’s prime nuclear waste store despite the large building being largely empty.

              AtomicInsight is a pro-nuclear non-scientific platform.
              Gathering all negative opinions regarding LNT does not imply that LNT is no longer the major scientific direction. Read the relevant papers of the US National Academy of Sciences..

              [link]      
            • By Brian on May 15, 2016 at 10:34 pm

              I proved beyond a show of a doubt that LNT and the Russians compendium have NOT been debunked.

              Read hem folks.

              Can you really NOT smell the fear that you will actually read them from the pro nuclear commenter?

              This guy wants you to believe nuclear power pr commercials.

              You realize that?

              Do you?

              [link]      
            • By Aaron Oakley on May 15, 2016 at 10:41 pm

              “beyond a show of a doubt” apparently means a handful of cherry-picked studies Brian thinks supports his case.

              Once again, your claim “Russians compendium have NOT been debunked” is shown to be untrue by this article in the scientific literature:

              http://rpd.oxfordjournals.org/content/141/1/101.full

              Your response? Conspiracy theories about “nuclear power industry spends billions of dollars on pr and influence”.

              “This guy wants you to believe nuclear power pr commercials.”

              So Brian would have us believe that references to the peer-reviewed literature are “power pr commercials”.

              [link]      
            • By Brian on May 15, 2016 at 10:47 pm

              See how desperate he is to get you NOT to read it.

              Notice he wants you to pay for the articles too. The article could be anything. Ain’t that great? I am right, I have an article that proves it. Sorry, you cant’; read it without paying first. LOL
              HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

              [link]      
            • By Aaron Oakley on May 15, 2016 at 10:52 pm

              “See how desperate he is to get you NOT to read it.”

              People can read what they want.

              “Notice he wants you to pay for the articles too”

              Or they could go down to their local university library and read it. In any event, whether the article is paywalled or not is in no way a reflection of the rigor of the article.

              “HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA”

              Your outbursts are becoming more hysterical.

              [link]      
            • By Brian on May 15, 2016 at 10:56 pm

              See? it’s all a desperate sham to stop you from reading the compendium and realizing how badly the nuclear power pr industry has lied to you. Yeah, ya’ll go on down to the library to look up one article, yeah, really, That’s what he thinks of you.

              [link]      
            • By BasM on May 16, 2016 at 9:38 am

              I showed you in previous comment that the reviewer in this link doesn’t take a real position, hence is validating the book.

              [link]      
            • By Aaron Oakley on May 16, 2016 at 9:41 am

              “doesn’t take a real position, hence is validating the book.” That is a non-sequiteur. Even if it were true (its not) it does NOT validate the book. And the review points out the questionable methodology I described earlier.

              You write in bad faith.

              [link]      
            • By BasM on May 16, 2016 at 8:59 am
              [link]      
            • By Aaron Oakley on May 16, 2016 at 9:11 am

              I have little interest in ingesting your agitprop. Its pretty clear from rerading your posts that you write in bad faith and with an intent to spread fear about atomic energy.

              “not debunked at all”

              Yes. Debunked. E.g. Mona Dreicer writes:
              Two significant methodological biases underpin the conclusions that are drawn by the authors from the large amount of data presented: the application of a downward extrapolation of the linear radiation dose–effect relationship with no lower threshold, and the distrust of the ability of epidemiologic methodologies to determine the existence of a statistical correlation between measured or calculated radiological dose and measured impacts.

              http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/118-a500/

              Many, many other problems noted. But Yablokov is great for spreading fear.

              [link]      
            • By BasM on May 16, 2016 at 10:59 am

              No.
              This is a (ex-)nuclear worker who writes a review in which her most important critique is the two methodological issues.

              The first one is LNT. But that is major science supported by NAS and many other research results such as this:
              http://goo.gl/NyTk8f

              The second one is a distrust regarding the ability of epidemiologic methodologies…

              Not impressive at all.
              It would be more correct if you state that she underwrite most of the book!

              [link]      
            • By Aaron Oakley on May 16, 2016 at 5:44 pm

              “that is major science supported by NAS” That is a regulatory assumption, not science, abused by anti-nuclear types like you that write in bad faith.

              “a distrust regarding the ability of epidemiologic methodologies” Wrong. The reviewers show that the study’s methodology is fatally flawed. You are now making excuses for junk science.

              You that write in bad faith.

              [link]      
            • By BasM on May 17, 2016 at 2:28 am

              Major science not only regulatory. Read the BEIR VII report.

              This study shows that even small increase in background radiation causes already highly significant increases in damaging defects in new born:
              http://goo.gl/NyTk8f
              Many more such study results available.

              Distrust. The public available summary does not show neither judge that the method is fatally flawed. It only indicates some distrust. Read the review better.

              [link]      
            • By Aaron Oakley on May 17, 2016 at 3:26 am

              “This study shows that even small increase in background radiation causes
              already highly significant increases in damaging defects”
              You link to an epidemiological study. Extremely dishonest of you.

              “Many more such study results available.”

              Many studies available that contradict the LNT as well. But you ignore them. You cherry-pick the studies that support your anti-nuke ideology.

              You don’t get to pick and choose with science.

              You write in bad faith.

              [link]      
            • By BasM on May 17, 2016 at 5:07 am

              No decent studies which show threshold. Only studies that are not sensitive enough to detect the theoretical predicted damage!

              [link]      
            • By Aaron Oakley on May 17, 2016 at 5:57 am

              “No decent studies which show threshold” As you are an anti-nuke propagandist, I would be surprised if you wrote anything else.

              [link]      
            • By BasM on May 17, 2016 at 7:47 am

              I expected that you would come with a list of studies.
              But none.
              Which confirms my statement.

              [link]      
            • By Aaron Oakley on May 17, 2016 at 7:55 am

              “Which confirms my statement.” another non-sequitur.

              Unfortuantely, the time I have to deal with people who tell blatant lies, such as the Yablokov book having nothing to do with greenpeace, is limited.

              [link]      
            • By Aaron Oakley on May 16, 2016 at 9:18 am

              “The health and environmental consequences of the Chernobyl accident continue to attract the attention of experts, decision-makers and the general public, and now these consequences have been given added relevance by the similar accident in 2011 at the Fukushima-1 nuclear power plant (NPP) in Japan. Expert analysis of radiation levels and effects has been conducted by international bodies—UNSCEAR in 2008 and the Chernobyl Forum during 2003–5. At the same time, three Russian and Belarusian scientists, Yablokov,
              Nesterenko and Nesterenko (2009 Chernobyl. Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment (New York: Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences)) published both in Russian and English a substantial review of the consequences of Chernobyl based mostly on Russian-language papers. In this book, they suggested a departure from analytical epidemiological studies in favour of ecological ones. This erroneous approach resulted in the overestimation of the number of accident victims by more than 800 000 deaths during 1987–2004. This paper investigates the mistakes in methodology made by Yablokov et al and concludes that these errors led to a clear exaggeration of radiation-induced health effects.
              Should similar mistakes be made following the 2011 accident at Fukushima-1 NPP this could lead quite unnecessarily to a panic reaction by the public about possible health effects and to erroneous decisions by the authorities in Japan.”

              http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0952-4746/32/2/181/meta

              [link]      
            • By BasM on May 16, 2016 at 11:21 am

              So you cite the Balonov critics which is linked by NYAS.
              As stated earlier, Balonev being a far less authority has to support the official Russian pro-nuclear point of view….

              [link]      
            • By Aaron Oakley on May 16, 2016 at 5:42 pm

              Irrelevant. The critics are right. The Yablokov book is junk science. You write in bad faith.

              [link]      
          • By BasM on May 16, 2016 at 8:53 am

            No. Read your reference.
            The reviewer doesn’t take a position.

            He shows the difference between the biased view of the ‘blind’ pro-nuclear UNSCEAR chairman and that of the NYAS book.

            The book is supported by a.o. Prof. Dr. Biol. Dimitro M. Grodzinsky Chairman Department of General Biology, Ukrainian National Academy of Sciences; and
            Chairman Ukrainian National Commission on Radiation Protection
            http://www.energytrendsinsider.com/2015/12/02/bill-nye-the-science-guy-social-primate-and-nuclear-energy/#comment-2678185248

            The simple fact that NYAS keeps the book on its site despite all the pressure and even black-mail of pro-nuclear shows that NYAS also supports the book strongly.

            [link]      
            • By Aaron Oakley on May 16, 2016 at 9:00 am

              “The reviewer doesn’t take a position.” Sure, he just points out the ridiculous position taken by the book, vis: “The Greenpeace approach is primarily to link temporal changes in health statistics after 1986 in Belarus, the Ukraine and other countries with the Chernobyl accident. That is, all increases in disease, regardless of type, are assumed to be the result of the Chernobyl accident.”

              “The book is supported by ….” The appeal to authority fallacy? Really?

              “pressure and even black-mail” Tinfoil hat stuff.

              Looks like Sam Gilman ans others were right about you. I think you like the Yablokov book because it provides the BS you like to hear.

              [link]      
            • By BasM on May 16, 2016 at 9:04 am

              The book is not related to Greenpeace, neither does it use a ‘Greenpeace approach’. Your debunking = nonsense.
              Read your stuff and the book.
              You can also get it for free here:
              https://ia601001.us.archive.org/32/items/YablokovChernobylBook/Yablokov%20Chernobyl%20book.pdf

              [link]      
            • By Aaron Oakley on May 16, 2016 at 9:15 am

              “The book is not related to Greenpeace”

              Wrong: http://hps.org/documents/greenpeace_chernobyl_health_report.pdf

              [link]      
            • By Sam Gilman on May 16, 2016 at 9:45 am

              The book is related to Greenpeace, but that book there is a different one. Here is the cover of the Russian original of the book he’s promoting, with Greenpeace logo. (via Rationalwiki):

              http://m.imgur.com/2JQIALe

              [link]      
            • By BasM on May 16, 2016 at 11:04 am

              That is another book. Compare.

              Of course Greenpeace was eager to publish such a book.
              So they copied major parts that were available at the time and involved one of the authors.

              [link]      
            • By Michael Mann on May 16, 2016 at 11:10 am

              So which is the truth? “The book is not related to Greenpeace” or “Of course Greenpeace was eager to publish “

              [link]      
            • By BasM on May 16, 2016 at 11:48 am

              That depends on your definition of related.
              Did not see such relation in the NYAS book which I read.
              Invite you to do the same.

              [link]      
            • By Michael Mann on May 16, 2016 at 12:28 pm

              Did you miss the title page? Did you not know the author was a co-founder of Greenpeace Russia? What is your definition of related?

              [link]      
            • By BasM on May 16, 2016 at 3:33 pm

              Michael,
              Thanks.
              I log in at the NYAS page and move then to the Wiley / NYAS page: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/nyas.2009.1181.issue-1/issuetoc
              Then download the PDF of the part that I want.
              No part comes with the front page, even the foreword not.
              The front page picture at the pages of the NYAS/WILEY site is so small that I can’t read anything…
              Thanks.

              [link]      
            • By BasM on May 16, 2016 at 4:29 pm

              Below you find a screen picture of the title page of the NYAS book. No Green Peace:

              [link]      
            • By Brian on May 16, 2016 at 7:48 pm

              You mean the non profit that is better than political and industry pr agencies at predicting technology items?

              Tell me what other organization he would have joined to fight against the nuclear power caused deaths?

              You still believe the IAEA nuclear industry pr folks.

              [link]      
            • By Brian on May 16, 2016 at 7:49 pm
              [link]      
            • By Sam Gilman on May 16, 2016 at 11:26 am

              The time stamps in a few days won’t show this, but Bas’ comment was written after he was shown evidence that the book did in fact come from Greenpeace.

              I wonder what it would be like to work in an office with Bas Gresnigt. Would you not always walk out of the room with your wallet, just in case?

              [link]      
            • By BasM on May 16, 2016 at 12:02 pm

              “…evidence that the book did in fact come from Greenpeace.”
              Are you serious.
              Three leading professors from Berlarus & Russia writing a book for Greenpeace with a recommendatory foreword by the eminent Prof. Dr. Biol. Dimitro M. Grodzinsky (Chairman Dept General Biology, Ukrainian National Academy of Sciences; and Chairman Ukrainian National Commission on Radiation Protection).

              The leading author, Prof Yablokov member of at the Russian Academy of Sciences in Moscow; member of the USSR Parliament, deputy chair of the Parliament’s commission of ecology; environmental adviser to President Boris Yeltsin and Mikhail Gorbachev; Chair of the State Commission on dumping of radioactive wastes; etc.

              It sounds ridiculous if you know a little of relationships.

              If that would have been the situation, than the NYAS book would have shown indications. I didn’t see any.

              But may be I overlook something.
              So I invite you to check the NYAS book whether you can find one???

              [link]      
            • By Sam Gilman on May 16, 2016 at 12:07 pm

              The big Greenpeace logo on the front cover is a big giveaway.

              Why do you tell lies to people who already know what you say is false, Bas?

              [link]      
            • By BasM on May 16, 2016 at 4:31 pm

              A screen picture of the title page of the NYAS book.

              No Green Peace.

              The picture:
              At the inside an explanation that the light inner-core (rings) of the trees are from the grow before Chernobyl disaster, and the dark outer-core rings (showing slower grow) from after Chernobyl (effect of the radiation).

              [link]      
            • By Sam Gilman on May 16, 2016 at 6:48 pm

              BasM/Bas Gresnigt/Sanne/Darius Bentvels now wants everyone to believe that the book was originally written in English, not in Russian.

              Here’s the entire text of the original, with the Greenpeace logo in full view on page 2

              http://network.bellona.org/content/uploads/sites/4/2015/07/fil_yablokov.pdf

              It’s clearly very important to BasM that Greenpeace weren’t involved.

              [link]      
            • By BasM on May 17, 2016 at 2:42 am

              So you want to hide your fantasy about the big Greenpeace logo on the cover of the NYAS which you stated as a fact,
              by starting new fantasies…

              [link]      
            • By Sam Gilman on May 17, 2016 at 2:57 am

              Again, BasM/Sanne/Darius Bentvels/Bas Gresnigt is providing false statements. At no point did I ever say there was a Greenpeace logo on the English translation.

              Why does he need to hide that Greenpeace was involved?

              [link]      
            • By Aaron Oakley on May 17, 2016 at 3:34 am

              BasM: “The book is not related to Greenpeace”

              Original Book in Russian. GREENPEACE logo appears on p2:
              http://network.bellona.org/content/uploads/sites/4/2015/07/fil_yablokov.pdf

              Pretty clear-cut that you are dishonest.

              [link]      
            • By Michael Mann on May 16, 2016 at 9:57 am

              It was commissioned by Greenpeace…Why would you deny that? Greenpeace paid a lot of money for that recognition… http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/features/chernobyl-deaths-180406/

              [link]      
            • By Sam Gilman on May 16, 2016 at 10:22 am

              That’s a different book to the NYAS one. Here is the cover of the Russian original with the Greenpeace logo in full view:

              http://m.imgur.com/2JQIALe

              [link]      
            • By Michael Mann on May 16, 2016 at 10:26 am

              Thank you, they were both Greenpeace and one released in 2006 the other 2009.. both had the same agenda, it’s easy to get confused.

              [link]      
            • By Sam Gilman on May 16, 2016 at 10:47 am

              To make matters more confusing, there’s also a dreadful Chris Busby edited tome with Yablokov in 2006 as well. 20th anniversary stuff.

              [link]      
            • By Sam Gilman on May 16, 2016 at 10:34 am

              The book is not related to Greenpeace

              BasM tells another lie. Here is the front cover of the original, complete with Greenpeace logo.

              http://www.imgur.com/2JQIALe

              Why did you lie about this, Bas? Why are do so many of your comments contain false information that not only you know to be false, but that you know others know is false too? What’s the point?

              [link]      
            • By BasM on May 16, 2016 at 11:37 am

              Your link doesn’t work.

              If related to Greenpeace, I assume some previous version.
              As I cannot remember that I saw anything related to Greenpeace in the NYAS bood which I read.

              [link]      
            • By Sam Gilman on May 16, 2016 at 11:40 am

              “Your link doesn’t work”

              Yes, it does.

              BasM, I’ll ask you again:

              Why do you try to lie to people who know what you are saying is false?

              [link]      
            • By BasM on May 16, 2016 at 11:43 am

              Ah, you found another method of scolding, degrading yourself.
              The link delivers an unclear page…

              [link]      
            • By Sam Gilman on May 16, 2016 at 11:46 am

              Why do you tell lies to people who already know what you say is false, Bas?

              [link]      
            • By BasM on May 16, 2016 at 12:05 pm

              You faked similar at Greentech media…

              [link]      
            • By Sam Gilman on May 16, 2016 at 12:16 pm

              Is that an accusation of me faking data, Bas? Would you like to prove it?

              Does it matter to you whether you can prove it or not? Do you think it matters to other people?

              [link]      
            • By Michael Mann on May 16, 2016 at 11:17 am

              The primary author, the biologist Alexey V. Yablokov, is a co-founder of Greenpeace Russia….

