tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10911751.post7166041009113976697..comments2024-03-07T02:00:01.582-05:00Comments on NEI Nuclear Notes: Nuclear Matters in AmericaUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10911751.post-73564856952642001102011-01-21T15:13:50.704-05:002011-01-21T15:13:50.704-05:00You dont find my comments at least entertaining? I...You dont find my comments at least entertaining? I'm crushed.<br /><br />Look, its your blog and if you open it to public comment, you get them, so quit your whining.<br /><br />You can discriminate against commentors with some rule that only posts those in agreement.gunterhttp://www.beyondnuclear.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10911751.post-45446734993948518602011-01-19T00:35:04.907-05:002011-01-19T00:35:04.907-05:00Eh ... Gunter is a troll, pure and simple. I'v...Eh ... Gunter is a troll, pure and simple. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. I stand behind my classification.<br /><br />Of course, he doesn't play fair, Jack. Why would you expect him to? His whole side <em>depends</em> on not playing fair, which is why he posts these hit-and-run comments on the NEI blog, but doesn't let any critical comments get through to <em>Beyond Nuclear</em>'s web presence.<br /><br />Frankly, he just doesn't have the balls to host a web site where just <em>anybody</em> can respond, because poor Paul Gunter is a dinosaur from a bygone era. He is accustomed to the way things used to be, when a sympathetic media with an "if it bleeds, it leads" mentality would provide an uneven playing field in the public forum that he could exploit. Groups like the Clamshell Alliance used to milk this attitude for all that it was worth.<br /><br />Think about it. Which story is the local news crew more likely to cover: "Nothing unexpected happened today at the local nuclear plant" or "What you don't know about radiation from the local nuclear plant <em>might kill you</em> ... details at eleven"?<br /><br />For dinosaurs like Gunter to survive, they need to have complete control of their message -- all effective propagandists who publish lies do. They simply cannot last in an environment like this blog or <a href="http://nuclearfissionary.com" rel="nofollow">your blog</a>, which invites discussion from the public.Brian Mayshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13962229896535398120noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10911751.post-31571663081918118552011-01-18T17:51:28.267-05:002011-01-18T17:51:28.267-05:00@Gunter,
I certainly hope you are enjoying the ab...@Gunter,<br /><br />I certainly hope you are enjoying the ability to comment on NEI Nuclear Notes. You'll find that pronukes do not engage in the unethical practice of deleting comments from blog posts that do not subscribe to our thought process, as antinukes commonly do. I also notice that beyondnuclear.org does not allow comments on their website. Why does your organization find it necessary to silence dissent? Perhaps you might look in the mirror prior to throwing around accuasations of 'disengenuous' next time?<br /><br />To your point about the Uranium fuel cycle - when powered by nuclear reactors, as the George Besse II enrichment plant in France is, the enrichment of Uranium emits zero greenhouse gasses. Furthermore, centrifuge technology advances now mean that Uranium enrichment requires less than 1/50th of the energy that gaseous diffusion required. This means that there is even less energy needed in the Uranium fuel cycle. Kindly check your facts, sir.Jack Gamblehttp://nuclearfissionary.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10911751.post-37160405466231375822011-01-18T16:58:11.850-05:002011-01-18T16:58:11.850-05:00Contrary to gunter's claims, there have been d...Contrary to gunter's claims, there have been dozens of studies of the nuclear fuel cycle greenhouse gas emissions that have overwhelmingly concluded that life cycle emissions from nuclear are comparable to renewable technologies. Most studies range from about 2 to 50 g CO2eq/kWh, with 20 being typical. <br /><br />A handful of outliers attribute higher emissions to nuclear (upwards of 200 g/kWh), and even a cursory review will reveal the unfavorable assumptions necessary to achieve that result. Some examples include assuming a 20 year operating life for new reactors, capacity factors of 70% or less, indefinite reliance on energy-intensive diffusion enrichment, indefinite use of high GHG energy (e.g coal-based electricity) to power the fuel cycle, the use of increasingly poor grade uranium ores (ignoring the cheaper re-enrichment of depleted U and recycling U and Pu from used fuel), or even absurdly attributing the CO2 emissions of the cities in the world burning to the ground in nuclear holocaust. <br /><br />By the same token, those studies that conclude that nuclear is on the very low end (< 10 g/kWh) typically neglect one or more energy inputs to fuel cycle.