You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #77: Definitely some dreaming going on here. There are 439 operating [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU
NNadir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-24-05 09:19 PM
Response to Reply #66
77. Definitely some dreaming going on here. There are 439 operating
nuclear plants on the planet, 25 under construction and 37 planned, and 74 proposed.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/reactors.htm

The majority of the reactors shut down in the last 5 years have been British Magnox reactors built in the early 1950s. These small reactors operated for over 40 years without a single loss of life, in spite of being of primitive design. They reached the end of their design life (and they were, BTW, poorly designed by modern standards). They were not abandoned because of the development of a "locally controllable efficient" power industry. In fact, no such industry exists, and the claim that we should place our faith during very desperate energy circumstances in a time of cataclysmic climate change is about as irresponsible as one can be.

Now, when this dream stuff, what you call "locally controllable efficient (ha, ha, ha, ha, ha)" industry is producing 1/100th of the power of the nuclear power, which in spite the very, very, very, very, very, very dubious claim that "private interests have turned away" from the nuclear industry, maybe then someone can come here and express fantasies about what such an industry can do.

The fact is that this industry you want us to buy into, and great risk to our families health and well being, mostly does not exist except where it is financed by extremely wealthy and myopic individuals or by massive government subsidy.

In spite of there being not one new nuclear reactor in the United States, the total share of nuclear generated power in this country has been rising yearly (due to improved operations), this in spite of a massively stupid and poorly educated population.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/nuc_generatio...

This capacity totaled in 2002 (which was a record year) 780,064,087 kilowatt hours. This was nearly three times the output of the industry back in 1983, when the last reactor came on line. Hardly an abandoned industry I think.

The fact is that in countries where there are large numbers of scientifically educated persons (that would be China and India) the expansion of nuclear industry is taking place at break neck speed. In countries where a college education consists of taking some marketing and business classes along with some social science electives (that would be the United States) energy problems are being approached with a mixture of extreme violence and fantasy. Guess which of these countries have futures and guess which will face the consequences of their poor educations and violence?

If I am wrong about this, maybe you will feel free to show me where this claimed "locally controlled" industry is sustainably operating. I defy you to show me 36,500 Megawatts of such capacity, which 10% of the output of the nuclear industry world wide.

Show me where this alleged "locally controlled" industry has anything like the 20,000 Megawatts of new nuclear capacity under construction.

Show me where this alleged "locally controlled" industry has an appreciable fraction of the 40,000 Megawatts of new nuclear capacity planned.

Show me where this alleged "locally controlled" industry has an appreciable fraction of the 60,000 Megawatts of new nuclear capacity proposed.

You can't? I didn't think so.

Oh, BTW, maybe you would like to show us one person, anywhere on the planet who "glows in the dark," as the result of nuclear operations. Just one. Anywhere. On earth. At any time. Ever.

