Reply #8: Personally I'm getting sick and tired of you falsly stating my position and your own.

[kristopher]

posted by Kristopher
We don't need more coal or nuclear anywhere.
http://greenmonk.net/smart-grid-heavy-hitters-jon-welli... /
http://greenmonk.net/smart-grid-heavy-hitters-jon-welli... /
That's the position of FERC Chairman Wellinghoff anyway. It's towards the end of part 2 of the interview.

Posted by txlibdem
We only disagree on which needs to be phased out first
I prefer an energy mix of 30% nuclear to 70% solar, wind, geothermal, tidal and wave power with proper amounts of storage to provide stable 24/7/365 energy output.

You prefer to shut down all the nuclear plants and double up on coal and natural gas and then have zero storage for the renewable energy sources, keeping it as an "also ran" energy source.

Personally, I think my position is the more rational.

Since we currently have a mix of 20% nuclear the disagreement has nothing to do with "which needs to be phased out first". What both Wellinghoff and I are suggesting is that we are wasting money and time by diverting our resources to large scale centralized generation. It is exactly the opposite of your position that we need to INCREASE nuclear capacity by 50%.

Since both wellinghoff and I are completely clear that we endorse NO new Coal and NO new Nuclear your claim that I prefer to "double up on coal and natural gas" makes you either completely incapable of the most basic reasoning or completely incapable of even the most basic honesty; most likely both. We keep building renewables and upgrading the grid - that is the plan. That focus will result in a fairly predictable sequencing of the phase out of both fossils and nuclear.
Either way your effort is clearly one where you are trying to green-wash a polluting technology on behalf of corporate messaging.
To divert funding as you suggest - to support centralized generation - has a serious and negative impact on the speed with which we respond to climate change - let me repeat that, your suggestion has a NEGATIVE IMPACT on how fast we move away from fossil fuels of all kinds. It is pretty hard to reconcile that negative impact with your stated priority of 'the elimination of fossil fuels'.

We need neither nuclear nor coal nor massive amounts of storage - we need to devote all of our resources to deploying renewable energy and upgrading the grid.

Don't believe me? Then listen to the Wellinghoff interview on the video.




Now, where have I heard that messaging strategy of yours before...

Messaging strategy for nuclear power (in their own words)

From the presentation "Understanding Public Opinion: A Key to the Nuclear Renaissance" by Dr. Raul A. Deju in Sept. 2009 at conference on growing the nuclear industry. He is the Chief Operating Officer, EnergySolutions, Inc. which according to Wiki is

... one of the world’s largest processors of low level waste (LLW), and is the largest nuclear waste company in the United States...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EnergySolutions

This part of the presentation comes on the tail end of a dismal assessment of public support for nuclear power and it is a given that by "sensible energy policy" the author is referring to only one that includes nuclear power that will produce the waste his company can profit from. Notice how science is rejected in favor of a strong, unified messaging campaign targeting the public.

...how do we use the results of public opinion to develop a sensible energy policy
• Leadership and unity of message need to be the top priority.
• Acceptable messages need to cover the diversity of group thinking.
• Developing confidence on having a solution to nuclear waste issues and non-proliferation requires leadership messages and social support more than scientific support.

And what are those "acceptable messages"?

Energy Messages
• Nuclear and renewable energy need to be tied into a combined offering.
• Concerns regarding energy security and energy independence can only be solved through the combination of energy efficiency, renewable standards, and nuclear energy.

That bears repeating. The leaders in the nuclear industry very clearly state that better science and solutions to the known problems associated with nuclear power are not the key to developing their industry; but rather, what is needed is a strong unified messaging campaign where nuclear and renewable energy are "tied into a combined offering" with the message that public concerns "regarding energy security and energy independence can only be solved through the combination of energy efficiency, renewable standards, and nuclear energy".

In fact, if we build nuclear power it *actively* discourages BOTH renewable energy policies and development AND energy efficiency policies and efforts because they undermine of the economics of nuclear power.

It is a real clear economic choice folks - if you advocate for nuclear power you are undercutting the efforts to build our renewables, if you support renewable energy and energy efficiency, you are denying nuclear power the market share they MUST have to be viable.