<br /><br />Although both extremes are unrepresentative of the future of the nuclear fuel cycle, only the former leads to substantially different conclusions about the implications of nuclear energy on greenhouse gas emissions. In other words, the emissions from nuclear are in the same ballpark as other "clean" technologies, whether they are 2, 10, 20, or even 50 g/kWh. It is only through the unrealistic assumptions listed above that one can maintain the fantasy that nuclear energy entails substantial greenhouse gas emissions.Adam Hoffmannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10911751.post-62851054111549805732011-01-15T18:49:30.843-05:002011-01-15T18:49:30.843-05:00Gunter: Windmills use huge amounts of steel and co...Gunter: Windmills use huge amounts of steel and concrete. Far more than nuclear plant construction. 11.5 X the steel and 4.6 X the concrete (Per Peterson, UC Berkeley). That requires a lot of energy. But, in any case if the energy is cheap enough (as it is with nuclear) you can simply use it for mining (electric vehicles or synfuels), which would make it 100% carbon free.SteveK9noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10911751.post-23597107086488722012011-01-15T17:14:53.721-05:002011-01-15T17:14:53.721-05:00Greetings,
It is disingenuous to blame nuclear fo...Greetings,<br /><br />It is disingenuous to blame nuclear for any carbon emissions that come from the fuel cycle. Any that are result from duplicitous anti-nuclear agitators and misguided "environmentalists" who delay or cancel nuclear build that would otherwise displace carbon-based generation that powers the fuel cycle infrastucture. You could run the entire nuclear fuel cycle infrastructure with nuclear generation, using GCEP or AVLIS technology, which is at least an order of magnitude less energy-intensive than GDEP, and have essentially zero carbon emissions. Any that remain are a tiny, tiny amount related to uranium ore extraction, which is dwarfed by the damage caused by natural gas extraction, the fuel of choice to back up "renewable" generation and it's lousy 15-25% capacity factor.<br /><br />So greet that...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10911751.post-55609857515592894952011-01-15T11:32:56.874-05:002011-01-15T11:32:56.874-05:00Greetings,
It is disingenuous to claim that nucle...Greetings,<br /><br />It is disingenuous to claim that nuclear power plants emit "virtually no green house gas emission" in comparison with renewable energy technologies.<br /><br />Its false advertising given that nuclear power plants cannot operate without the uranium fuel cycle which in fact does have significant greenhouse gas emissions. <br /><br />In fact, in considering license extensions for old reactors vs building new renewable energy facilities to replace those nukes, <br />when the fuel cycle emissions for the twenty year extensions are considered versus new construction emissions for, say, the equivalent in replacement wind technology, the already constructed nuclear power plant still emits 5 times more carbon emissions because of the uranium fuel cycle. <br /><br />The truth is wind and solar do not have fuel cycles and therefore are by definition renewable energy. <br /><br />Nukes are not by definition a renewable energy technology. Any effort to twist it otherwise is to put the wolf in sheeps clothing.gunterhttp://www.beyondnuclear.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10911751.post-23952916841586758002011-01-14T22:39:20.837-05:002011-01-14T22:39:20.837-05:00Well, in this case, I wouldn't worry about Med...Well, in this case, I wouldn't worry about Media Matters's sources of information. They seem sound enough. It's how they choose to spin this information that is disturbing.<br /><br />In fact, their argument is misleading to the point of being outright dishonest. It is much like trying to argue that CEO's of Fortune 500 companies are underpaid because the total amount of compensation paid to the CEO's is significantly less than the total amount of wages paid to other employees. The numbers might be correct, but they don't support the conclusion.<br /><br />When it comes to salaries, the numbers are almost meaningless unless they are specified per individual. Similarly, numbers for energy subsidies have little meaning unless they are expressed <em>per unit of generation.</em><br /><br />Media Matters is trying to pull a fast one, so they choose, for example, to show Table 30 from the <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.eia.doe.gov%2Foiaf%2Fservicerpt%2Fsubsidy2%2Fpdf%2Fchap5.pdf" rel="nofollow">Energy Information Administration report</a>, which gives the <em>total</em> 2007 subsidy for each program. Table 35 of the same document, on the other hand, tells a far different story. When the subsidy and support per unit of production (in dollars per MWh) is compared, we find<br /><br />Coal: 0.44 <br> Natural Gas/Oil: 0.25 <br> Nuclear: 1.59 <br> Solar: 24.34 <br> Wind: 23.37<br /><br />Thus, wind and solar received subsidies that are <em>an order of magnitude larger</em> than fossil fuels and nuclear. The only technology that receives more subsides per unit of generation is "refined coal" at $29.81/MWh.<br /><br />Since revenues come from electricity generation, I think that it's safe to say that without federal subsidies for the solar industry, there would be no solar industry. The same goes for wind.<br /><br />On this point, Cavuto is right, and Media Matters is the one peddling misinformation in need of correction.Brian Mayshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13962229896535398120noreply@blogger.com