You can't? I didn't think so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
  -So, how much stock do you put in the most "pessimistic" peak oil theories? Harvey Korman  Jan-18-05 07:39 PM   #0 
  - Dr Ken Defeyes who accurately called the shortage of the 70's  nothingshocksmeanymore   Jan-18-05 07:48 PM   #1 
  - Thanks for pointing out an important clarification.  Harvey Korman   Jan-18-05 07:56 PM   #4 
  - There was a really great article in The American Prospect  nothingshocksmeanymore   Jan-18-05 08:04 PM   #7 
  - I think it was M. King Hubbert who made the prediction . . .  hatrack   Jan-18-05 08:40 PM   #10 
     - I bow to your expertise  nothingshocksmeanymore   Jan-18-05 09:16 PM   #17 
     - I don't know if reading a lot constitutes "expertise" . . .  hatrack   Jan-18-05 09:23 PM   #18 
        - If it weren't for your persistence, I'd know a hell of a lot less  nothingshocksmeanymore   Jan-18-05 09:26 PM   #19 
     - I heard that Valerie Plame was really deep undercover with an ear to the  bunny planet   Jan-24-05 04:00 PM   #69 
        - No, Bush does NOT read policy papers.  happyslug   Jan-26-05 07:05 PM   #101 
  - Peak oil will occur in 2006 (for conventional oil)  BlueEyedSon   Jan-18-05 07:50 PM   #2 
  - Thanks for the group link.  Harvey Korman   Jan-18-05 07:58 PM   #5 
  - crop-growing arrangements?  SlavesandBulldozers   Jan-18-05 07:51 PM   #3 
  - I haven't seen them espoused here.  Harvey Korman   Jan-18-05 08:01 PM   #6 
  - According to "Crossing the Rubicon" we've only got 35 more years  EVDebs   Jan-18-05 08:19 PM   #8 
  - We have lots of oil in the world  Maple   Jan-18-05 08:34 PM   #9 
  - I understand that we're not talking about exhaustion of supply.  Harvey Korman   Jan-18-05 09:04 PM   #13 
  - the ability to switch to another 'renewable' energy source would involve  bunny planet   Jan-24-05 04:26 PM   #70 
  - Not Much  AndyTiedye   Jan-18-05 08:40 PM   #11 
  - "...only makes it easier for the PNACers to justify their crusade."  Harvey Korman   Jan-18-05 09:10 PM   #15 
  - When supply outstrips demand-  Old and In the Way   Jan-18-05 08:46 PM   #12 
  - Canada...  chrisbur   Jan-18-05 09:07 PM   #14 
  - Hah! You're not, I read that too...oil sands. n/t  Harvey Korman   Jan-18-05 09:11 PM   #16 
  - It's not just expensive financially - it's expensive thermodynamically  hatrack   Jan-18-05 09:31 PM   #20 
  - So...essentially it's a house of cards--  Harvey Korman   Jan-18-05 09:51 PM   # 
  - Hmm. Like I said, ass talking.  chrisbur   Jan-18-05 09:51 PM   #22 
  - you're right but it is very sad  amazona   Jan-18-05 10:04 PM   #24 
  - None  RafterMan   Jan-18-05 09:34 PM   #21 
  - I put about zero stock in it  amazona   Jan-18-05 10:01 PM   #23 
  - Who needs to be "pessimistic"? Look what has ALREADY happened:  BlueEyedSon   Jan-19-05 06:23 AM   #25 
  - I myself am looking forward to the twenty hour work week.  hunter   Jan-19-05 02:17 PM   #26 
  - You raise some good points...  Harvey Korman   Jan-19-05 02:56 PM   #27 
  - Or Brin's "The Postman"  loindelrio   Jan-19-05 08:12 PM   #28 
  - Peak Oil Will Signal The End Of Exponential Growth In Energy Supplies  loindelrio   Jan-19-05 08:59 PM   #29 
  - "...the U.S. could manage the Powerdown with a minimum of trauma"  Harvey Korman   Jan-20-05 12:03 AM   #30 
  - I Guess It Depends On One's Definition Of 'Minimum of Trauma'  loindelrio   Jan-20-05 10:56 PM   #40 
  - no powerdown is needed  rfkrfk   Jan-20-05 02:12 AM   #31 
  - Right, coal is an inexhaustible resource and non-polluting too.  BlueEyedSon   Jan-20-05 08:42 AM   #32 
  - Not exactly  rfkrfk   Jan-21-05 12:34 AM   #43 
  - Methanol is a terrible fuel for general use.  hunter   Jan-20-05 12:04 PM   #33 
  - "...a crack addict digging through the shag carpet"  Harvey Korman   Jan-20-05 03:15 PM   #37 
  - LOL your crack addict comparison. so true. If it wasn't so sad and scary  bunny planet   Jan-24-05 08:00 PM   #74 
  - That IS one beautiful image about the crack addict. On DME,  NNadir   Jan-27-05 09:00 PM   #106 
  - I Do Not See How This Can Keep Up With The Rate Of Oil Depletion  loindelrio   Jan-20-05 10:37 PM   #39 
  - EROEI - Energy Return on Energy Investment  hunter   Jan-21-05 01:48 AM   #44 
  - you must be talking about that 'clean-coal' technology  bunny planet   Jan-24-05 07:54 PM   #73 
     - in most countries, 'clean' won't be an issue  rfkrfk   Jan-27-05 06:40 AM   #103 