              [link]      
            • By Joris75 on May 16, 2016 at 9:04 am

              You, Bas Gresnigt, are a repugnant liar and fraud. I hope some day you get what you deserve.

              The following is what the NYAS actually says about the Yablokov book (as has been pointed out to you a thousand times).

              “This collection of papers, originally published in Russian, was written by scientists who state that they have summarized the information about the health and environmental consequences of the Chernobyl disaster from several hundreds of papers previously published in Slavic language publications. In no sense did Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences or the New York Academy of Sciences commission this work; nor by its publication does the Academy validate the claims made in the original Slavic language publications cited in the translated papers. Importantly, the translated volume has not been formally peer‐reviewed by the New York Academy of Sciences or by anyone else.

              Under the editorial practices of Annals at the time, some projects, such as the Chernobyl translation, were developed and accepted solely to fulfill the Academy’s broad mandate of providing an open forum for discussion of scientific questions, rather than to present original scientific studies or Academy positions. The content of these projects, conceived as one-off book projects, were not vetted by standard peer review.”

              http://www.nyas.org/Publications/Annals/Detail.aspx?cid=f3f3bd16-51ba-4d7b-a086-753f44b3bfc1

              [link]      
            • By BasM on May 16, 2016 at 10:39 am

              Ha, my narrow-minded personal stalker now starts with ranting….

              [link]      
            • By Joris75 on May 16, 2016 at 11:03 am

              Why don’t you show some respect to the morbid radiophobia suicide victims you help create with your evil lies, and kill yourself?

              [link]      
            • By BasM on May 16, 2016 at 11:46 am

              Ah, that is why you lie about the dangers of radiation.

              [link]      
            • By Joris75 on May 16, 2016 at 2:17 pm

              You don’t get to call me a liar, liar. Or do you not even know the difference between lies and the truth anymore?

              [link]      
      • By BasM on May 15, 2016 at 4:46 am

        Despite all pressure by pro-nuclear (incl. black-mail!), the New York Academy of Sciences and scientific publisher Wiley continue to publish the book at their site (the paper version is sold out)!

        It shows also the lies of the 2006 IAEA*) lead Chernobyl forum cover up operation, in which WHO had to take part due to the 1958 agreement.
        As the paper version is sold out, they facilitate free download:
        http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/nyas.2009.1181.issue-1/issuetoc
        Which indicate that they consider reaching more people to be important.
        __
        *) Apparently IAEA has no problems to lie in order to reach their official prime target. Which is promoting the peaceful application of nuclear.

        [link]      
    • By Starviking on May 14, 2016 at 9:23 pm

      400,000 died from Fukushima? I guess I must be a ghost, seeing I live 60 miles from the plant.

      [link]      
      • By Enkidu on May 15, 2016 at 12:27 am

        Had you seen that fukushimariskcalc before? It’s Chris Busby at his
        finest. The whole thing is a complete mess, but I think my favorite part is this:

        Assuming mean population densities given by the shadings the population at risk can be calculated using mass planimetry (cutting out with scissors and weighing on a chemical balance).

        Should give you some indication of his level of technical sophistication! I fondly remember using a hand planimeter back in the old days for calculating areas and fill volumes for landfills, levees, etc., but scissors and a scale really takes the cake.

        [link]      
        • By Brian on May 15, 2016 at 2:03 am

          You know why ad hominem is a logical error?

          Is DNA not double helix because Watson is a despicable racist with dumb theories why blacks are inferior?

          Do Josephson junctions not work because Josephson believes in telepathy?

          Do the planets not revolve around the sun because Kepler believed they were determined by concentric perfect solids?

          Does PCR not work because Mullis believes HIV does not cause aids?

          Did Cathode ray tubes not work because Phillipp Lenard believed that science could be German or Jewish, and he was N.zi?

          Do transistors not work because William Shockley black hating eugenics, Racist?

          [link]      
        • By Starviking on May 15, 2016 at 8:59 am

          Wow! That really is unbelievable. I guess he likes working with his hands!

          [link]      
      • By Brian on May 15, 2016 at 2:01 am

        Died or will die. You don’t live anywhere near the plant. Funny how you misquoted me.

        [link]      
        • By Starviking on May 15, 2016 at 6:27 am

          Near is a relative term. Where are the 400,000 dead located?

          [link]      
          • By Brian on May 15, 2016 at 3:09 pm

            The cemetery or cremated, what do you think you do with dead bodies?

            Again, try and understand, these deaths are and will happen over a 50 year time span. They will be cancers and heart failures, the perfect mass murder. So out of the millions of cancer per year, many of them will be from nuclear power radiation.

            Not only does industry think dilution is the solution to pollution, it also makes it impossible to trace the deaths back to the causes.

            Not that the nuclear industry is the only one to use the callous murderous strategy. If we couldn’t measure the lead and see the ruined lungs of smokers, they would still be claiming they were safe.

            [link]      
            • By Michael Mann on May 15, 2016 at 3:28 pm

              Most of the dead were cleverly disguised; car accidents, gun shot wounds, alcoholism, old age, or pneumonia, very tricky stuff this radiation (sarcasm)

              [link]      
            • By Brian on May 15, 2016 at 3:30 pm

              Yeah,I know you think cancer deaths are funny, and small price to pay for your beloved deadly nuclear mistress.

              got it.

              [link]      
            • By Michael Mann on May 15, 2016 at 3:46 pm

              I’m just tired of the pain and suffering you inflict upon those who don’t know any better and believe your propaganda. There might not be any appreciable negative health effects from the radiation, but there is plenty of negative health effects from the fear and anxiety you promote. You know this yet you continue to spread this harmful propaganda, how can you sleep at night?

              [link]      
            • By BasM on May 16, 2016 at 6:39 am

              Just consider these big negative health effects of a slight increase in background radiation found by this study: http://goo.gl/NyTk8f

              And the highly significant found substantial genetic damage caused by even smaller amounts of radiation:
              http://goo.gl/a27Vj4

              I prefer to have healthy next generations, and become sick of the unfounded pro-nuclear propaganda that low level radiation doesn’t cause any health harm (contrary to established science such as the US NAS BEIR VII reports, etc).

              [link]      
            • By Starviking on May 19, 2016 at 12:44 am

              The deaths will occur in what size of population?

              You say: “So out of the millions of cancer per year, many of them will be from nuclear power radiation.”

              That would show in in the stats.

              [link]      
            • By Brian on May 19, 2016 at 12:47 am

              No it would not. The resolution of epidemiological studes is 1-2%. Worse, even though the Ukraine and Russia saw huge increases in cancers, the IAEA nuclear industry PR report claimed they were from tress, new smokers, and poverty.

              [link]      
            • By Starviking on May 19, 2016 at 12:59 am

              You used the word “many” Brian, you should look it up.

              [link]      
            • By Brian on May 19, 2016 at 1:08 am

              Gosh, you should look up LNT.

              [link]      
            • By Brian on May 19, 2016 at 1:12 am

              Like in millions. You should look up “many” as well.

              [link]      
    • By greenthinker2012 on May 15, 2016 at 7:11 pm

      Are we supposed to believe you when the New York Academy of Sciences’ own website contradicts your claim the Yablokov book was peer reviewed?

      Here is what the NYAS says…

      “Importantly, the translated volume has not been formally peer‐reviewed by the New York Academy of Sciences or by anyone else.

      http://www.nyas.org/Publications/Annals/Detail.aspx?cid=f3f3bd16-51ba-4d7b-a086-753f44b3bfc1

      [link]      
      • By Brian on May 15, 2016 at 9:14 pm

        The individual reports have been peer reviewed. The UN claimed to use it as a source, so you think they were wrong too?

        [link]      
        • By Michael Mann on May 15, 2016 at 9:30 pm

          Didn’t you say “Consequences of the Catastrophe for
          People and the Environment is a translation of a 2007 Russian publication by Alexey V. Yablokov, Vassily B. published at one time by The New York Academy of Sciences”
          NYAS says…

          Importantly, the translated volume has not been formally peer‐reviewed by the New York Academy of Sciences or by anyone else.
          Why would you say the New York Academy of Sciences is not to be trusted? Yes, anyone using this piece of propaganda as a source is definitely wrong, unless they are using it as an example of what not to do, or an example of “Junk science”

          [link]      
          • By Brian on May 15, 2016 at 9:38 pm

            Read it folks, you will only get nonsense and fear you might learn something from the pro nuclear crowd. He actually believes the paid pr nuclear power industry. I sorry, how can I respect anything from a person who is so gullible?

            You can look up the individual paper and the authors.

            Or you can believe the nuclear power industry commercials.

            [link]      
            • By Michael Mann on May 15, 2016 at 9:44 pm

              Brian has been duped by the anti-nuclear establishment, I have over 35 years hands on experience and formal education. Brian has conspiracy sites and people who earn money from fear. Either that or he has some other motivation for having no ability to learn. He just repeats his anti-nuclear memes over and over with a total disconnect from reality. I really feel sorry for him.

              [link]      
            • By Brian on May 15, 2016 at 9:58 pm

              He made his living off nuclear power and promotes it. He is part of the nuclear power pr. He denies LNT, ignores mining and wastes, and uses future tech whenever I show just how bad real nuclear power is.

              [link]      
            • By Michael Mann on May 15, 2016 at 10:00 pm

              Brian you don’t seem to know nuclear power now.

              [link]      
            • By Brian on May 15, 2016 at 10:02 pm

              Mann, God help you.

              [link]      
            • By BasM on May 16, 2016 at 8:20 am

              So you start a type of name calling because you have no sensible argument.
              Why not just admit that.

              [link]      
            • By Michael Mann on May 16, 2016 at 10:15 am

              No name calling… do you see “TROLL”, “SHILL” or some other name calling other than Brian? I post my opinions based on years of hands on experience and extensive study. I am not told to post nor am I told what to post, I have yet to see you defend me from name calling, why is that?

              [link]      
            • By Brian on May 17, 2016 at 2:06 am

              Gosh, you parrot everything the nuclear industry PR folks publish and defend everything they do. You attack all other energy sources, and smear anyone who points out problems with nuclear power. Like a machine. You could be a computer program it’s so predictable. Something said against nuclear, well then it must be a lie by evil Greenpeace, or anti nuclear fools who know nothing!

              What should we call you?

              The nuclear power industry owns the UN, the DOE(the atomic energy commissions child and still 90% nuclear) and spend billions on pr and influence.

              [link]      
            • By Michael Mann on May 17, 2016 at 5:46 am

              Simple, you are 99% wrong and they are 99% right, it’s not PR, it’science. The people who work in nuclear power plants are by and large dedicated, hard working and have integrity, they are also very self critical and demanding. Your understanding is cursory and based upon falsehoods and myth from conspiracy theorists, government manipulations and even the people who work in nuclear, who enjoy the mystique of working in a special and unique field, perceived as dangerous. Your lack of understanding coupled with unscrupulous fear mongers and conspiracy theorists has created irrational fear and anxiety and created an alternate reality in your mind about nuclear energy. I normally just try to correct your errors for the third party lurkers who may be fooled into believing your misguided posts. I truly feel sorry for you.

              [link]      
            • By Brian on May 17, 2016 at 6:13 am

              Of course, anything against nuclear power must be lies and false because nuclear power is perfect and the nuclear workers are all pure of heart.

              You lie to promote nuclear which will kill millions of people.

              Not to mention bankrupting them when the uranium runs out and when they have to pay for trillions of dollar in dry cask storage for 100,000 years.

              [link]      
            • By Michael Mann on May 17, 2016 at 6:49 am

              You have the term “strawman” argument? Show me one time I said that, my profile history is open you can look back as far as you like you will not find anywhere where I said nuclear power was perfect. How can you believe that malarkey? You can’t be that naive.

              [link]      
            • By Mike Carey on May 17, 2016 at 7:35 pm

              Your fevered imagination is running away again, Brian!
              Try to catch it before you do serious harm to yourself.
              Cheers.

              [link]      
            • By Brian on May 18, 2016 at 5:09 am

              Are you saying that into a mirror? LOL!

              [link]      
            • By Mike Carey on May 18, 2016 at 5:07 pm

              Careful, Brian.
              You are laughing while the guy with the tight fitting white coat is coming up behind you!
              Take care.

              [link]      
            • By Brian on May 18, 2016 at 5:14 pm

              How soviet, just what the nuclear power industry needs to survive.

              [link]      
            • By Mike Carey on May 18, 2016 at 5:25 pm

              Think about *your* psychiatric symptoms, Brian:
              - wild imaginings
              - inventing fearful dangers
              - repeating conspiracy theories
              - hiding behind anonymous online identities
              - seeing global fascist powers behind every opposing comment.

              How close *are* you to the padded room, Brian?
              Take care.

              [link]      
            • By BasM on May 18, 2016 at 8:15 pm

              Ah, you fallback into Soviet style psychiatry.
              All other opinions must be by psychiatric..

              [link]      
            • By Mike Carey on May 18, 2016 at 8:21 pm

              Yes, Coalman, your relentless propaganda of false statements does mirror Soviet mind control techniques.
              Have you thought about working for RT? They always need more spin doctors.
              Take care.

              [link]      
            • By Brian on May 19, 2016 at 1:05 am

              Think about your psychopathy. You promote death with a smile and jokes.

              [link]      
            • By Mike Carey on May 19, 2016 at 1:12 am

              What’s funny about this diagnosis?
              “Think about *your* psychiatric symptoms, Brian:
              - wild imaginings
              - inventing fearful dangers
              - repeating conspiracy theories
              - hiding behind anonymous online identities
              - seeing global fascist powers behind every opposing comment.”

              Not funny. Take care.

              [link]      
            • By Brian on May 19, 2016 at 1:25 am

              wild imaginings: like uranium from seawater, or you can trust the IAEA, or nuclear power isn’t deadly, expensive, and short of fuel in ten years.

              [link]      
            • By Mike Carey on May 19, 2016 at 1:29 am

              Exactly.
              Wild imaginings. You have refused to acknowledge contrary evidence many times.
              Take care.

              [link]      
            • By Brian on May 19, 2016 at 2:46 am

              No, You have. You believe IAEA nuclear industry PR. that makes you complicit or a fool

              [link]      
            • By Mike Carey on May 19, 2016 at 1:35 pm

              Gee, Brian, how forgetful of you.

              When you say, “You believe IAEA nuclear industry PR”, I recall that you have tried to use old IAEA reports to frequently claim that there could be a uranium fuel problem in ten years.

              And, of course, you have forgotten the recent IAEA reports that have been presented to you to refute your false claims.

              So, which is it? Are *you* “complicit or a fool”?

              Do try to keep your wild imaginings under control. Take care.

              [link]      
            • By Brian on May 19, 2016 at 4:20 pm

              Gee, ya noticed I us the untrustworthy IAEA to get my 10 years uranium shortage. Gues swhy it’s still valid? Because the pro nuclear IAEA pr folks can be trusted to make nuclear power look like is has as much fuel as possible. Perhaps you are both complicit and a fool.

              But here’s other sources:

              “In fact, we find that it will be difficult to avoid supply shortages even under a slow 1%/year worldwide nuclear energy phase-out scenario up to 2025. We thus suggest that a worldwide nuclear energy phase-out is in order. “

              http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969713004579

              [link]      
            • By Mike Carey on May 19, 2016 at 4:45 pm

              Well, Brian, as you should recall your IAEA reference was over ten years ago.

              What does that mean? Gosh, it means that *your* wild imaginings exaggerated the potential shortfall, and have ignored the more recent IAEA projections that have been shown to you many times.

              So, again, does that mean *you* are still “complicit or a fool”, in *your* own words, to have used the IAEA as a source in the distant past and now find that their projections indicate that supply will increase over time to meet demand?

              And contrary to the crystal ball “suggestion” in your link, there are any number of sources that point to countries around the world that are *increasingly* building and planning *new* nuclear projects knowing that there are plentiful supplies of fuel available.

              You can stop worrying now.

              [link]      
            • By Brian on May 19, 2016 at 5:17 pm

              You should recall that the 2014 book had the same data in the a similar graph, to is hasn’t gotten any better in 10 years.

              Just because folks are wasting their money on nuclear power doesn’t mean it makes sense. Hinkley is a financial disaster. That’s what billions of dollar in pr and influence buy. Many gov want to keep a supply of nuclear scientist, engineers, technology and materials so they can make bombs too.

              Solar and wind are the majority of new power install with fracked gas for most of the rest. Nuclear power really isn’t a play anymore. Lots of talk, lots of candled projects. All the newest reactor are way over budget and late.

              [link]      
            • By Mike Carey on May 19, 2016 at 7:07 pm

              You can stop hyper ventilating now, Brian. It’s not good for your state of mind or your health.

              Here’s the analysis you have seen before from 2012 after Fukushima:

              “In spite of the rapid nuclear power generation capacity growth expected especially in Asia, the natural uranium and uranium enrichment trade will not be tightened by 2020 due to the PROJECTED INCREASE in both natural uranium production and uranium enrichment capacities, which MAY CAUSE A DROP in natural uranium and uranium enrichment prices. Thus, there is a great possibility that the current projects for capacity expansion will be delayed considerably. However, in the ‘high-demand scenario’, where nuclear expansion WILL BE ACCELERATED due to growing concerns about global warming and energy security issues, additional investments in uranium production and enrichment facilities will be needed by 2035.”

              Sounds like a really good forecast from 4 years ago, huh?

              And here’s the commentary from the IAEA 2014 Red Book that you have referred to, but have ignored:
              “By the year 2035, world nuclear electricity generating
              capacity is PROJECTED TO GROW from 372 GWe net (at the end of 2013) to between 399 GWe net in the low demand case and 678 GWe net in the high demand case, increases of 7% and 82% respectively. Accordingly, world annual reactor-related uranium requirements are projected to rise from 59 170 tonnes of uranium metal (tU) at the end of 2013 to between 72 205 tU and 122 150 tU by 2035. The currently defined uranium resource base IS MORE THAN ADEQUATE to meet high-case requirements through 2035 and well into the foreseeable future.”

              So, again, your wild imaginings of impending doom are NOT justified by reality. Time to get back to the real world. There is not much time left to undo the damage the climate is suffering.
              Take care.

              [link]      
            • By Brian on May 19, 2016 at 9:03 pm

              Like I said: Based on reality, based on RAR, and not fantasy future uranium discovers, uranium is projected to be short in tens years. It will require addition investment and costs. The energy return on investment goes down fast with grade or ore, and is negative for the uranium alone at about .01% ore. The average is already about .015.

              The IAEA is the nuclear industry pr group, remember? of course they are going to say we will find lots of new uranium deposit, but they have to show real data, and the graphs clearly shot a short fall for RAR in ten years.

              I assume you all will apologize for calling me a liar, right?

              [link]      
            • By Mike Carey on May 19, 2016 at 9:12 pm

              Brian, I called out your “wild imaginings”, and “fearful inventions”.
              Now you are imagining things that have not been said.

              First you insist, twice, that the IAEA supports your unfounded claim that nuclear fuel will be be available when needed, and then you irrationally decide to question their ability to form a reasonable judgement as to that very issue.

              Try to maintain a consistent understanding of what you are trying to assert. You have not so far, and are drifting off into economic issues that you have not demonstrated an ability to understand.

              Like I said, from the 2014 Red Book you cite but ignore,
              “The currently defined uranium resource base IS MORE THAN ADEQUATE to meet high-case requirements through 2035 and well into the foreseeable future.”

              Take care.

              [link]      
            • By Brian on May 19, 2016 at 9:50 pm

              No, I said the IAEA graphs and date on RAR uranium show a short fall in 10 years.

              You want to quote the PR section of the document. Got it.
              Is there any data in the statement? Nope.

              Mind you that’s for just 2% of the world’s energy. Nuclear power can’t handle 2% for 50 years. Nuclear is a dead end.

              [link]      
            • By Mike Carey on May 19, 2016 at 11:54 pm

              Oh, Brian, now I can call you a liar.

              No, you didn’t say, ” the IAEA graphs and date on RAR uranium show a short fall in 10 years.”

              Just up this thread you said, “wild imaginings: like uranium from seawater, or you can trust the IAEA,
              or nuclear power isn’t deadly, expensive, and short of fuel in ten
              years.”

              Again, and again, you say one thing and then deny you said it. How is that working for you when *nobody* believes *anything* you say, because it is so easy to prove you are wrong.

              Take a break. You are getting punchy about now. See ya.

              [link]      
            • By Brian on May 20, 2016 at 12:15 am

              Since RAR is the established way to define reserves it’s you that are once again deceiving and lying for pr. When Asked for details I have always said it was as per industry standard practice of calculating projected reserves using RAR.

              these pro nuclear folks must deceive and lie, nuclear power is in reality to terrible to ever consider.

              Nuclear power is deadly, expensive and short of fuel in ten years.

              Nuclear power will kill million of people, cost at least 5 times avaible solar and wind, and multiple sources say it will be short of uranium in ten years using standard mining metrics. But make up you own rules and reality is anything you want it to be.

              Those are facts except to the pro nuclear pr folks.

              It’s really incredible they refuse to use RAR and claim I am lying, but they have to. Ir’s their job. No truth can save nuclear power.

              [link]      
            • By BasM on May 20, 2016 at 5:51 am

              “a really good forecast from 4 years ago, huh?”
              Not really, as easy to predict key figures/assumptions show already to be wrong.

              No real expansion of nuclear.
              Nuclear delivered 18% in 1997 and went then in steady decline with some fluctuations as in the past 3 years where nuclear stayed steady at 11%.

              Since 1997:
              Wind expanded 694 TWh/a
              Solar expanded 185 TWh/a
              Nuclear expanded 146TWh/a

              It will resume it’s long term decline trend within a few years considering the low construction rate and the expected closures.
              http://www.worldnuclearreport.org/IMG/pdf/20151023MSC-WNISR2015-V4-HR.pdf

              [link]      
            • By Mike Carey on May 20, 2016 at 2:31 pm

              It is just amazing, Coalman, that your online comment accuracy record is zero for all time.

              Take for example, this statement in your most recent post,
              “No real expansion of nuclear.”

              Compare that to the graph below of nuclear reactors in progress by country. What do you see?

              https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/5a3636a63341451a51939a1f2f229299712d58d5b2df559bdbd1b37af6166cb2.jpg

              I see 14 countries building new reactors with thousands and thousands of megawatt hours of generating capacity that will be available over 90 per cent of the time.

              Then I consider that your mention of new wind and solar energy, as welcome as it is to combat climate change, is only intermittently available as unreliable offsets to the requirement for 100 per cent fossil fuel backup generation.

              As many have said before, there is *no* reason to believe *anything* you have ever written. That is a really sad commentary on your obsession with defending fossil fuel energy production.
              Take care.

              [link]      
            • By BasM on May 21, 2016 at 5:55 am

              The list shows the long construction periods.

              Just read the nuclear status report 2015: http://www.worldnuclearreport.org/IMG/pdf/20151023MSC-WNISR2015-V4-HR.pdf

              [link]      
            • By Mike Carey on May 21, 2016 at 2:30 pm

              Oh, no, CoalMan, nobody should waste their time chasing down the rabbit holes of your links. You’ve lied too often about what they actually say.

              So, just quote that specific parts of anything you think is relevant. That way we can show other readers that you have lied all along.

              Get real, CoalMan.

              [link]      
            • By Michael Mann on May 17, 2016 at 9:24 pm

              You lie, Please show any proof of what you say, 1. I never said nuclear power was perfect (first lie) my comment history is open, you are welcome to look. 2. Nuclear energy doesn’t kill millions, in fact it saves millions of lives. http://www.zmescience.com/research/studies/nasa-nuclear-coal-energy/
              3. There is enough uranium for hundreds of years and enough thorium to provide power for thousands of years.
              4. Once used nuclear fuel still contains over 95% of it’s potential energy. if used in an advanced reactor, the left over material will be less radioactive than the ore it came from in 300 years.

              [link]      
            • By BasM on May 18, 2016 at 4:57 am

              “2. Nuclear energy doesn’t kill millions, …”
              Chernobyl alone does that already, as confirmed in the book published by the New York Academy of Sciences and scientific publisher Wiley.

              “3. There is enough uranium for hundreds of years”
              Only when you rely on really expensive methods of uranium extraction, which create more CO2 than gas power plants.

              [link]      
            • By Michael Mann on May 18, 2016 at 5:54 am

              According to a study conducted by NASA in 2013, using nuclear energy instead of coal saved almost 2 million lives since 1979 – by allowing us to not use coal. Pushker Kharecha and James Hansen estimate that 4,900 people died as a result of nuclear power between 1971 and 2009, mostly from workplace accidents and radiation fallout, but, they said, 370 times more people (1.84 million) would have died, had we generated the same power from fossil fuels.

              The scientists’ figures are based on estimates of mortality caused by particulate pollution, which killed 1.2 million people in China in 2010, according to a recent report. And it gets worse. They say burning natural gas to replace nuclear power will result in at least 420,000 deaths by 2050, and 7 million more if we replace it solely with coal.

              [link]      
            • By BasM on May 18, 2016 at 7:02 am

              Nobody wants more coal.
              Hansen is fanatic pro-nuclear also shown by his ridiculous low victim estimation of Chernobyl…

              They also completely:
              - under-estimate the contribution of cars to particulate matter (PM). Those are responsible for 95-99% of PM in modern EU countries with up-to-date emission standards such as Germany.
              - over-estimate the emission of up-to-date coal plants (super-critical, using the over-oxigen low temperature burning of the circulating fluidized bed process.

              So I agree with those who say that their figures have little value. Especially since their renewable estimates are far off.
              And renewable is taking over.

              [link]      
            • By Brian on May 18, 2016 at 5:02 am

              Nuclear power will kill millions with cancers. LNT
              Nuclear power will be short of uranium (RAR) in 20 years. IAEA fact. There are no thorium reactors, and thorium RAR is half the uranium RAR.
              Spent fuel is not fuel for any existing commercial reactors and never will be.
              You can’t help but lie can you.

              [link]      
            • By Michael Mann on May 18, 2016 at 5:49 am

              So at least you admit you lied, thank you.

              [link]      
            • By Michael Mann on May 18, 2016 at 5:57 am

              So you have no proof only more propaganda and accusations? Do you even know what proof is?

              [link]      
            • By Ahmed Shaker on May 18, 2016 at 8:01 am

              Spent fuel is already reused in existing commercial reactors as MOX.

              [link]      
            • By BasM on May 18, 2016 at 9:02 am

              Yes, we use it in Borssele (as well as the Germans and a number of other countries). It implies some increased risk.

              It makes uranium somewhat more productive at the cost of more radio-active pollution at LaHaye, where they do the reprocessing.

              The extra energy from the uranium is ~30% also dependent on the reprocessing capabilities & costs. Substantial more is theoretically possible but increase the costs and risks.
              (all using my memory, so correct if I’m wrong).

              [link]      
            • By Ahmed Shaker on May 18, 2016 at 2:28 pm

              The increase in costs is not considered to be massive.

              The Areva website states.

              An international study (OECD/NEA, 1994) concluded on the basis of internationally applicable hypotheses that the cost of the fuel cycle would be about 10% higher with reprocessing and recycling than with an open fuel cycle. At the present time, that is equivalent to a difference of about 0.4 centimes in the cost of a kWh.

              Spent fuel plutonium is also contaminated with Pu-241, making it unsuitable for bombs.

              [link]      
            • By BasM on May 18, 2016 at 8:06 pm

              So they state that 10% = 0.4cnt/KWh. That implies 4cnt/KWh for the nuclear fuel costs….
              That’s not correct as then all nuclear power plants would close immediately in Germany where the av. whole sale price is 3cnt/KWh.
              So Areva is wrong again…
              Btw.
              Do they still state that their EPR can stand a collision with an unarmed low flying F-16 (which is <16 ton at 800km/hr max)?
              Thanks to its unique strongly armed double dome.

              [link]      
            • By Ahmed Shaker on May 18, 2016 at 10:08 pm

              Let me check the study

              7. Results

              Based on reference prices, the lifetime levelised fuel cycle cost for each option is:

              – reprocessing option: 0.62 cents/kWh;
              – direct disposal option: 0.54 cents/kWh.

              Using the results of the above-mentioned statistical analysis and taking two standard deviations around

              the mean value, the following ranges are derived:

              – reprocessing option: 5.17-7.06 mills/kWh;
              – direct disposal option: 4.28-6.30 mills/kWh.

              Well, it seems that it checks out to be fact.

              As for the EPR F-16 collision claim; I could not find any such claim.

              However, I did find <a href=this

              For the EPR, the general aim of significant safety improvement has led to overall
              consideration of the risk of aircraft crash (i.e., military and commercial), independent of the
              probability of occurrence of the event. Protection of the plant is assured either by physical
              separation of redundant systems or by the existence of a physical barrier referred to as the
              aircraft shell.

              Military aviation which constitutes the initial loading case. The approach used for protecting
              the installation against a direct impact is as follows:

              - Total protection for the buildings that are likely to contain nuclear fuel. This
              protection is provided by the aircraft shell. This applies to the reactor building and
              the fuel building.
              - Protection for the buildings housing backup systems, either by protecting them with
              an aircraft shell, or by providing sufficient physical separation of the redundant
              systems.
              - Integration of the F1 classified and non-redundant equipment in the buildings
              protected by the aircraft shell: this mainly concerns the control room.

              Commercial aviation. This comprises an additional loading case introduced following the
              aircraft crashes of 11 September 2001. The design has been verified and modified where
              necessary to take into consideration all of the direct, indirect and potential consequences of
              the hazard. The definition of an appropriate loading case has been used to ensure the
              capability of the EPR nuclear island to resist such a hazard.
              In conclusion, the risks arising from all air traffic – general, military and commercial aviation -
              are considered in the design of the EPR.

              [link]      
            • By Brian on May 18, 2016 at 5:02 pm

              No it’s not. Do any of the pro nuclear pr folks know about how nuclear power works or do they just work off a pr worksheet?

              MOX fuel uses weapons plutonium as part of the fuel, and it’s dangerous since it runs too hot for the reactor designs.

              [link]      
            • By Ahmed Shaker on May 18, 2016 at 6:26 pm

              Most MOX fuel being used in the world does not use plutonium derived from nuclear weapons, but rather the plutonium derived from spent nuclear fuel via the PUREX process.

              Only countries with historically large nuclear stockpiles such as Russia and the USA use weapons-derived MOX.

              too hot for the reactor designs.

              Which is why over 40 reactors worldwide are licensed to use MOX fuel.

              Do any of the anti-nuclear nutter folks know how nuclear power works or do they just work off a Greenpeace article?

              [link]      
            • By Brian on May 19, 2016 at 1:04 am

              I thought they had given that up with the cost, the fires, and the disastrous pollution. The Nuclear industry never quits, does it.

              It’s a terrible idea. http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear-power/nuclear-plant-security/nuclear-reprocessing

              [link]      
            • By Ahmed Shaker on May 19, 2016 at 12:37 pm

              It’s a terrible idea because a “Union of Concerned “Scientists”" says so, when multiple other studies and operating experience worldwide says otherwise.

              Not a very strong argument, Brian.

              [link]      
            • By Brian on May 19, 2016 at 4:20 pm

              It’s a very good argument, infinity better than the nuclear industry pr IAEA/WHO/UN folks

              Try facts.

              [link]      
            • By Ahmed Shaker on May 19, 2016 at 4:48 pm

              “Infinity better”…

              [link]      
            • By BasM on May 18, 2016 at 8:09 pm

              That is also an option.
              Here in Europe LaHaye uses spent fuel of nuclear power plants.
              Agree that MOX is more dangerous, hence it requires a special license before a NPP is allowed to use it.

              [link]      
            • By Brian on May 19, 2016 at 12:57 am

              No, they don’t use spent fuel. Unless they are running a reprocessing plant. and as far as I know all those have been shut down.

              [link]      
            • By BasM on May 19, 2016 at 1:47 am

              It is the only operating reprocessing plant in the EU.

              Sorry, I thought everybody knows as it’s famous because of the radio-active contamination it spread around in the (I hope, it’s France so you never know) past.

              [link]      
            • By Brian on May 19, 2016 at 2:45 am

              Sorry, I had thought all the world’s repossessing plants had been shut down.

              [link]      
            • By BasM on May 19, 2016 at 3:21 am

              The French have even less opposition against nuclear than UK. So the radio-active contamination which necessitated to ban beaches for the public, generated less public outcry.
              So they could go on and improved the safety of their process (I hope).

              Another factor may be that the British made a bigger mess.
              With major contamination’s in Dounray (Scotland), a real big one with Windscale (health effects in Norway), and at Sellafield.

              Cost estimations to produce order in the waste at Sellafield are ~£100billion… Though part is military waste, it’s another major subsidy to nuclear as the bill is for the tax-payers.

              [link]      
            • By Brian on May 18, 2016 at 5:07 pm

              Notice He doesn’t have a facts in response, just smears. Anyone can look up the RAR for uranium and thorium and see I am correct. Spent fuel nor thorium are not fuel for any existing commercial reactors. The pro nuclear folks know this, yet they still pretend it’s up for debate.

              [link]      
            • By Brian on May 18, 2016 at 5:11 pm

              See, just childish PR comments now from the pro nuclear folks.

              [link]      
            • By Brian on May 18, 2016 at 5:22 am

              Nuclear power isn’t perfect, there’s just nothing wrong with it. Not one thing. Everything I bring up the pro nuclear pr folks deny.

              But they didn’t SAY it was perfect, no, not at all. LOL!

              You see the pr deceptions that are part of every argument they make?

              [link]      
            • By Joris75 on May 18, 2016 at 5:56 am

              “You lie to promote nuclear which will kill millions of people.”

              No it’s *your* lies which have killed millions, and will kill millions more.

              Nuclear power *saves lives*, as has been clearly explained by scientists working at NASA. It also prevents the emission of gigatons of greenhouse gases.

              Excerpt:
              “Using historical production data, we calculate that global nuclear power has prevented an average of 1.84 million air pollution-related deaths and 64 gigatonnes of CO2-equivalent (GtCO2-eq) greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that would have resulted from fossil fuel burning. On the basis of global projection data that take into account the effects of the Fukushima accident, we find that nuclear power could additionally prevent an average of 420 000−7.04 million deaths and 80−240 GtCO2-eq emissions due to fossil fuels by midcentury, depending on which fuel it replaces. By contrast, we assess that large-scale expansion of unconstrained natural gas use would not mitigate the climate problem and would cause far more deaths than expansion of nuclear power.”
              http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/es3051197

              BTW, I notice that you have blocked access to your DisQus comment history Brian. Don’t you know that this makes it obvious that you are a paid propagandist, who has to cover his tracks to avoid people from finding out that he rinses and repeats his lies all day long? You are a laughing-stock Brian. Pathetic!

              [link]      
            • By Brian on May 18, 2016 at 5:10 pm

              Nuclear power is killing millions and claiming it’s the only way to reduce GHG is just another deception.

              Nuclear power is short of fuels in ten years, so projecting nuclear GHG saving past 10 years is another deception.

              ONLY solar and wind backed by waste to fuels and hydro can reduce GHG forever.

              [link]      
            • By BasM on May 17, 2016 at 7:27 am

              “people who work in nuclear power plants are ,,, dedicated … have integrity … self critical and demanding.”

              Same applies regarding the educated people working in the tobacco, asbestos, whine industry, etc.

              Those industries, incl. nuclear, also arrange (sales) promotion people who do their utmost to deform public opinion (using lies, etc) to promote their industry.

              So you find numerous false opinions in the public. E.g:
              - smoking one cigar a day doesn’t harm;
              - a little asbestos doesn’t harm (while one small micro-fiber can cause the famous disastrous cancer):
              - a glass of whine a day is healthy (opposite shown)
              and similar similar regarding nuclear radiation.

              While studies show that even normal operating nuclear power plants create genetic damage to next generations at distances up to 40km away (almost unbelievable, but it’s found again and again): http://goo.gl/p0aUGk

              [link]      
            • By Michael Mann on May 17, 2016 at 8:40 am

              False association.

              [link]      
            • By BasM on May 18, 2016 at 3:21 am

              Nuclear defends itself very similar as the tobacco industry.
              Defying solid study results regarding health damage caused, etc.
              Telling that new cigarettes, sorry new NPP’s, are far far less dangerous, etc.

              [link]      
            • By Joffan on May 17, 2016 at 10:38 am

              Your claim of genetic damage is not “almost believable”, it’s ridiculous and laughable. It’s an obvious indicator that you are peddling false scare stories. In an institution , it’s an indication that it has been “captured” by a tribal myth that the members are no longer allowed to question.

              [link]      
            • By Sam Gilman on May 17, 2016 at 10:48 am

              It’s Scherb. His work has been dismissed by lots of people. BasM goes on and on about this whole “missing girls” thing with quite an unhealthy obsession.

              He’ll start telling you it’s all backed up by “rock-solid” studies which, if you read them, actually reject Scherb’s anti-nuclear hypothesis directly. But this is par for the course. BasM has spent the past day trying to deny there’s a Greenpeace logo on a document when it’s plainly there for anyone to see.

              It’s so weird: he tells lies to people when he knows these same people know that what he’s saying is a lie. It’s like there’s some kind of cognitive dysfunction.

              [link]      
            • By BasM on May 18, 2016 at 4:40 am

              “It’s Scherb. His work has been dismissed by lots of people.”
              Of course. By all ‘blind’ pro-nuclear.

              But not by scientific researchers as shown when he got the assignment to write the final report after a conference with all opponents about the genetic damage nuclear waste site Gorleben inflicted on people living up to 40km away.

              You can find the presentations of all at the bottom of this page:
              http://www.nlga.niedersachsen.de/portal/live.php?navigation_id=38164&article_id=104838&_psmand=20
              Those incl. a.o. a pro-nuclear professor who said that it would be ‘impossible’ but also couldn’t explain the figures which were more than confirmed by the due diligence study…

              [link]      
            • By Sam Gilman on May 18, 2016 at 5:09 am

              Give it a rest, BasM. Or are you going to start on your German government conspiracy theory again?

              [link]      
            • By BasM on May 18, 2016 at 5:31 am

              It’s long ago I’ve seen any real argument from you.
              Do you consider this type of nonsense statement more effective?

              Or, more probably, you ran out of rational arguments.
              Than why not recognize that the truth?
              That nuclear does create substantial genetic damage to humans, etc..

              [link]      
            • By Sam Gilman on May 18, 2016 at 5:50 am

              Arguments and evidence rely on both people being honest. When you repeatedly deny the existence of what is plainly on a page of a document, it’s clear you’re dishonest – whether voluntarily or through compulsion.

              [link]      
            • By BasM on May 18, 2016 at 6:32 am

              Ah, you continue fabricating new fantasies.

              [link]      
            • By greenthinker2012 on May 18, 2016 at 12:35 pm

              Bas, you long ago lost any credibility.
              How many times can you say things that are the opposite of what is explicitly stated in your supporting documents before people simply start mocking you?

              [link]      
            • By BasM on May 18, 2016 at 7:56 pm

              You fall back on a type of scolding.
              So why not recognize that I’m right, as an adult would do?

              [link]      
            • By greenthinker2012 on May 18, 2016 at 11:12 pm

              You are immune to any facts that contradict your prejudiced position.
              People have spent years refuting your claims with mainstream, peer reviewed science to no effect whatsoever. You continue to post the same junk science over and over.
              All that is left for you is to be ridiculed for your childish lies.

              [link]      
            • By BasM on May 19, 2016 at 1:40 am

              Try to distinguish between opinions and facts.

              [link]      
            • By BasM on May 18, 2016 at 4:26 am

              That claim was accepted by German government when two pro-nuclear scientist found even worse genetic damage to people living up to 40km from Gorleben,
              So they closed the expensive still largely empty nuclear waste site last year.

              The claim is also supported by theory.
              Cell division rates are orders of magnitude higher during sperm production, which occurs shortly (few days max.) before ejaculation (sperm lives only few days in the male).

              At cell division the two strands of the DNA split, one strand in each cell. Recomposing / building the second strand in each cell takes time.
              Damage during the time DNA is single stranded cannot be repaired, a.o. because there is no reference.

              It explains also why older people are far less sensitive for nuclear radiation than younger. Main reason their lower cell division rate. Also that fetuses are even more sensitive as shown here: http://goo.gl/NyTk8f

              The genetic studies are simple:
              1- Check whether there live enough people around the nuclear facilities to find statistical significant results.
              2- Ask the birth statistics at population registers around those nuclear facilities;
              3- Do the statistical checks for a significant increase in the m/f ratio in newborn since the start of the nuclear facilty.

              You can also check the statistics as the raw data for some nuclear facilities are stated in this PPT:
              http://goo.gl/a27Vj4

              It also states the links to the scientific publications, so you can then produce one!
              Suggest that you first consult with the prime author as he has a PhD in statistical science and several scientific publications regarding statistical methodologies.

              [link]      
            • By Mike Carey on May 17, 2016 at 7:33 pm

              No one believes *anything* you say, CoalMan.
              Get a life.

              [link]      
            • By Brian on May 18, 2016 at 5:30 am

              It does not project the cancers deaths from all the exposed population using LNT. So it’s a lie. It tries to use epidemiology data far too soon for the cancers to have started to show up, so they can claim they there is not evidence of increased cancers.
              They claim we won’t detect more cancer we can prove came from Chernobyl, not that it won’t cause them. It’s a lie.

              You know this, you callously do not care about the millions of deaths, you try to easy you conscience by assuring yourself more would die from fossils, and to falsely claim more would die from solar and iwnd, or a lack of energy as a result. Sadly your delusions are supported by the billion dollar nuclear power pr industry, and you will go to your grave still promote deadly, expensive, short of fuel, slow to build, inflexible nuclear power.

              [link]      
            • By Michael Mann on May 16, 2016 at 10:42 am

              Brian, I linked to the book you referenced at the NYAS and invited people to read it and the reviews, how can that upset you?

              [link]      
          • By Brian on May 17, 2016 at 1:59 am

            What’s amazing if they just smear the authors and not the data.

            They want us to believe the nuclear industry WHO/IAEA pr folks

            Really. They are trying to get people to believe PR. Commercials.

            The very idea that WHO/IAEA would run the forum on Chernobyl is appalling to any thinking person. If you point this out they call it a “comspriacy theory” What do you think marketing and PR are?

            [link]      
            • By Michael Mann on May 17, 2016 at 5:48 am

              The authors are creating fiction, which hurts people, on purpose.

              [link]      
            • By Brian on May 17, 2016 at 6:11 am

              Your pr folks are creating deaths and deceiving and lying to make money. You are causing the deaths of millions with your lies and promotion of nuclear power.

              [link]      
            • By BasM on May 17, 2016 at 7:50 am

              They do same filthy job as the tobacco industry.

              [link]      
          • By Brian on May 18, 2016 at 5:20 pm

            The UN commissioned the IAEA pro nuclear pr agency and put it in charge of all UN nuclear actives in the 50′s. The USA took the Atomic Energy Commission and made it the DOE, which still does 90% nuclear related work but is in charge of our energy policy.

            Yet the pro nuclear folks want us to believe those very same nuclear power pr agencies about deaths or ANYTHING.

            When did people become so dumb they believe industry pr?

            UNSCEAR was founded to calm fears about radiation effect from atomic bomb tests. The first thing they did was point the finger at radon, smoking and background radiation.

            UNSCEAR is also under the IAEA and the same people work in both agencies.
            Werner Burkart, IAEA Deputy Director General, Head of the Department of Nuclear Sciences and Applications
            “As a former member, then consultant and finally representative to UNSCEAR, “

            Yet, the IAEA, who and UNSCEAR are presented as if they were independent, just like PR agencies like to do.

            [link]      
        • By Sam Gilman on May 15, 2016 at 10:13 pm

          Where did the UN use it as a source?

          [link]      
          • By Brian on May 15, 2016 at 10:15 pm

            WHO.

            [link]      
            • By Sam Gilman on May 15, 2016 at 10:46 pm

              Which document? Be specific.

              [link]      
            • By Brian on May 15, 2016 at 10:51 pm

              The one that claims 4000 death from Chernobyl.

              [link]      
            • By Sam Gilman on May 15, 2016 at 11:48 pm

              The Chernobyl Forum report was published 2006.

              How did it cite a book published in 2009?

              [link]      
            • By Brian on May 15, 2016 at 11:53 pm

              See? still trying. pathetic and obvious too.

              [link]      
            • By Sam Gilman on May 16, 2016 at 1:11 am

              No, it’s rather more that I think that books published in 2006 typically don’t have books published in 2009 as sources. There’s something of a time issue here.

              To me it looks like you were making things up about the Yablokov book in an attempt to trick people into believing it had some kind of validity.

              [link]      
            • By Brian on May 16, 2016 at 3:54 pm

              Sure, I’m sure you are correct. We all missed it. Read the compendium folks. He finds a typo, but believe the IAEA.

              really. and is 5 profession pro nuclear folks agree.

              Believe big industry.

              PR is truth.

              [link]      
            • By Sam Gilman on May 16, 2016 at 6:41 pm

              This is fascinating, from a psychological point of view.

              You’ve been caught lying about your book. You asserted very clearly, in order to give the book credibility, that it had been used as a source by a UN agency in a landmark report when it hadn’t. The dates simply show that it couldn’t have been. None of this can be explained by “a typo”.

              You’re now citing conspiracies not to demonstrate any hidden harm you believe in, but to cover up your own deception.

              Brian, for your own sake, can you not see that you’ve gone down a very strange rabbit hole here?

              [link]      
            • By Brian on May 16, 2016 at 7:14 pm

              Gee, ya notice how you avoid the topic by nitpicking? As I recall, the IAEA folks did indeed use some paper from it, perhaps I was mistaken.

              Calling the UN report a landmark report is rather biased, don’t you think? It’s a IAEA per commercial for the nuclear power industry. You see, that is the issue. You believe nuclear power pr industry propganda. Were you dropped as a child?

              Do you believe industry pr or not?

              [link]      
            • By Sam Gilman on May 16, 2016 at 7:17 pm

              No, it was published after the Chernobyl Forum report. You weren’t mistaken. You were very clear.

              You just made it up.

              Why should people believe a conspiracy theorist who makes things up in his claim that the WHO – the international body responsible for promoting health – is a PR agent for industry interests?

              Isn’t it rather more likely that you’re making that up too?

              Is this about other people, or is it about Brian Donovan?

              [link]      
            • By Brian on May 16, 2016 at 7:23 pm

              Really, your mind reading is amazing. You should do a TV show.

              [link]      
            • By Brian on May 16, 2016 at 7:25 pm

              BTW, you well know that WHO no longer does it’s own research on radidation deaths and disease, they sent all thier data and folks over to the IAEA.

              http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2009/may/28/who-nuclear-power-chernobyl

              Read the WHO defense of the agreement with the pro nuclear pr IAEA agencies. I have never seen such dancing in my life!

              http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/pub_meet/statement-iaea/en/

              It’s like Hillary claiming million of dollar in bribes don’t affect her vote.

              [link]      
            • By Sam Gilman on May 16, 2016 at 9:16 pm

              And the same newspaper two years later had an article from their in-house environmental correspondent denouncing such ideas as a conspiracy theory.

              http://www.theguardian.com/environment/georgemonbiot/2011/apr/13/anti-nuclear-lobby-interrogate-beliefs

              One problem you’ve got is that the UNSCEAR support the same document.

              [link]      
            • By Brian on May 17, 2016 at 1:49 am

              They used the same data and assumption. They got them from the IAEA.

              [link]      
            • By Sam Gilman on May 17, 2016 at 3:41 am

              Not true. Some data comes from the IAEA, but much more of it comes from various member states and other agencies.

              This you would know if you had ever attempted to read the reports you are trying to discredit.

              Given the rather shaky grip on facts you’ve shown here, I have no idea what assumptions you believe you are referring to. Could you be more specific?

              [link]      
            • By Brian on May 17, 2016 at 4:11 am

              The UN is obviously compromised and captive. http://www.psr.org/assets/pdfs/2014-unscear-full-critique.pdf CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE UNSCEAR REPORT

              You do know the UN is ruled by the 5 nuclear nations, right? They sell nuke tech including power. They got the IAEA funded and formed by the UN to PROMOTE NUCLEAR POWER.

              Do you believe politicians? why then do you believe the ultimate political mess that is the UN?

              [link]      
            • By Sam Gilman on May 17, 2016 at 5:07 am

              That document contradicts your claim, Brian, and confirms the reality: that the UNSCEAR used data from various sources, only some of which was the IAEA. They actually have a little section saying where they agree with UNSCEAR.

              Still, it’s a lousy document from an anti-nuclear organisation that relies for its funding entirely on the wallets of anti-nuclearists. (Why no howls of corruption, Brian?) For example, their basis for claiming extensive contamination of food for all of mainland Japan is comical. You’d have thought they’d look at a map first.

              [link]      
            • By Brian on May 17, 2016 at 5:30 am

              And it was produced with the IAEA “Help” did ya miss that part?

              Food get’s grown all over the place and shipped around. Hilarious, huh?

              [link]      
            • By Sam Gilman on May 17, 2016 at 6:55 am

              You’ve replied twice to the same message.

              This reply is more incoherent than the other one, so I’ll continue the conversation with you on the other one.

              [link]      
            • By Brian on May 17, 2016 at 5:32 am

              You think people who are not getting rich of protesting nuclear are the liars, but you believe the trillion dollar nuclear industry and the pr folks. You really think people are naive.

              [link]      
            • By Michael Mann on May 17, 2016 at 5:55 am

              Yes, the people getting rich protesting nuclear are the liars and they get rich on the pain they inflict upon people like you. Look at the finances of people like Arnie Gundersen, Chris Busby and Helen Caldicott. You are naive, your posts are proof.

              [link]      
            • By Brian on May 17, 2016 at 6:09 am

              Yes, individuals whom with the courage to resit the billion dollar pr influence and smear campaigns of the nuclear power industry. I wonder why more people don’t speak up publicly against nuclear power lies and deceptions, oh wait, now I see.

              You believe industry pr.

              You want us to believe industry pr.

              [link]      
            • By Sam Gilman on May 17, 2016 at 6:54 am

              You’re just gabbling now. Seriously. The only way to make sense of you is to conclude that you are convinced that the entire set of public and private cross-national institutions across health, agriculture, education and science are all controlled in the name of supporting one particular sector of the energy industry.

              The fossil fuel industry is far richer and more powerful and more important to the leading members of the UN. Why couldn’t they stop the international science community from concluding very publicly and openly that global warming is happening?

              [link]      
            • By Brian on May 18, 2016 at 4:59 am

              No, all the nuclear power industry, and captive gov agency are part of the deception. Look what happens to whistle blowers. The IAEA coordinates it all and their charter is to promote nuclear power.

              How stupid do you have to be to believe anything the nuclear pr people publish? They deny the facts, minimize and reported damage, talk about provable cancers instead of predicted cancers, and deceive in numerous obvious ways. As you cen see from the pro nuclear commentators.

              You believe the nuclear power PR .

              You are the nuclear power PR.

              [link]      
            • By Sam Gilman on May 18, 2016 at 5:11 am

              Answer the question. Why hasn’t the fossil fuel industry been able to silence mainstream science on climate change? They have far, far more power and influence.

              [link]      
            • By Brian on May 18, 2016 at 5:24 am

              Answer the question: why do you believe nuclear power PR.

              As for the fossils industry? they keep getting 5.3 tillion dollar in gov breaks (IMF) while solar and wind are getting their gov help cut.

              [link]      
            • By Sam Gilman on May 18, 2016 at 5:47 am

              Brian, your logic is failing. I don’t consider the mainstream scientific community to be controlled by nuclear power. That particular piece of intense paranoia is yours alone here.

              So why haven’t the fossil fuel companies been able to stop mainstream science in climate change?

              [link]      
            • By BasM on May 18, 2016 at 6:29 am

              The mainstream scientific community agrees:
              - to the substantial genetic damage nuclear power causes as published in peer reviewed scientific journals.
              Also shown by the premature closure of Gorleben for that reason.

              - that 100% renewable is a viable alternative.
              Even French scientists calculated that 80% renewable for 2050 is the cheapest solution and that 100% is a viable option: http://www.ademe.fr/en/a-100-renewable-electricity-mix-analyses-and-optimisations

              [link]      
            • By Brian on May 18, 2016 at 5:12 pm

              The UN commissioned the IAEA pro nuclear pr agency and put it in charge of all UN nuclear actives in the 50′s. The USA took the Atomic Energy Commission and made it the DOE, which still does 90% nuclear related work but is in charge of our energy policy.

              What do you think?

              [link]      
            • By Brian on May 18, 2016 at 5:36 am

              They worked on the data together. Look at who attends their conferences and where they are held: IAEA offices.

              I already linked to a critical analysis of the UNSCEAR report.

              It’s just more nuclear industry pr trying to minimize the deaths, under report the radiation exposures, not count particulate exposures, and refuse to use LNT on everyone exposed. Even the low level data, the measurements of the radiation are altered and suppressed after nuclear accidents. “Anomalous high reading” are removed from the data sets. It’s one big cover up and lots of pro nuclear scientists, engineers and works fanatically defend and protect nuclear power. as is obvious.

              It’s not like unique to nuclear power for the people who work and benefit from and industry lie and deceive to protect and defend that industry. Tobacco, Lead, You smear people for pointing it out as if it was. You use PR deceptive language and tactics. It’s very obvious.

              [link]      
            • By BasM on May 17, 2016 at 5:10 am

              Those nuclear nations still pay most of the WHO budget.

              It explains why the WHO is still bound to the 1958 agreement which forces them to follow IAEA in nuclear radiation matters.

              [link]      
            • By Brian on May 17, 2016 at 1:37 am

              Did you know the SAME NEWSPAPER had an article by someone else claiming we should believe WHO/IAEA?

              Isn’t that amazing?

              HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

              [link]      
      • By Brian on May 15, 2016 at 9:31 pm

        You want to believe the official paid PR agency for the nuclear power industry: the IAEA. I sorry, how dumb is that? You really believe them?
        Meanwhile the Russian federation compendium papers, being distributed by the NYAC but no reviewed, get you to go after the NYAC lack of review. Are you kidding me? If it was published by Amazon, would you debate Amazon credibility or lack of recommendation?

        [link]      
        • By greenthinker2012 on May 15, 2016 at 10:03 pm

          You claimed it was peer reviewed and the publisher explicitly says it was not peer reviewed.
          Who to believe?
          Are you now claiming the NYAS is not credible? I ask this because it sounded like your previous comment was using the reputation of the NYAS to bolster your argument.
          The NYAS also posts links on its website to critiques of the work.
          Here is a quote from one…

          “…quite accurate data of the Russian national registry suggest that mortality rates of the Chernobyl workers standardized by age and sex are no higher but lower than the one for the population of Russia (Ivanov et al. 2004). Yablokov’s assessment for the mortality from Chernobyl fallout of about one million (!) before 2004 (Subsection 7.7) puts this book in a range of rather science fiction than science. It is obvious that if such a mass death of people occurred, it would not have remained unnoticed.”

          [link]      
          • By Brian on May 15, 2016 at 10:10 pm

            It’s not a paper.

            Read the compendium folks, see how desperate they pro nuclear people are to prevent you from even looking.

            It’s pretty obvious.

            [link]      
            • By greenthinker2012 on May 15, 2016 at 10:35 pm

              If people read it they should also read the criticisms of it.
              For example the compendium “author” explicitly rejects the methodologies accepted by the world’s epidemiologists and instead substitutes his own methodologies such as ecological and geographical techniques and tracking health indicators over time, which are known to give erroneous conclusions. There is also the problem of the author’s inexplicable selection of publications for analysis, which included media reports, websites of public organizations and even unidentified persons. At the same time, a lot of respected, peer-reviewed work from Russian-language authors was ignored.

              As one reviewer states “The value of this review is not zero, but negative, as its bias is obvious only to specialists, while inexperienced readers may well be put into deep error. … Yablokov’s assessment for the mortality from Chernobyl fallout of about one million … puts this book in a range of rather science fiction than science.”

              A fifth review, by Sergei V. Jargin, was published in the journal Radiation and Environmental Biophysics which described Consequences as overestimating the health impacts and containing “poorly substantiated information”

              The reader can make their own assessment on the quality of the work.

              [link]      
            • By Brian on May 15, 2016 at 10:40 pm

              Sure, read the criticism, AFTER you read the compendium.

              See how desperate he is?

              He has a polished counter argument within minutes. Almost like he was a pro.

              Epistemology has a 1-2% resolution.

              Does that mean killing 1-2% more people is ok?

              That’s what industry lawyers think.

              [link]      
            • By greenthinker2012 on May 16, 2016 at 12:27 am

              It is not hard to have a “polished counter argument” to the same worn out arguments put forward by you. You can’t seriously think that your arguments are original?
              You cling to the few outlier reports and studies that support your position and ignore the vastly larger amount of mainstream science that contradicts it.
              You believe what you are told by obvious cranks and snake oil salesmen because it is what you want to hear.

              [link]      
            • By Brian on May 16, 2016 at 12:32 am

              Would you folks rather read Hamlet of the thousands of critics of Hamlet?

              Here’s are guy who says we should believe the IAEA nuclear industry pr paid commercials, not indepdfnenta scientists.

              Do you notice he totally refuses to deal with the fact his alternative is the nuclear industry paid PR. He dances really well.

              [link]      
            • By greenthinker2012 on May 16, 2016 at 12:44 am

              Actually I support mainstream science.
              I don’t think a person should believe what pro-nuclear PR people say, nor do I think a person should believe what anti-nuclear PR people say.
              Stick to what mainstream science says.

              [link]      
            • By Michael Mann on May 16, 2016 at 3:19 am

              Only in the bizarre world of anti-science is actual hands on knowledge and education considered a disqualification for having an opinion. Years of formal education are dismissed in favor of conspiracy websites and fear mongering.

              [link]      
            • By Brian on May 17, 2016 at 1:47 am

              Believing in industry PR puts you in the paid nuclear propagandist or the most naive fool on earth.

              You are seriously saying we should believe the pr. incredible.

              [link]      
            • By Michael Mann on May 17, 2016 at 5:49 am

              I’m saying ignore the fear mongers and believe the science.

              [link]      
            • By Brian on May 17, 2016 at 6:10 am

              You are saying you believe the nuclear pr, want us to believe the pr, everything’s fine, there’s no danger, nuclear power is cheaper clean and safe. All those are lies. You must really hate people to lie that way. You are promoting nuclear power that will kill millions of people, why? because it was your career.

              [link]      
            • By BasM on May 17, 2016 at 7:45 am

              So believe the many scientific studies which irrefutable show the substantial health damage small increases of nuclear radiation create. E.g. http://goo.gl/p0aUGk

              [link]      
            • By Brian on May 16, 2016 at 3:55 pm

              Actually you support nuclear power no matter who it kills or what it costs. You have repeatedly proven that and you believe the IAEA. You think IAEA is mainstream science, whatever “mainstream” means.

              [link]      
            • By Michael Mann on May 16, 2016 at 3:41 am

              Like Hamlet, your book is a work of fiction, crafted to evoke a certain emotional reaction.

              [link]      
            • By Brian on May 16, 2016 at 3:51 pm

              You want to believe the nuclear industry pr commercials.

              Sorry, that makes you foolish.

              [link]      
            • By BasM on May 16, 2016 at 9:57 am

              “cling to the few outlier reports and studies that support your position
              and ignore the vastly larger amount of mainstream science that
              contradicts it.”

              That is exactly what the 2006 Chernobyl forum did with its report based on few hundred selected reports (excluding even major part of the liquidators, etc. etc),

              And the NYAS book does not including several thousands of studies and reports.

              It makes the NYAS book far more reliable if you want to know the true scale of the accident and its consequences.

              [link]      
            • By BasM on May 16, 2016 at 9:26 am

              No links?
              Of course pro-nuclear judge the work to be negative as it contributes negative to the distribution of more nuclear, which they consider the holy grail.

              Ignoring that there are far less CO2 intense methods to generate electricity than nuclear: https://theconversation.com/sure-lets-debate-nuclear-power-just-dont-call-it-low-emission-21566

              [link]      
          • By BasM on May 16, 2016 at 8:27 am

            NYAS was under high pressure and even black mailed (shown also at AtomicInsight) to take the book off their site.
            The refused and refused but in the end had to agree to publish such links to crab….

            [link]      
          • By Brian on May 17, 2016 at 1:44 am

            No, thinking we should believe the nuclear WHO/IAEA pr agency puts you in the range of paid professions online propagandist.

            [link]      
            • By greenthinker2012 on May 17, 2016 at 10:49 am

              I have read both the Yablokov book and the WHO report on Chernobyl. The WHO report is more credible while the Yablokov book has serious shortcomings. You can believe whatever you wish, just don’t expect to be taken seriously when you use junk science to form your opinions.

              [link]      
            • By BasM on May 18, 2016 at 4:49 am

              Of course. Being pro-nuclear you find the report of the IAEA lead cover-up operation in which WHO was (forced due to the 1958 agreement) involved too, more credible.

              While that operation and the WHO report excludes:
              - near all local studies as those are in non-English;
              - included only English studies regarding direct involved people. And even didn’t do that correctly as most liquidators were kept out….

              [link]      
            • By greenthinker2012 on May 18, 2016 at 11:31 am

              And of course, you being pro-conspiracy see boogie men under every bed.
              The reason that I find the WHO report more credible is because I have a science degree and can spot junk science like the Yablokov papers.

              [link]      
      • By BasM on May 16, 2016 at 7:48 am

        The book is a review of thousands of studies of roughly 1000 pages with references towards thousands of publications.
        Research results are formally peer reviewed but that is impossible with such a book. So it’s never done.

        Prof. Dr. Biol. Dimitro M. Grodzinsky*) writes:
        “apologists of nuclear power began a blackout on data concerning … the doses of radiation, and the increasing morbidity among the people that were affected.”

        “When it became impossible to hide the obvious increase in radiation-related diseases, attempts were made to explain it away as being a result of nationwide fear. At the same time some concepts of modern radiobiology were suddenly revised. For example, contrary to elementary observations about the nature of the primary interactions of ionizing radiation and the molecular structure of cells, a campaign began to deny non-threshold radiation effects. ”

        “The apogee of this situation was reached in 2006 on the 20th anniversary of the Chernobyl meltdown. By that time the health and quality of life had decreased for millions of people. In April 2006 in Kiev, Ukraine, two international conferences were held … one was convened by supporters of atomic energy … ”

        “The decision of the first conference has not been accepted up to now because the Ukrainian party disagrees with its extremely optimistic positions.”

        “Declassified documents of that time issued by Soviet Union/Ukraine governmental commissions in regard to the first decade after 1986 contain data on a number of people who were hospitalized with acute radiation sickness. The number is greater by two orders of magnitude than was recently quoted in official documents.”
        (italics by me)

        “… doses of irradiation have not been properly estimated, especially for the first year after the reactor’s failure. Data on the growth of morbidity over two decades after the catastrophe confirm this conclusion.”

        “In Kiev, Ukraine, where before the meltdown, up to 90% of children were considered healthy, the figure is now 20%” (now=2008).

        “Average life expectancy is accordingly reduced.”

        “Under pressure from the nuclear lobby, officials have also diverted scientific personnel away from studying the problems caused by Chernobyl.”

        “The present volume (the NYAS book) probably provides the largest and most complete collection of data concerning the negative consequences of Chernobyl on the health of people and on the environment. Information in this volume shows that these consequences do not decrease, but, in fact, are increasing”

        ___
        *) Chairman Department of General Biology, Ukrainian National Academy of Sciences; and

        Chairman Ukrainian National Commission on Radiation Protection

        [link]      
      • By Brian on May 16, 2016 at 7:22 pm

        Here’s what the IAEA pr coemrcial actuall said:

        “He explains that there have been 4000 cases of thyroid cancer, mainly in children, but that except for nine deaths, all of them have recovered. “Otherwise, the team of international experts found no evidence for any increases in the incidence of leukemia and cancer among affected residents.”

        Found no evidence

        Understand?

        Epidemiology has a 1-2% resolution, probably it would take 10% increased deaths in Russian ad the Ukraine with people moving and such to find Epidemiological evidence.

        Yet the paper I pointed to lists lots of evidence. Which of course the pro nuclear people will deny to their dying breath.

        Read it folks. http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2005/pr38/en/

        If you can’t detect a whitewash, you are dangerously naive.

        [link]      
        • By BasM on May 17, 2016 at 3:18 am

          The 2006 Chernobyl forum was so eager to cover-up all mishaps that they state many implausible ‘facts’. E.g:

          Ukraine: ~0,2% die from Thyroid cancer (9 from 4000 cases)..
          USA: ~3.2% die (~2000 from ~62000 cases).

          So US should move its cancer patients to Ukraine as they have there a ~14 times smaller chance to die!

          [link]      
      • By BasM on May 17, 2016 at 4:12 am

        Such overview / review books are never formally peer-reviewed*).
        So NYAS could meet part of the demands & huge pressure by pro-nuclear via this empty statement.
        ____
        *) It’s nearly impossible to formally peer review such books which have often thousands of references (as this one).
        The 2006 Chernobyl forum report has some hundreds. Apparently they couldn’t find more studies with results which supported their cover-up targets.

        But they held to their exclusion of:
        - studies in other languages than English (excluding the vast majority of studies, as those studied the health damage of people in the areas around Chernobyl and delivered substantial health damage)
        - western studies as those also often concluded towards substantial health damage (often due to more advanced study designs with controls, etc). E.g. http://goo.gl/NyTk8f

        [link]      
    • By Brian on May 17, 2016 at 1:48 am

      Here’s just a small sampling of what was wrong with the nuclear power pr industry report by the pro nuclear industry WHO/IAEA

      http://www.chernobylreport.org/summary-en.pdf

      Just to be clear here: the pro nuclear comments believe we shold all believe the WHO/IAEA pro nuclear pr.

      The think we should believe industry pr.

      Does anybody think that’s rational? or good science? or anything but propganda?

      [link]      
  17. By Forrest on May 17, 2016 at 5:12 am

    The effort and investment put to the task of assessing the public’s long term health risk from Chernobyl, Fukushima, and Three Mile, probably the most conclusive within history of industrial accidents. Not much glaring risk is there? Only speculation upon bending stats to conform to authors prejudice and need of gaining popularity by heaping on notoriety of the incident. Radiation is invisible and that makes it a powerful bogyman. As we know radiation is ever present in our lives. Our Western rocky mountain area inhabitants live with a lot of it as our medical recipients. By every credible study and plain common sense one can perceive long term storage of nuclear waste not being a problem. Those that fear monger the topic remind me of the same venue utilized by evolution creation. One’s imagination can go wild when conjuring up visions when multiplying the time span to million and millions of years. Anything is possible. So, the effort to offer insight is useless.

    Something is afoul when GW fear mongering bumps against nuclear. Which one is more dangerous as it’s difficult to measure the risk of each. The atmosphere may be a tad harder to improve as compared to a rare nuclear accident. We have a lot of historical data on both and not to much agreement. By definition science should not be label “settled”. To think otherwise would pull GW out of science. I

    [link]      
    • By BasM on May 17, 2016 at 6:58 am

      Nobody could deliver any solid critique on this study which shows devastating health effects of small increase in background radiation: http://goo.gl/NyTk8f

      [link]      
      • By Forrest on May 17, 2016 at 8:43 am

        The study is a statistical attempt to detect significance of health harming effects of the radiation. They discovered a significant up tick in health problems that may be above normal variation. This is not proof, just an indicator that it may or may not be from the accident. They have a significant indicator that it’s more probable than less probable their is an uptick in health problems. This may or may not be from Chernobyl. So, they have better than a guess that some external influence may be causing health problems. It may also, just be a coincidence. They suggest funding to pursue the matter as all scientist do. Wouldn’t you suggest to fund your job for another decade? Like I said not much there. The crystal ball is fuzzy.

        [link]      
        • By BasM on May 18, 2016 at 3:41 am

          “… may be above normal variation.”
          “… more probable than less probable …”
          With significance levels of P<0.0001 for a number of indicators…
          That is orders of magnitude more than what the scientific community considers as 'may be'. of 'more probable'.

          "not proof, just an indicator that it may or may not be from the accident."
          That would be true if the 10 nearby similar districts had also some 'up tick'. But those had none,..
          Combined with the moment of the 'up tick', there is only one conclusion; Chernobyl.

          So you will also state that a stone may fall upwards into the sky, referring to quantum theory & Heisenberg which indicate that there is a chance indeed..

          Tobacco industry used same kind of denial in order to keep up that smoking doesn't affect health.
          I thought nuclear has better ethics.

          [link]      
          • By Forrest on May 18, 2016 at 7:44 am

            Actually, modern health studies are discovering small particles the culprit. Meaning the tobacco plant isn’t inherently evil. The practice of inhaling particles whether oak leaves or tobacco makes little difference other than the psychological comfort from tobacco that offsets the unhealthy and expensive habit of psychological drug consumption. Were finding out diesel smoke may be the ultimate unhealthy emission.
            Your linked study up front states the geographical area has numerous investigations that found no health risk. So, by definition the health risk is indeed subtle and extremely difficult to detect. The new study utilized statistical adjustments and limited sampling to maximize the data sensitivity and wallah they have indeed found evidence. Sure, the “P” is a strong indicator that the data is more accurate to prove the hypothesis, but the data has been massaged. This effort while a statistical methodology, just a tad loose for my taste. They play this game all the time with GW data, too. You should think that if this Chernobyl emission evaluation was correct, then the atomic blast victims of Japan would suffer 100x more birth defects and birthrate harm. Nothing much there either, http://www.rerf.jp/radefx/genetics_e/birthdef.html. If as you imply their is glaring health harm per nuclear radiation, it’s not self evident. Also, note that the Chernobyl accident a comic book episode on how not to run or design a nuclear plant. So, that would make most secure in the knowledge if that’s the extreme worst that can happen. The industry appears to be one of safest.

            [link]      
            • By BasM on May 18, 2016 at 8:45 am

              … the geographical area has numerous investigations that found no health risk…
              Not numerous, but a few.
              Yes, that is because only small parts of that area got rain from Chernobyl clouds, becoming contaminated.

              …new study utilized statistical adjustments and limited sampling to maximize the data sensitivity
              No and Yes.

              Yes. They restricted their research to 10 districts which got rain from passing Chernobyl clouds, comparing those with 10 districts which got no rain, hence no radio-activity from Chernobyl.

              No. They didn’t use statistical adjustments.
              They took all birth from the birth registers of the 20 districts.

              So the data has not been massaged.
              (It wouldn’t been accepted by the peer reviewed scientific journal if they had)

              if this Chernobyl emission evaluation was correct, then the atomic blast victims of Japan….
              No.
              Japan was a short burst of mainly gamma radiation, which doesn’t penetrate deep (so skins got burned, etc)

              In Germany they got only fall-out of mainly Cs-137: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesium-137 (also some strontium) which they inhaled with rain & dust, drank as it’s in the water and ate with vegetables from their garden (people were not aware at the time)…

              “If as you imply their is glaring health harm per nuclear radiation, it’s not self evident.”
              Of course not.
              If the frequency of stillbirth, Down syndrome, neural tube defects, malformations of the heart, etc. doubles, it is still not glaring & self evident because the frequency of those is then still small.

              It’s one of the reasons it took such long to show that pregnant women have to take care with alcohol, smoking, etc. etc.

              But that doesn’t take away the many thousands of tragedies caused by Chernobyl to innocent people who experienced no benefit from nuclear power and got no damage compensation at all.
              So without realizing it, they subsidize nuclear…

              [link]      
            • By forrest on May 18, 2016 at 12:31 pm

              The report labeled the health studies before hand as “numerous”. These are not my words. These studies were bonafide and typical health studies. Nothing in your report claims otherwise. You only agree with the conclusion with the one with the most damning evidence. You shouldn’t so quickly agree with only one report and only one report with negative results. They had to adjust data to remove clutter or IOWs to clean up junk data. This is typical per the need to standardize the data. I’m sure their was not a gold standard of reporting. For example the extent of geographical boundary, definitions, inconsistencies, when to purge data, etc. It’s not as simple as you post, even for basic data, it will have surprising variance from basic. Did they check for reporting mistakes? The data is so weak a small error will throw the results. You have to agree the data is weak. So, weak that accumulating data over a larger area doesn’t indicate a problem. So, come back and report when a half dozen statistical studies made from different data sets and studied by competing interest groups. If they all point to a danger, well then compare that to coal mine explosion or the danger of economic collapse from excessive debt load, hunger, bad car design, and the rest of life’s threats to shortened life. Maybe include babies taken by “choice” decisions of mother. Still born for those that put little value on fetus life, may matter little.

              [link]      
            • By BasM on May 18, 2016 at 7:51 pm

              That ‘numerous’ didn’t concern the area in S-Germany, but all in all countries. Furthermore part of those also found similar birth defects, etc. as the authors also remark. But if you don’t believe them, read the references the authors also state:
              “…these investigations were compiled by Little [15] and by Bard et al. [2].”

              You question German districts boundaries? Nonsense.
              District Population registers? Nonsense.
              Data so weak. Nonsense. A small error won’t make a difference. If you know anything about statistics you know that you never get anything significant (not even P<0.05 level) if a small error can change things.

              The study is unique as:
              - the clouds contaminated 10 districts and 10 other similar nearby districts not.
              - the Germans were probably the only who had such detailed birth registration at the time.

              This is ~1000miles away, so damage was created at significant part of the people at least up to 1000miles away, being 500million? And none got compensated, neither recognized in the WHO report…. A real cover-up.

              For other studies with similar results, read the overview studies which the authors indicated in their introduction.

              [link]      
            • By Forrest on May 19, 2016 at 4:04 am

              The report reads bias against nuclear. The report makes no claim that you do of nuclear fallout causing increase in birth deformities. We have to be careful and state the study indicated, utilizing statistical methodology, an increase of 4.6% for a five year period after the accident. The Bavaria model predict 200 more per year with the n = 24k. Like I said not a very shocking report. Although, they grouped and summarized to make it appear more dramatic. So many compounding factors, they stated, “causal inferences is difficult”. The embryo is so susceptible. Yes, they have to massage, and adjust data to make it worthy. Just normal statistical adjusting, but if one goes at it with prejudice an always present danger. This is where multiple studies from competing interest come in to play. The anti nuke crowd automatically claims the nuclear industry can’t defend itself.

              I will say it is better to understand the threat and with such info the design of nuclear has minimize the danger. You have to admit Chernobyl was a disaster when it was constructed. The accident is not representative of nuclear industry. Many threats upon society, we have to utilize good judgement and not fall prey to hype. As I’m told GW will destabilize economies and cause more war. What is the value of nuclear now? Don’t attempt to sell renewable power as dirt cheap. If that was a reality, why do you bother to bash nuclear? Wouldn’t you be wasting your time?

              [link]      
            • By BasM on May 19, 2016 at 5:17 am

              The report doesn’t read bias against nuclear, the research results deliver strong arguments against nuclear.

              It shows upswings of ~50% in the frequency of serious birth defects starting ~9months after Chernobyl, only in all 10 districts that got CS-137 radio-active contamination and none in any of the 10 nearby similar districts that got no contamination….
              If you have another explanation?

              Somehow you read / calculate wrong. With 24,000 birth defects in all those districts, the increase is ~4000/year. It will gradually decrease with the decrease of CS-137 activity.

              Realize that there are many similar areas, even at 1800 miles such as N-Scotland, Lapland. Finland.

              The report demonstrates also the research at Finland, etc which shows increases up to 30% in the frequency of birth defects. Please read it.

              Considering that:
              - similar results are shown by many other research (check my other comment);
              - the contamination is more serious in countries more nearby as shown by a study in my previous comment;

              the number of those tragedies is now well in the millions if not above the 10 million.

              [link]      
            • By Forrest on May 19, 2016 at 7:26 am

              “According to the model approximately an additional 100 stillbirths between’87 to ’92 in the ten most highly affected districts.” So, with 24,000 birth defect in those districts occurring as the base or n, it is not a terribly shocking stat. Later they up the estimate to 1,000 to 3,000 over five years. That must be an extrapolation? Margin of error range is 1,000 to 3,000 over five years. The area really got hit with high fallout. Not unexpected to have stillbirth pregnancies. You ask what other explanations possible or compounding complexity of data? Here, in the states we have outbreaks of birth deformities based on popularity of low cost illegal drug market. Also, if the affected area residents received hype of doom for their nuclear fallout exposure, my guess expectant mother could care less for the health or health of fetus and partake in risky behavior, hoping the fetus miscarriages and they are not burdened with deformed child rearing. My guess the doom of event was hyped to the max and scarred the locals into thinking all was hopeless. I can imagine the depression and news agencies looking for ratings hyping fear to the max. Same for the anti nuclear crowd such as yourself scaring them to death. My guess the healthy affluent left the area and bugged up the data, but they adjusted for that. I’m sure that was accurate. The conclusion was a little over 4% increase in stillbirths and deformities, so not hard to reason many factors could cause the spike. Given that the report said as well, but the report, also, stated it won’t disprove nuclear fallout was the cause. So, the conclusion: We can’t prove Chernobyl fallout caused the birth defects, but they can’t prove it didn’t. Not much there in probably the worst ever nuclear plant accident. How does Chernobyl death rate compare with other tragedies? A change in the stillbirths rate vs loss of living and breathing citizens life? By definition if attempting to rate nuclear power death risk Chernobyl is an anomaly. Meaning it should be thrown out of data set, because such an odd duck. Not a typical reactor. Also, such evaluations of nuclear safety risk would be a forward leaning evaluation as the industry has changed so dramatically within regards to reducing risk of accidents and continues to dramatically improve. Chernobyl risk should be purged and replaced with Fukushima. Let’s do the stillbirth model for the most affected districts and adjust for the psychological damage inflicted on the population that would naturally increase stillbirth stats per nuclear hype. That hype was extreme and unnerving. Most of it rate outrageous after the facts started to be tallied.

              [link]      
            • By BasM on May 19, 2016 at 10:10 am

              Read the paper: http://goo.gl/NyTk8f

              Your statement “The Bavaria model predict 200 more per year …” in your previous comment still had a relation with reality; 1,000 – 3,000 in 5 years. In line with the results presented, Not an up estimation.
              So 400/year would be correct.

              Even in the most contaminated districts the levels were below background radiation levels: 50kBq/m² = ~0.7mSv/a. That is much lower than in many other areas, especially those more near Chernobyl.

              Imagine the consequences in the large areas with >10 times higher Chernobyl radiation hence 10 time more birth defects.
              (no good research there; only the NYAS book gives a good impression).

              Confounding?
              If the sudden increase of birth defects would be caused by an increase in drug use, than the non-contaminated districts would also have an upwards jump. But none…

              The size of the nuclear fall-out as well as the differences were unknown at the time. It was measured much later on.
              So that possible confounding also does not apply.

              There was no hype. Nobody left the area for such reason.
              So no adjustment for that. Then people could not imagine that an explosion 1,800km away would have such health effects… Until this and other research 10years later on proved it.

              As you can see at the graphs it’s no spike, the long term decline in birth defects goes on at an higher level….

              Your talking about stillbirth only, suggest that that is the most important factor. The highly significant increases of Down syndromes, neural tube defects, malformations of the heart, abnormal limbs, etc. are just as devastating!

              All such serious birth defects should be considered and the parents should get compensation for the devastation caused by nuclear. The non-compensation is a huge subsidy for nuclear.

              Fukushima had the luck that the wind blew 99% of the radiation direct to the ocean. Otherwise it would have been similar devastating, or worse (the unthinkable evacuation of Tokyo).

              Btw.
              Note that this study also debunks the idea of thresholds >0.7mSv/a.

              [link]      
            • By Forrest on May 20, 2016 at 6:41 am

              The study utilized the German and Bavarian hospital records per their spatial-temporal methodology. The 10 highest contaminated districts had experienced 100 more than normal birth defects/yr for ’86-91 per their methodology estimates. They then went to the 2 highest contaminated districts and found they had double that rate, again per their methodology estimates. Notice were taking 100 birth defects out of a population of 24,000 for the highest contaminated sites. It would take far less to jump the percentages within two districts. So, very difficult to analyse with such a small population and per their own documented criticism of utilizing such small areas. Meaning the results can’t be extrapolated, otherwise one can get outlandish results which it appears they have done. The 1,000 to 3,000 figure for ’86-’91 is such extrapolation. That’s why they have such a large range and they qualify the figure with a big IF. If the radiation exposure was causal. Like I said and the study has no way to determine the mental state of expectant mothers. I remember back then the news hype of catastrophe was outrageous. Those districts were scared to death of the risk. Why would these mothers bother to take care of themselves or their fetus if they think all is hopeless? You constantly fear monger, then pivot to state the area had no such fear?

              By the way all of this is a waste if your attempting to rate nuclear power safety upon modern day plant construction. It’s not comparable. It’s only useful if one has a desire to bash the industry. Fukushima could be studied and has real life value on how to yet again make nuclear safer. You claim if the wind was a different direction the accident would be like Chernobyl? Don’t think so, but convince your buddies to study the aquatic life if so motivated. Here in the states the anti-nuclear crowd (typical environmental nuts) claimed the radiation from the accident would devastate California fishery and farm land production. We didn’t experience a blip upon their dire predictions. That (once again) doesn’t give me confidence that these Environmentalist have a clue. Just fear mongers for fame and wealth.

              [link]      
            • By BasM on May 20, 2016 at 7:58 am

              “Those districts were scared to death of the risk.”
              There was no measurement of the fall-out in the districts.
              So if your assumption would be true, all districts would show a jump in stillbirth & birth defects. But none occurred at the districts without contamination.

              Stronger! Birth defects increased proportionally to the level of contamination (p<0.00004)!
              E,g, The risk for:
              - stillbirth increased with 33% per mSv/a increase (p<0.00003).
              - malformations of the heart increased with 80% per mSv/a increase of radiation (p<0.002).
              - deformities of the skull, face, jawbone, neck, spinal column, hip joint, long bones of the legs, and feet increased with 130% per mSv/a increase of the radiation (p<0.00004).

              I assume that in sensation eager US media the news hype was outrageous. But not here in NL neither in Germany.
              As then:
              - the media were not Americanized yet; and
              - the general idea was that we all were far enough away, so we wouldn't experience any health effects.

              Who could then think that being 1,000 miles away is not enough…

              "hospital records"
              No. The study utilized the population registers as those also registered serious birth defects since ~1980, using a standardized methodology by all physicians involved in birth.

              You repeat the extreme low estimate for congenital malformations. The right estimate is 400/year as I explained in my previous comment.
              That 400/year does not include stillbirth, which made a bigger upwards jump (40%) after Chernobyl in the contaminated districts (no jump in non-contaminated districts).

              The estimation is in line with the figures (it wouldn't have past the peer review). Read the study report:
              http://goo.gl/NyTk8f
              The range is due to the statistical nature of the research. The estimations show the high significance borders.

              Your story of 100 birth defects and 2 highest contaminated districts is nonsense.
              The av. contamination was 37kBq/m², the av of the 2 highest contaminated districts is 52kBq/m² (table 1).

              [link]      
            • By Forrest on May 20, 2016 at 8:49 am

              “According to this model, approximately 100 more stillbirths occurred between 1987 and 1992 in the ten most highly affected districts.” You need to read the study.

              Some how I don’t believe that the 10 most contaminated districts were not concerned of the worst nuclear accident in history? You folks don’t gossip and worry of such things? You have no activist within your society. Were you alive back then? I’m sure they were fearful and had maximum stress. What you post does’t pass the smell test.

              You post of typical pregnancy malformations in order to inflate the danger aka fear mongering. Did your happen to mention 24,000 birth defects is about average? You do know the fetus development is highly susceptible to just about anything, examples being smoking, drinking, harsh detergents, etc. You did read the study claim that it can’t prove the nuclear fallout was the cause of those 100 expected increase in malformed fetuses per the statistical model. You do understand the Chernobyl accident is about useless in rating modern day nuclear safety? Or double that with new plant construction. So, why are you wasting so much time on worthless comparison? I think we know why and so do you. You seem to be a professional antagonist. Are you making a living on this throwing of dirt. Modern day this seems to be the popular approach to pay for such things. Our latest president credited his win to the dirt propagated by paid and volunteer smear campaign. Does that sound familiar? We have a couple billionaires that spend a good portion of their resources on propaganda to empower the crazy environmentalist and the rest of the far left antics and propaganda. One such fellow, just hates capitalism and wants central control to take freedoms of the public away.

              [link]      
            • By BasM on May 20, 2016 at 9:59 am

              So we have ~400 serious birth defects + ~100 stillbirths =
              ~500 extra tragedies per year in those 10 districts alone.

              Throwing dirt?
              I explain the shown devastating consequences of a relative small increase in radiation (0.7mSv/a).
              People should know reality.

              Especially since many pro-nuclear state: no health effect (similar as those in tobacco, asbestos, etc.).
              I don’t see that telling the truth is ‘throwing with dirt’.

              Opposite: Pro-nuclear repeat their faulty message (radiation=harmless) so often that the population starts to belief some of it (youngsters here also associate Marlborough smoking with healthy strong cowboys, despite the clear warning on the packages)…

              Wasting time?
              The contamination radiation level in the cleaned villages around Fukushima is ~5 times higher than in the 10 contaminated districts of the study.
              So younger people rightfully refuse to go back, as they have ~5 times bigger chance to get newborn with similar serious malformations or stillbirth, as those in the contaminated districts of Bayern (S-Germany)!

              Btw.
              As NYT reported, Japanese government also oppose research, similar as the states around Chernobyl (Belarus even put a professor in prison for 2yrs when his research showed health damage).

              We don’t talk yet about the increased level of genetic damage of those newborn. Genetic damage which may affect their health later in life and the health of their children, etc…

              That genetic damage was the reason Germany closed its prime nuclear waste site prematurely (with the expensive building still largely empty), when a due-diligence study showed even more damage than the original research:
              http://goo.gl/a27Vj4

              USA’s NRC decided not to facilitate research around nuclear facilities. I assume under pressure of the nuclear lobby…

              [link]      
            • By Forrest on May 21, 2016 at 6:30 am

              So, nuclear is poison and the industry and governments have colluded to hide the facts. A giant conspiracy, you uncovered. Japan now, per NYT editorial, surely the NYT can get the truth out. A professor doing science put in jail, just because he showed health damage from the all powerful nuclear. I do think nuclear is a magnet for such actions. I remember the conspiracy several decades back in the U.S. on stray voltage and high voltage power lines. The activist had statistical studies and tons of anecdotal evidence that scared everyone. It took years for research to push back the conspiracy and offer recommendations for proper grounding. To access the threat. I was in class with a fellow that had an advanced degree from local state college. Come to find out he was a con trail believer. One of the younger girls in the class was so excited to find such a believer that apparently they rushed off for sex. Basically, they’re a group of rabid environmentalist that claim the government is poisoning citizens with jet aircraft. Yes, he has a ton of evidence and sounds just like you. Very convincing.
              I read posts of antinuclear activist that are incredibly damning and full of conspiracy. I read peer review articles and science that tells the opposite story of risk, damage, and danger from these nuclear accidents that are so far from the antinuclear propaganda it’s incredible. I’ve lived most of my life within 100 miles of six or so nuclear power plants and have witnessed the Jane Fonda years of turmoil with constant barrage of demonstrations on these sites. They seem to have gone away? Why did they give up? The local news will go berserk if ever a report to the nuclear commission of a failure. They do this to drive ratings. I think these conspiracy topics just to attractive to those whom want attention and credibility. We have a large portion of U.S. that will never believe that John Kennedy was assassinated by a lone third rate Communist dud with a cheap mail order rifle. They have tons of evidence and convincing stories. Movies and professionals that will offer evidence that it was a grand conspiracy by the right. All of it conflicting evidence to the state investigations, that sounds very impressive, convincing and always emotional. Maybe I’ll wait to see the official peer reviewed assessment of the Fukushima accident to rate nuclear power risk. To date how many have dropped dead and suffered stillbirth rate increase? It has been five years so, we must have a boat load of deaths and cancer patients by now. I can wait to handle the truth.

              [link]      
            • By BasM on May 21, 2016 at 8:56 am

              “…high voltage power lines. … statistical studies…”
              I was involved then. No valid statistical studies at all!
              So we concluded it was a hoax.

              But we have many studies which show the serious health & genetic damage that a relative small increase in radiation creates. You see already a number in the papers I linked and in my previous comments here. More are available.

              “… peer review articles and science that tells the opposite story of risk, damage, and danger from these nuclear accidents…”
              Can you show peer reviewed studies (enough sensitive to show anything) regarding serious birth defects and genetic damage (which is what we discuss in this thread)???
              I don’t know any!

              Regarding Fukushima we won’t see serious research as the pro-nuclear Abe government opposes it (they want to cover-up). And Japanese obey their government more…

              With Chernobyl there were independent governments who were not involved strongly in nuclear. So researchers in those countries were facilitated to do research. Hence the health & genetic damage shown in Finland, Sweden, Czech, Germany, Turkey, (former) communist E-Germany, etc.

              [link]      
            • By Forrest on May 21, 2016 at 7:31 pm

              Well, there are numerous nuclear power plants that have been in operation for decades. I don’t read of much health threat in the grand scheme of things. I will say if ever there were, the hyperbola of news agencies and the activism of left environmentalist would ride that donkey into the ground. I don’t believe their is a conspiracy as so many folks such as yourself would immediately run to NYT, NPR, and BBC if ever a wisp of credible evidence. Same with some undisclosed risk of humanly upon running nuclear power plants. You would immediately become a international sensation, a rock star of the environmentalist, with movie rights and several book offers. This is the dream isn’t it.

              Problem is, like I said years ago with the movie sensation China Syndrome with Jane Fonda talent and their “new” phenomena threat that was so fallacious any science guy (maybe Bill Nye) had a good laugh over it, was taken seriously with Environmentalist activist. They demonstrated, rioted, and had many articles of concern. Not much of that nutty activism today. Why is that? You do know if ever a wisp of such danger this group would immediately go back to the glory days. Problem is there is not enough “danger” concern to kick start the movement. Why is that? You have plenty of evidence don’t you? Send it to the NYTs and become a rock star. Good Luck.

              [link]      
            • By BasM on May 22, 2016 at 6:57 am

              You overdo. While the substantial genetic damage for newborn around nuclear facilities is shown again and again
              (e.g. http://goo.gl/p0aUGk ) and German government took action accordingly by closing its prime nuclear waste site (http://goo.gl/a27Vj4 ) prematurely, it hardly reaches the papers nowadays.
              People know the dangers. It are ‘old facts’.
              And people don’t run for ‘old facts’.

              [link]      
            • By Forrest on May 22, 2016 at 7:13 am

              Oh, I’m pretty sure if ever a credible wisp of evidence it would be a media sensation. But, if as you say is correct. Wow, your European communities not like the environmental nuts we have here in the U.S. They always walk to the head of the line to the media with their thoughts and fear mongering. Most just turn the channel like your folks and yes it’s old news and not much concern upon it. Just because the public is sick of hearing the hype doesn’t mean they understand and accept it. They probably accept the political energy behind it and have learned that is unstoppable. Maybe your citizens are like us?

              [link]      
            • By BasM on May 22, 2016 at 8:07 am

              May be also because here in NW-continental Europe, it’s clear that nuclear will end before 2030-2040…

              [link]      
            • By BasM on May 19, 2016 at 3:04 am

              Regarding your question for more research results:

              You find a number of other research results in the text and especial the discussion section of the paper (hope you read more than the introduction). You find also more at the overview papers they state at references 4 and 15.
              Some more:

              Europe: more stillbirth after Chernobyl and more in countries with more contamination: http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/28/5/932.full.pdf

              W.European regions which got fall out: ” In many areas, 137Cs uptake reached its maximum one year after the Chernobyl accident. Thus, the highest increase in trisomy 21 (=Down syndrome) should be observed in 1987/1988, which is indeed the case.”: http://goo.gl/YdjFxk

              Those regions included areas as far away as in Scotland where meat is still not fit for consumption due to the contamination (probably one of the reasons the Scottish want to get rid of nuclear and are moving fast to 100%).

              Turkey: ~4fold increase in birth defects (P<0.001) with a delay in line with the radiation increase measured by the study that I state here above: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1059708/

              Sharp increase in the male/female ratio at birth. Showing significant increased genetic damage in contaminated European countries: http://actamedica.lfhk.cuni.cz/media/pdf/am_2014057020062.pdf

              North-Sweden got significant fall-out (their measurement station detected Chernobyl after few days when the clouds reached their region, forcing the Soviets to tell the truth).
              Apart from the 'usual' serious birth defect health damage there are also first indications of an increase in cancers, though it's too early taking the 2-6 decade latency into account: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1732641/

              etc.

              [link]      
      • By Sparafucile on May 17, 2016 at 11:16 am

        That study is bunk. As are all of your posts.

        [link]      
        • By BasM on May 18, 2016 at 4:50 am

          You fall back to scolding. It takes you down.
          Why not recognize the truth?

          [link]      
          • By Sparafucile on May 18, 2016 at 10:08 am

            Anybody who uses the term “the truth” = propagandist liar.

            [link]      
  18. By Forrest on May 19, 2016 at 9:07 am

    To read the hype of the typical environmentalists and when bothering to read the real world results per the follow up one is amazed the magnitude of ineptness within this group. They play dirty and loose with the facts. They push all of it into political spectrum when knowing full well they will sabotage their desires. They cheer the most outrageous and boisterous within the group and claim there is so much danger that all hyping of fear is legitimate to push public perceptions. They accept contradictions and live with hypocrisy. One is only to conclude their actions are selfish and political. They are routinely so far off in most every prediction, why should we bother to listen to their incessant spins. There are numerous citizens concerned of improving environment at all levels. That group includes myself, that look to sensible improvements, starting at the lowest cost and easiest to obtain. I don’t believe anyone desires otherwise, but the nutty environmentalist spin fear and hate all day long. My guess they desire to make a name for themselves within the confines of similar mindset group (thank you twitter and facebook). I doubt they have any more interest in change than I do. In fact my personal list of improvements would put most of them to shame. At one time when more naive youth I gave the benefit of doubt, that they had honorable intentions. The more I get familiar with the group, the more hypocrisy is uncovered. To date the more outrageous within the group, the more they should be tossed to the side of not being credible, only selfish. We could do more and do more cheaply by avoiding the advice of this group. It is a mistake to pander to this group and especially to award them with federal power.

    [link]      
    • By Brian on May 20, 2016 at 12:42 am

      Wow, that’s one of the longs pointless ad hominem rants I have ever read.

      The pro nuclear people never sleep. That’s what billions of dollar in pr and influence buy.

      Nuclear power is millions of deaths from cancer, trillion of dollar in waste costs and consequences over 100,000 years, short of uranium in just ten years for producing only 2% of the world’s energy for just 50 years, and 4 times the cost of available solar and wind before gov breaks.

      Not only that, nuclear takes 12 years to install average, goes over budget many times virtual always, and is inflexible power that block full use of renwable solar and wind.

      The UN and the DOE are nuclear power captive. the IAEA is in charge of all nuclear standard and activities and it’s charter it to promote nuclear power. We call that a conflict of interest, as do all rational people.

      The USA DOE is the old Atomic Energy Commission and still 90%+ nuclear related actives and employees. That a conflict of interest.

      The nuclear power industry PR is pushing the same death the tobacco and lead industries did.

      [link]      
      • By Forrest on May 20, 2016 at 5:13 am

        Thanks for illustrating my point.

        [link]      
        • By Brian on May 20, 2016 at 10:40 pm

          Right back at ya.

          [link]      
  19. By Michael Mann on May 21, 2016 at 7:10 am

    What do these anti-science, anti-nuclear people believe? 1. nuclear power is not natural.. except there was a natural nuclear reactor millions of years ago.(Oklo) 2. Nuclear power is dangerous… well any form of energy can be dangerous, but statistically it is currently per unit energy produced been safer than any other way to produce electricity. 3. Nuclear power hurts the communities where they are sited and no-one who understands nuclear lives near the plants…wrong, I and most of my co-workers live in the area and by a wide majority we like having the plant in our community. 4. The area around a nuclear power plant is a desolate “exclusion zone” um, no, most nuclear plants I have visited are more like nature preserves, and my plant has a working apple orchard inside the owner controlled area.. Where do these people get their information? Anti-science propaganda is a threat to our society.

    [link]      
    • By BasM on May 21, 2016 at 9:41 am

      Your I ideas about my believe are not quite right:
      1. of course it’s natural. Fusion even more.

      4. the area around nuclear power plants (NPP’s) are not desolate, etc.
      Though it’s better for the genetic health of their offspring that people who want to get children live >40km away as shown in this easy to read overview PPT (with links to the scientific papers): http://goo.gl/p0aUGk

      Also studies which show health damage to children living near NPP’s. So families should live at longer distances:
      In Germany: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2696975/
      In France: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22223329
      In USA: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3200/AEOH.58.2.74-82
      etc.

      3. No. If point 4 in this comment is respected.
      Especially if it are older people.

      2. Nuclear is clearly far more dangerous than renewable; wind+solar+storage (batteries + P2G). Also more dangerous than additional technologies such as hydro, geothermal.

      The low figure of death for nuclear is reached by excluding nearly all deaths caused by nuclear, such as those associated with uranium mining, uranium (re-)processing, nuclear disasters, etc.
      The >1 million Chernobyl deaths turns nuclear already in one of the most dangerous methods of electricity generation!
      Consider also the substantial genetic damage: http://goo.gl/a27Vj4

      These research results motivate the Germans to pay extra in order to move all nuclear out asap!

      [link]      
      • By Forrest on May 22, 2016 at 7:01 am

        Your genetic health around NPPs claim is bogus, no matter the links provided. How can I be so sure? I am living next to them and have done so since the 70′s. I do know the area, it’s people, hospitals, news papers, and all the rest. Our area has six nuclear plants within 100 mile radius minimum. My in laws live within easy walking distance to Cook Nuclear on Lake Michigan. It’s a beautiful area with ever appreciating real estate. Their neighbors house closer to the lake was over one million evaluation. People from Chicago appear not to be afraid of nuclear power and invest heavily. Bridgeman, MI is a highly attractive location since the nuclear plant has paid so much of the tax base. I know several couples that work in the union work force at the NPP. They inform me of all interesting things over the decades. Their health is meticulously recorded as a preventative measure defense for assaults such as you and your gang phony up. This area is noted for long life span living. Probably because it’s a fruit belt and has the most cloudy days in the U.S. Over the years I’ve known dozens and dozens of employees of Cook nuclear. Can’t say anyone was harmed. Lots of children born from parents that work there. My wife is in the medical field with umpteen contacts within the industry. Scuttlebutt travels very fast as any news. Can’t say nuclear has raised nary an eyebrow. Stock tips more exciting.

        One interesting detail from the history of nuclear power. Back in the late ’70s the Jane Fonda environmentalist all claimed the fishery of Lake Michigan would be destroyed by nuclear power. They referred to magic science such as BasM links that proved the point. They had to routinely drag these civil disobedient protesters off with glaring media attention to every detail. The politics of the Left were aflame with emotional testimony and compassionate support to their every effort to safe guard us stupid folks. You know, present day the problem with the fishery is they (fish) congregate to close to the slight water temperature increase of cooling water release. The MDNR has a minimal distance to keep away per unfair fishing. I’ve never read a NYT article on far off the Environmentalist estimates or conjectures per update of the history. Why is that? I have so many personal experiences of nutty environmental claims, that amount to zero damage, that I do have skepticism of the fear du jour, GW. Maybe not that it’s happening, but at least of the damage estimates. My geographical position is supposed to be affected more. We are getting cooler. We need a few degrees warmth.

        [link]      
        • By BasM on May 22, 2016 at 8:02 am

          “They referred to magic science such as BasM links that proved the point.”
          They indeed referred to some magic.
          But the scientific studies I refer to, are published in respected peer reviewed scientific journals.

          [link]      
          • By Forrest on July 21, 2016 at 5:22 pm

            So, why did you link to a such poor evidence? To sound authoritative?

            [link]      
            • By BasM on July 22, 2016 at 1:31 am

              To show that UNSCEAR in 1958 was already aware of the genetic damage nuclear radiation (from a.o. nuclear facilities) create to the DNA of people living in the surroundings.

              [link]      
        • By Michael Mann on May 22, 2016 at 11:27 am

          I have had a similar experience living next to the longest running nuclear power plant in the USA, here in Ontario, NY They have been a good neighbor as well as my employer. We have a working apple orchard on the front lawn of the plant, we have too many deer, and the fish love our discharge canal’s warmer water. It used to be prime fishing just outside the canal, during fishing derbies it was packed with boats, but since 9-11 there is a security zone to keep fishermen out of that area. I would imagine there are record breaking trophy fish in that zone… Of course the anti-nuclear people would point to them and claim it was radiation that grew them so big, not the fact that there is abundant food and no fishermen…

          [link]      
          • By BasM on July 17, 2016 at 6:25 am

            Your personal experience (and that of Forrest) do not invalidate the clear scientific evidence which show with high significance (up to p<0.0001) that newborn up to 50km away from significant nuclear facilities have increased levels of genetic (DNA) damage.

            The overview PPT that I linked above showed the damage for the ~60 nuclear facilities (most NPP's) in 5 W-European countries.
            These results are in line with the 1958 UNSCEAR report to the UN General Assembly: http://goo.gl/eXLdUx

            The shown genetic damage around nuclear storage site Gorleben created discussion with health authorities (increase of ~10% in male/female ratio: http://goo.gl/6Z1Qif ). Especially since the huge (500x20m) thick walled (50cm) storage building contained only ~100 thick walled dry casks.
            So pro-nuclear scientists got an assignment for a due diligence study. They expanded the search area into the neighbor state. To their unpleasant surprise, they found even more genetic damage (m/f ratio increase ~14%) with higher significance.

            The state then organized a conference with all involved scientists (pro & contra) which resulted in a report to Federal Government (Berlin) showing the significant genetic damage. That resulted in premature closure of the storage site in 2015, while the huge building is still largely empty.

            The 2014 report has nice pictures of the storage site; http://goo.gl/svYun9 (p.7). Earlier year reports also show the first class protection against escaping radiation (thick walled dry casks in a thick walled building with an high dike around the continuously guarded site).

            Better protection than what I've seen around US nuclear waste stored in dry casks (those are often even in the open air…).

            Notes:
            - US NRC recently cut all budget for such research, while it's cheap:
            Ask all birth figures at municipalities around nuclear facilities, incl. the place where the mother lived at pregnancy, Use google earth to calc the distances, and do the statistical tests.

            - IMHO, the ventilation to keep the temperature inside the storage building below ~50°C is the weak
            point. They should have made a cooling system which keeps all air
            inside (which is expensive as the dry casks produce lot of heat).

            [link]      
            • By Michael Mann on July 18, 2016 at 5:00 am

              One easy way to identify false/misleading information is when it comes from outdated studies.. for example the 1958 UNSCEAR report……

              [link]      
            • By BasM on July 18, 2016 at 5:29 am

              The 1958 UNSCEAR report is not a study but a concluding report to the UN General Assembly whose conclusions are not withdrawn. Neither doubted by scientific studies since then,

              Contrary, solid studies confirmed the conclusions in that report.

              [link]      
            • By Forrest on July 18, 2016 at 7:06 am

              The ’58 UNSCEAR conclusions doesn’t read alarming. It was surprising the high exposure we all recevie naturally. In general they claim, better to lesson man made radiation for health concerns (less bombs). To use nuclear fuel in responsible manner for mankind needs is best. Your link had an underlined phrase “Any present attempt to evaluate the effects of
              sources of radiation to which the world population is
              exposed can produce only tentative estimates with wide
              margins of uncertainty.”

              Your caution to not rely on personal experience reminds me of the popular phrase during our “slick willy” political years, “who you going to believe? Your lying eyes or me. Also, the science (politics) of nuclear or invisible bogyman appears to be keenly aligned with the GW actions. Very anemic evidence that rely heavy on statistics to pick up the smallest of trends. One can read, pick and chose the most damming evidence to support ones biases, then dramatize and emotionalize the danger to fit ones political or environmental desires. And of course we all know you get more of what you pay for be it welfare, unemployment, children, or directing science to uncover evidence of GW or radiation harm.

              [link]      
  20. By Brian on June 7, 2016 at 6:40 pm

    Nuclear power is short of fuel in ten years (IAEA), cost 4 times available solar and wind (Lazard energy), takes 12 years average to install at which time solar and wind will be available for 16 times less cost (before gov breaks). generates 1.2M tons of deadly spent fuel that will cost 100B$ to store in dry casks for 100,000 years, 100 m tons of overburden in mining, 5M tones of deadly radioactive heavy metal mining tailings. the nuclear disasters will cause the deaths of several million people assuming LNT applied to exposed populations, not the UN pro nuclear pr reports. God know how many people the wastes will kill. Anyone who claims the world will keep nuclear wastes from the environment for 100,000 years must be smoking the wastes, because that’s absurd. It will get forgotten, lost, blown up, stolen, flooded, abandoned and decayed and released.

    Solar and wind are already the majority of new power installs, and doubling every could year or so. Solar pv can supply about 60% of our total energy needs if we charge electric vehicles during the day, and encourage industries to flexibly use solar and wind when it it available. Wind can supply another 20% of our energy demand uncorrelated with solar, and hydro and wastes to oil and gas can supply the rest. The oil and gas from wastes will satisfy the fuel need for the reserve generator the grid already uses, for chemical feed stock and for long haul. That’s all the world will ever need even with 9 billion people living a first world energy life. And it’s cheaper.

    [link]      
  21. By Forrest on July 20, 2016 at 11:11 am

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/20/business/energy-environment/how-renewable-energy-is-blowing-climate-change-efforts-off-course.html?_r=3

    This opinion piece has it about right. Solar and wind power is a distraction.

    The prime movers of improving condition of the atmosphere GW continue to be:

    1. Efficiency gains

    2. Natural gas fuel

    3. Nuclear

    4. Hydro

    5. Biofuels and biomass

    6. Off loading grid power to end use of natural gas. Example replacing your electric hot water with N,G.. Same for space heating, cooking, and clothes drying.

    This condition or list will not change within foreseeable future.

    [link]      
    • By Forrest on July 23, 2016 at 6:17 am

      For the yet to be determined future, conventional nuclear utilized as water boiler energy for steam turbine power will lose market share. The regulations industry probably will continue to hammer/undermine the industry. The inflexible production schedule, lack of proper revenue for carbon free power, and low value of capacity will continue to make nuclear future less stable. Low natural gas prices and attributes of the N.G. power plant are the main competition. Power generators are hoping to retain the established nuclear power production as long as possible and that retirement of these power plants will coincide with solving power storage problems of solar and wind. To that endeavor, all roads appear to converge on hydrogen. The energy source is gaining ground as the strongest link to hold our energy systems together. Transportation, believes the fuel has the brightest future. Renewable power proponents claim that hydrogen will solve the energy storage problem. Nuclear and coal may have a play.

      If ever our energy economy took such a path, the grid would loose importance given the ease of generating power from fuel cell. Easier to pipe energy than wire it. Pipeline and gas storage is much easier to balance demand/load.

      I read that drone industry is attracted to this energy storage solution per the lightweight intense power storage. If that becomes a reality, one could see the entire aircraft and spacecraft industry attracted to the solution as well. Military probably the last frontier. Not much competition to the hydrogen horizon.

      [link]      
    • By BasM on July 23, 2016 at 7:35 am

      That opinion piece is filled with faults and faulty suggestions. Just a few:

      Germany may also drop a timetable to end coal-fired generation..
      Germany has a timetable to end all nuclear (before 2023), but never had a timetable to end coal.
      There is only an agreed timetable (with the unions in 2008) to end the subsidies for the underground coal mines in 2018. Though the unions now want to postpone that for a few years, government will not agree. Also because such delay violates the EU rules and will bring German government to the EU court which will impose huge fines.

      In Germany, … carbon emissions are rising, …
      Yes, but not due to electricity. In 2010 fossil fuel produced 361TWh (=57%), in 2015 fossil fuels produced 338TWh (=52%). And those TWh were produced by more efficient power plants (new lignite plants are 33% more efficient (44% vs 33% for the old plants).

      The fear mongering at the end “What if the world eventually discovers that renewables can’t do the job alone?” is ridiculous considering that countries such as Denmark have detailed plans about how they will become 100% renewable regarding electricity in 2040 and regarding all energy in 2050.

      Btw.
      It’s remarkable that you forget to mention renewable in your list, while last year new renewable generation surpassed that of nuclear greatly.

      [link]      
      • By Forrest on July 23, 2016 at 6:58 pm

        My list includes renewable. Hydro, biofuel, biomass. All three are solar powered.

        Germany touted replacing dirty coal with renewable. That was the objective and priority. Not so much now per their experience with wind and solar. I’m sure you’re union capitulation are correct.

        The timetable reference is academic. Meaning whether the reference is accurate upon semantics is not important to accurate communication. Germany’s actions are currently to avoid closing the coal plants per the demands of renewable energy. Coal miners are a consideration upon politics, but the truth is solar and wind power generation have a very weak solution. Germany’s action bodes poorly for renewable energy. IOWs your making excuses. We have read many articles within U.S. of Germany’s reliance on coal and the poor decisions they made to rashly claim the power generation of coal is of no value since they invested heavily with wind and solar. Your rationale is not based on realism. IOWs we know better.

        Your EU agreements are archaic and inflexible. Not very efficient to have that much central control, reference the mining labor union influence upon intelligent decision making. This is the stuff politicians balance. Do you really want politicians to control your destiny?

        I agree with your position “What if the world eventually discovers that renewable’s can’t do the job alone?” comment. Citizen’s of every country would never allow gov’t to put them in that position.

        The article hits the root problem of solar and wind power generation. Unless, we have cheap and powerful power storage the energy source is a distraction. Their is no cheap and powerful energy storage upon the horizon. So, we should not boast or inflate the solar and wind capabilities. Nuclear and the rest is much more capable in the near term. Much work needed for wind and solar solution, much of it not yet invented or may never be. You post as if it’s just a problem of stamping out multitudes of solar panels and wind turbines. I’m sure that isn’t the case.

        [link]      
        • By BasM on July 24, 2016 at 3:51 am

          The first Energiewende law is the result of a ~20yrs long national debate about the viability to move all nuclear (and other big PP’s) out and replace them by small renewable owned by citizens & farmers.

          In 2000 the 50years(!) Energiewende plan was agreed (law in 2001). Its main targets in order of priority:

          1. All nuclear out in 2022
          11 of the 19 NPP’s are closed. The others will be closed according to the scheme.

          2. Democratize electricity generation
          Hence ~50% of renewable generation is in the hands of citizens, farmers, etc.

          3. 80% renewable electricity in 2050.
          So a transition speed of ~1.5%/a.

          4. Insignificant costs in order to keep support of the population. In 2001 support was ~55%, now it’s ~90%.

          Other reasons for the 50yrs scenario:
          - let’s create some mass-market, so mass production will create major costs decreases.
          - it takes time to develop low cost wind, solar and storage.

          Btw.
          They are now already at 33% renewable. In past 5 years the progress was 3%/a, so the speed can be lowered. Also avoiding that the costs become significant.

          5. Less GHG
          Kyoto: -20% in 2020 compared to 1990.
          Germany is at -27% now, and targets -40% in 2020.
          IMO they will reach -35% in 2020. Still far better than any other major country. E.g. USA -5%? UK -15%?
          ___
          Coal & lignite only played a role in US & UK literature about Germany. Recently the Greenpeace started with coal as all nuclear out is secure. Little support in Germany.

          Note that their new plants at the lignite mines burn like a gas plant, producing not much more CO2/KWh than gas. They have an efficiency of 44%*). Only top gas plants reach >55%. So the difference is not big… But coal & lignite don’t have the leakages that gas in USA have which are extremely bad for the climate…

          *) Due to the low flame temperatures and rich oxygen environment in the furnace, they hardly emit any toxics.
          It’s interesting to read more about the circulating fluidized bed technology they use.

          [link]      
          • By Forrest on July 24, 2016 at 7:27 am

            Oh, I don’t mind coal as the fuel has plenty of attributes as you post. One important one is the fuel storage and the ease to rely on foundation cost. The fluidized bed combustion is very clean and the scubber technology continues to improve. Modern coal plants don’t have mercury emissions either. Sulfur and particulates just about gone. The CO2 emissions can be reduced, but not eliminated. Europe utilize biomass to lower emissions as well.

            This is what we refer to as “Clean Coal” technology that can power combined cycle power generation. However, natural gas as Robert Rapier states, produces much less CO2 due to the H2 element within the fuel. Currently, the U.S. has ample supplies of natural gas. Coal just can’t compete upon new construction. The same for nuclear. But, I would argue, best to continue the construction, design, and engineering development of these power supplies as the future needs are yet to be determined. Best to have diverse energy supply, backups, base load, and more capacity within the grid. Better to keep these two industries functioning and directed to the need to supply some of the world with a better class of equipment to minimize environmental harm and improve safety. I think nuclear will always be a powerful energy source and given the worlds supply of coal the same for that fuel.

            “Democratize electricity generation”. What the heck is that? That is a topic for another discussion. Societal organization theory is a bit beyond practical solutions for power. So, if that be the German’s desire, well they are apparently driving the decision making process per emotions.

            The track record of U.S. for lower CO2 emissions is very impressive and not because of the solar and wind. My utility has renewable power at 10% and that is about average. Natural gas has done the heavy lifting for reductions of CO2. Nuclear has a tremendous track record of carbon free power generation and has done so for decades. We get much hydro power from Canada another big win. Our Western states have tremendous hydro and geothermal power some of the worlds best. We are the number one producer of biofuel as well.

            The Germans are making the mistake of declaring the solution before knowing the problem. They should employ like the U.S. an open market of ideas, solutions, installations, and feed back. Meaning gov’t is a horrible device for making superior decisions. They operate on politics, such as the “Democratize electricity generation” lure. I do talk to my little cooperative power supplier. They have a very good handle on the problem. They do operate, test, and evaluate wind and solar power generation. As far as Michigan’s conditions they are not impressed with the energy source as a major replacement.

            I do calculate solar power cost and convenience regularly for home and RV utilization. If ever one could make the case for solar it would be RV conditions of going off grid. It isn’t practical nor cost effective. I can do much more with small efficient generator, balancing load, and utilize automotive charging while touring.

            [link]      
            • By BasM on July 24, 2016 at 9:23 am

              Democratize … What the heck is that?
              In the seventies & eighties, the big utilities started new NPP’s, etc against the public opinion and major demonstrations (100,000 people! Don’t understand how you can act against the wish of your customers).

              Those NPP’s cause trouble (significant health and genetic damage to people around NPP’s and nuclear waste sites) and financial losses as they have to be closed prematurely.
              So the Germans/Greens want to avoid any repeat.
              Democratizing electricity is effective to succeed.

              Germans are making the mistake of declaring the solution before knowing the problem. They should employ like the U.S. an open market of ideas, solutions, installations, and feed back.
              Don’t think so. They had >10years long heavy debate in the nineties, in which numerous ideas were launched and researched by (often international) top consultancy firms.

              They are still open for ideas to improve the situation.
              Every 2-4years they adapt the Energiewende scenario. Only the major targets (all nuclear out, etc) are not discussed as that ends your political life (FDP suggested to postpone ‘all nuclear out’ a few years. Next electrons they went from 17% to 4%…).

              Last revision the FiT scheme was changed in order to:
              - to avoid over-installation in case of fast price decrease of renewable.
              - decrease installation rate of biomass/-gas from ~1GW down to 100MW (too expensive)
              - adapt the corridor for new solar (2.5GW/a) and onshore Wind (2.5GW/a). Offshore got special scheme (auctions).

              They also installed a decreasing subsidy scheme for battery investments for households that have rooftop solar.50%. The idea is that the mass market created will bring such price decreases that no subsidy is needed in 2020 and every body will also install a battery (hence the integrated inverter-battery offers of SMA).

              At next revision I expect that they will at least double the solar target for the Energiewende. So it will become 104GW (av. consumption level in Germany is 70GW). They are now at 40GW solar.
              The 52GW target was set when solar did cost ~60cent/KWh, while it will become <6cent/Kwh!.

              [link]      
            • By Forrest on July 24, 2016 at 3:36 pm

              Your “Democratize” is a buzz word to infer the people are now in charge and not business that goes against the peoples will.

              I doubt that very much. Something is afoul within that thinking. In reality the people still have no power, especially since the elites have pulled the decision making away per loss of freedom within open markets. The Greens have decided this is to important and they must impose their will. The consumers opinion is of no concern, because the elites have studied and conferred with each other on best approach. They merely need to confuse the public to accept their solution.

              A business that makes a profit based upon meeting the needs and desires of consumer is awarded with more market share. Double that incentive if they must compete with another supplier. These businesses have a very keen understanding upon investments that have a payback. These folks have careers at stake and earn a living being extra capable. Compare that motivation to the elites or greens sitting at some government funded job. They have little to risk and promoted by their politics. Their actions more akin to a labor union in which they just work to spend more of other peoples’ money.

              No one should put much faith in approximations, assumptions, and simulations to determine the best course of action. Especially for long term concerns. The analysis will always be fraught with poor judgement and lack of knowledge. Better, to work within the confines of the power industry sector and the rest of industry that have inherent self interests to coordinate effort and complement efforts. Best to share and communicate success and failures and make R&D investments to provide better results. In other words no one can claim solar or wind is the end all to power production.

              The U.S. has many pilot projects and has a wide array of promising developing technology. This is all in effort to supply solutions to a wide diverse needs. We plan to take the best ideas and gradually implement and measure success. Every decade will bring forth an amazing array of better ideas, solutions, equipment, software, inventions, etc that all work to change the math. It’s dynamic problem that needs to migrate into low cost and better solutions for the customer needs. I would bet that all of the energy sources will play into this.

              The Greens are attempting to fear monger and scare the general public to their solutions. Left politics are going along for the ride in hope of gaining votes. The truth is the first victim within such politics and GW is riddled with hyperbole from those that have something to gain or game. Adapting the Energiewende solution will probably will make mess of it. You don’t need a grand scheme central program to minimize flexibility of good decision making of the market. Most of the people out their are just as smart as those with a government pay stub.

              [link]      
Register or log in now to save your comments and get priority moderation!