tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10911751.post115711745069501320..comments2024-03-07T02:00:01.582-05:00Comments on NEI Nuclear Notes: California Passes Law To Curb Greenhouse GasesUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10911751.post-1169677912801267392007-01-24T17:31:00.000-05:002007-01-24T17:31:00.000-05:00Isn't it just like people to throw personal insult...Isn't it just like people to throw personal insults at others when they really don't have the real information.<BR/><BR/>I challenge anyone out there to give me the calculations for storing and completely isolating from the environment both high-level and low-level radioactive waste for at least the half-life of plutonium; 250,000 years. AND I want to see the actual cost figures as well as the energy usage figures of storing the waste for that amount of time.<BR/><BR/>One other thing - what is the morality of using a technology that for every day of power production leaves an extremely long-lived and dangerous poison for the next over 800 generations to have to deal with.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10911751.post-1157556000029705662006-09-06T11:20:00.000-04:002006-09-06T11:20:00.000-04:00Perhaps the California Greens are thinking what Ph...Perhaps the California Greens are thinking what Phil Huckleberry and the Illinois Greens are thinking: <A HREF="http://neinuclearnotes.blogspot.com/2005/04/notes-on-anti-nuclear-press-conference.html" REL="nofollow">growing and burning hemp</A>. All problems solved. Who needs nukes?<BR/><BR/>"We are now armed with <B><A HREF="http://giantdoobie.com/" REL="nofollow">mighty joint!</A></B>"Brian Mayshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13962229896535398120noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10911751.post-1157492664459357782006-09-05T17:44:00.000-04:002006-09-05T17:44:00.000-04:00First off, I have to ask where the statement "coal...First off, I have to ask where the statement "coal is responsible for 20% of California's electricity" comes from? I've heard it before, and the state data from http://www.eia.doe.gov doesn't support it.<BR/><BR/>Regardless of where that comes from (or even if somebody made it up), it doesn't take anything away from critique of California's energy "solutions."<BR/><BR/>While in California earlier this year conducting a workshop at Diablo Canyon, I spoke to several of the "environmentalists" at an NRC meeting. They claim that California's future electrical needs can be met by conservation. <BR/>That's like saying I can meet my daily nutrtional needs through dieting.<BR/><BR/>As for renewables, the state fares extremely well with 24% of their electrical needs being generated by wind, solar, hydro, and biomass. However, this still leaves 62% of the state's electricity being generated by fossil and nuclear.<BR/><BR/>Also, according to the Energy Information Administration, roughly half of the state's energy consumption is in the form of petroleum used for transportation. If just 20% of this demand is replaced by electrical sources, then this would translate into approximately 20% increase in electrical supply needs. Even if California experiences zero growth (which might just be a realistic scenario), the expectation that electrical demands will stay stable doesn't make good sense.<BR/><BR/>And further, if nuclear and fossil generation are unacceptable to Californians, exactly how do they propose to seriously reduce their current fossil fuel dependency AND meet the inevitable increases in state energy demands? Could an informed Californian please help us understand this?Michael Stuarthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02122241511458626463noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10911751.post-1157224339933733642006-09-02T15:12:00.000-04:002006-09-02T15:12:00.000-04:00As with the demand for zero-emission (at the tailp...As with the demand for zero-emission (at the tailpipe, the idjits) vehicles that California legislators came up with, you'll see this roll backwards once people realize what the real consequences are.Robhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18015219452269186971noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10911751.post-1157201352113608582006-09-02T08:49:00.000-04:002006-09-02T08:49:00.000-04:00Make that no sensible solutions.Until you can tell...Make that no <I>sensible</I> solutions.<BR/><BR/>Until you can tell me where the electricity is going to come from, you haven't provided a solution.<BR/><BR/>If you say rely on more and more natural gas -- well -- then tell me where California will build a LNG terminal to get the stuff. Besides, natural gas still produces those pesky greenhouse gases. No real solution there.<BR/><BR/>By the way, PG&E has a nuclear plant which accounts for almost a third of their generation portfolio. Add in their hydro generation and the result is that fossil fuels account for only about 5% of their electricity. Wow, man ... it's no wonder that PG&E's CEO backs that plan. It's good business for them. It's not necessarily good for California's rate payers, however.Brian Mayshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13962229896535398120noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10911751.post-1157196265822261172006-09-02T07:24:00.000-04:002006-09-02T07:24:00.000-04:00Too little, too late.I mean 1990 levels in 2020? W...Too little, too late.<BR/><BR/>I mean 1990 levels in 2020? What are they smoking?! It should be 1920 levels in 2020!<BR/><BR/>Look, the average American emits 19 tons of CO2 per year. The average Frenchman or Swede emits 6 tons per year.<BR/><BR/>Last time I checked, none of those countries had lost all their heavy industry. As a matter of fact, they have the cheapest power in Europe.<BR/><BR/>This just might have something to do with them having 1000 MW nuclear power per 1 million citizens.<BR/><BR/>As long as the Californians refuse to build nukes, they really should build lots of offshore wind. Sure it's a bit expensive due to the massive capital costs, but they can be significantly slashed by implementing state loan guaranties.<BR/><BR/>And remember: no power is more expensive than <I>no power.</I>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10911751.post-1157141190944312192006-09-01T16:06:00.000-04:002006-09-01T16:06:00.000-04:00No solutions, did you say?In the business section ...No solutions, did you say?<BR/><BR/>In the business section of today’s New York Times, reporting on the California plan, I read: <BR/><BR/>“Given a lack of national policy toward global warming, local and state authorities are increasingly taking the matter into their own hands … California has a long tradition of leading the way in environmental regulations that in time are adopted by other states and cities across the country. The federal Clean Air Act of 1970, for example, originated in efforts starting in the 1960’s to limit smog …”<BR/><BR/>It sounds to me like the no solutions crowd is the one in Washington.<BR/><BR/>The article also reports that the CEO of PG&E, the parent of one of the nation’s largest utilities, supported the plan because of the overwhelming evidence that greenhouse gases are disrupting the environment. No doubt he is “uninformed on energy matters”.<BR/><BR/>Wow, man.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10911751.post-1157137517927094722006-09-01T15:05:00.000-04:002006-09-01T15:05:00.000-04:00"Wow, man ... like ... lets like turn this whole s..."Wow, man ... like ... lets like turn this whole state into one big commune, man ... We don't need electricity. We can <A HREF="http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fsb/fsb_archive/2006/06/01/8378585/" REL="nofollow">make hammocks and sell tofu</A>, man."<BR/><BR/>What are they smoking over there in California?Brian Mayshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13962229896535398120noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10911751.post-1157125765550539622006-09-01T11:49:00.000-04:002006-09-01T11:49:00.000-04:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Brian Mayshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13962229896535398120noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10911751.post-1157122277683570602006-09-01T10:51:00.000-04:002006-09-01T10:51:00.000-04:00This is hilarious, is it not? I mean it's like th...This is hilarious, is it not? I mean it's like the "no solutions" crowd is in charge here in the golden state. So let's see, no coal, no nukes, no LNG. You forgot to mention dams are being torn down because of environmental concerns. I guess we will be calling the bluff of the environmental lobbies on solar and wind power. I'm sure it all sounds wonderful to the majority of people who are uninformed on energy matters. But just wait until the bills for renewable electricity start to roll in, and speaking of rolling, just wait until the rolling blackouts start, just wait until there are off-peak power shortages because the sun isn't shining. I'm afraid it will have to get bad before people wake up to the reality and throw the bums out. This is going to backfire badly on the so-called greens, who haven't done their homework on renewables.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com