  - The problem is not only the end of cheap oil, it is that coupled with the  bunny planet   Jan-24-05 07:48 PM   #71 
  - Won't the military industrial complex be running on empty soon too.  bunny planet   Jan-24-05 07:52 PM   #72 
  - The issue is who do you want to believe.  happyslug   Jan-20-05 12:50 PM   #34 
  - How much is your house worth?  hunter   Jan-20-05 01:35 PM   #35 
  - I agree, that is why I lean to the 2004 date.  happyslug   Jan-20-05 02:13 PM   #36 
  - Thanks for the summary HappySlug  Nihil   Jan-21-05 05:22 AM   #45 
  - our civilization  zonmoy   Jan-20-05 04:18 PM   #38 
  - Speaking of cold fusion...  Harvey Korman   Jan-20-05 11:26 PM   #41 
     - Harvey -- I'm Posting The Book Forward By Arthur C. Clark  Tace   Jan-21-05 12:18 AM   #42 
  - The problem is can the world environmentally survive oil's replacement.  NNadir   Jan-21-05 06:45 AM   #46 
  - I've seen other estimates of nuclear fuel availability  RafterMan   Jan-21-05 10:22 AM   #47 
     - Yes, but...  Harvey Korman   Jan-21-05 03:25 PM   #48 
     - Not so  RafterMan   Jan-21-05 08:39 PM   #49 
        - I didn't mean to imply...  Harvey Korman   Jan-21-05 09:43 PM   #51 
        - According to RAW Bush supports Nuclear Power...  sorechasm   Jan-22-05 10:20 AM   #52 
           - Bush does NOT support nuclear power.  NNadir   Jan-25-05 09:58 PM   #84 
        - Maybe somewhere else. Not here.  NNadir   Jan-23-05 09:16 PM   #59 
           - Heh  RafterMan   Jan-23-05 11:00 PM   #63 
           - "The Right Spent Decades Ignoring . . . The Left Rejects Any Role . .. "  loindelrio   Jan-29-05 12:57 PM   #114 
              - I really have had a hard time understanding leftist disdain for nuclear  NNadir   Jan-29-05 04:47 PM   #115 
                 - Many promoters of Nuclear Power in the 70's were the worst sort of LIARS.  hunter   Jan-29-05 11:42 PM   #116 
                    - This was certainly true in some cases.  NNadir   Jan-30-05 07:25 AM   #117 
     - The article you link to is really old information.  GumboYaYa   Jan-25-05 03:06 PM   #80 
        - Nope  RafterMan   Jan-26-05 01:35 AM   #94 
           - I admit that I do not know much about Uranium 235 versus 238  GumboYaYa   Jan-26-05 09:29 AM   #95 
           - Sure  RafterMan   Jan-26-05 11:11 AM   #97 
              - I hear what you are saying from a technological and scientific  GumboYaYa   Jan-26-05 11:46 AM   #98 
           - Agreeing that nuclear is best, then let's calculate it the energy value  NNadir   Jan-26-05 11:06 AM   #96 
              - Even if Cohen is off by a factor of 10,000  RafterMan   Jan-26-05 12:46 PM   #99 
                 - Well in any case, as you've correctly noted, fuel, is not the problem.  NNadir   Jan-26-05 02:55 PM   #100 
  - Not much....  ChemEng   Jan-21-05 08:48 PM   #50 
  - I'm fairly pessimistic.  brokensymmetry   Jan-22-05 11:19 PM   #53 
  - Some MAJOR considerations  Pigwidgeon   Jan-23-05 06:40 AM   #54 
  - Hold on there  RafterMan   Jan-23-05 12:44 PM   #55 
     - As long as we have energy...  brokensymmetry   Jan-23-05 03:25 PM   #56 
        - NUKE PLANTS?  BeFree   Jan-23-05 04:25 PM   #57 
           - Actually, I agree with you.  brokensymmetry   Jan-23-05 08:14 PM   #58 
           - Uranium from sea water  RafterMan   Jan-23-05 10:32 PM   #62 
              - Forgot to add  RafterMan   Jan-27-05 05:56 AM   #102 
           - As the United States Circles the Drain...  hunter   Jan-23-05 09:48 PM   #60 
           - For What We Are Spending On Iraq/Defense, We Could Get A Good Head Start  loindelrio   Jan-23-05 11:51 PM   #64 
           - Nuclear plants are a fantasy?  RafterMan   Jan-23-05 09:53 PM   #61 
              - It's fantasy because French Electrons are girly-men...  hunter   Jan-24-05 03:41 AM   #65 
                 - I had a dream like that  BeFree   Jan-24-05 08:55 AM   #66 
                 - "Decentralized, locally controllable,  RafterMan   Jan-24-05 09:13 AM   #67 
                 - Such as?  BeFree   Jan-24-05 09:58 AM   #68 
                    - I just read today about a town in NJ, Tom's River that has converted all  bunny planet   Jan-24-05 08:33 PM   #76 
                    - Sounds wonderful for powering a suburb  NickB79   Jan-25-05 05:09 PM   #81 
                 - Definitely some dreaming going on here. There are 439 operating  NNadir   Jan-24-05 09:19 PM   #77 
                    - Gee, Nadir  BeFree   Jan-25-05 07:57 AM   #78 
                    - If I may  NickB79   Jan-25-05 05:13 PM   #82 
                    - Cool. Call me a "fart smeller." (Mods: Please do not remove.)  NNadir   Jan-25-05 09:27 PM   #83 
                       - Good lord man  BeFree   Jan-25-05 10:51 PM   #85 
                          - I have no sense of humor when it comes to destroying the future in  NNadir   Jan-25-05 11:17 PM   #86 
                          - Hey don't take it so hard  BeFree   Jan-25-05 11:35 PM   #88 
                             - Yet in the first world  RafterMan   Jan-26-05 12:51 AM   #92 
                          - Yep, we'll get along just fine without nukes 50-75 yrs from now  NickB79   Jan-26-05 12:42 AM   #91 
                    - God damn, that's scary  BeFree   Jan-25-05 11:18 PM   #87 
                       - Sorry, but your fantasies and your "I'll bets" are not good enough.  NNadir   Jan-25-05 11:52 PM   #89 
                          - Why aren't you working for the DOE?  BeFree   Jan-26-05 12:03 AM   #90 
                             - Most of them know the "solution" on which they are working is political  NNadir   Jan-26-05 12:54 AM   #93 
                 - Funny stuff. Thanks for the laugh, this thread was a downer until you came  bunny planet   Jan-24-05 08:29 PM   #75 
                    - Thanks.  hunter   Jan-25-05 01:53 PM   #79 
                       - Excellent post  Nihil   Jan-27-05 07:22 AM   #104 
                       - The worst kind of stupid, the evil, greedy and dangerous kind.  bunny planet   Jan-27-05 11:10 AM   #105 
  - "Oil, Oil, Everywhere..." article in the Wall Street Journal  ROH   Jan-27-05 10:46 PM   #107 
  - The Oil Matrix  Pigwidgeon   Jan-28-05 03:26 AM   #108 
  - Here is a reference to the Wall Street Journal Article:  ROH   Jan-28-05 09:30 AM   #109 
     - The United States alone consumes over 20 million barrels oil per day...  hunter   Jan-28-05 11:33 AM   #110 
     - What's really happening here?  Pigwidgeon   Jan-28-05 06:08 PM   #112 
        - Thank you for the replies  ROH   Jan-29-05 12:29 AM   #113 
           - It's a question for anyone (particularly NNadir) who can answer, please...  ROH   Jan-30-05 10:28 AM   #118 
              - I am not an expert on tar sands. The question of tar sands is best  NNadir   Jan-30-05 11:18 AM   #119 
                 - My Understanding of the Situation  ROH   Jan-30-05 04:48 PM   #120 
                    - Tar Sands Do Not Appear To Be A Viable Energy Source  loindelrio   Jan-30-05 05:49 PM   #121 
                    - Thank you for your comments...  ROH   Jan-30-05 09:25 PM   #123 
                       - It Depends On Your Definition Of Required Total Amounts  loindelrio   Jan-31-05 03:57 PM   #126 
                          - Switchgrass seems like a very useful biomass source.  ROH   Jan-31-05 05:00 PM   #127 
                          - I Would Anticipate Switchgrass Would Be Grown On The High Plains  loindelrio   Jan-31-05 05:57 PM   #128 
                          - I regard biofuels as palliative at the most extreme best.  NNadir   Jan-31-05 09:13 PM   #129 
                    - This presentation by fusion researchers show why fusion is unworkable  NNadir   Jan-30-05 07:01 PM   #122 
                       - Thank you for your reply and the link to the presentation regarding fusion  ROH   Jan-30-05 09:32 PM   #124 
                       - Your comments on ITER, please?  ROH   Feb-01-05 08:42 PM   #130 
                          - I generally support all non fossil energy research but  NNadir   Feb-02-05 05:44 AM   #131 
                             - The deadly Time Lag  Pigwidgeon   Feb-04-05 10:21 AM   #134 
                                - There are several issues here, economic, technical, and environmental.  NNadir   Feb-05-05 12:01 AM   #136 
  - Journalists Do Not Understand The Fact That Energy Cannot Be Created  loindelrio   Jan-28-05 02:36 PM   #111 
     - Yes, I think their claim was...  ROH   Jan-30-05 09:49 PM   #125 
     - Has anyone considered whether thermal depolymerization (TDP)  amandabeech   Feb-04-05 10:54 PM   #135 
  - Royal Dutch Shell (RD) becomes one of the biggest oils again  jmcgowanjm   Feb-03-05 08:22 PM   #132 
     - Oops-in post above 168 days should read 16.8 days-thanx  jmcgowanjm   Feb-04-05 08:40 AM   #133 
 

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC