Three answers // 5 reactors started 1 completed // largest municipal bond default in history

[kristopher]

Author: WPPSS still has lessons for energy industry
By Annette Cary, Herald staff writer

The bond default of the Washington Public Power Supply System offers some still relevant cautionary lessons for the energy industry, said professor Daniel Pope ... Treat large, complex systems with caution. And be equally cautious in forecasting demand for power.

...But when BPA sold regional public utilities on the concept that two more nuclear reactors needed to be built or they would run out of electricity, it persuaded them to back the reactors without the net billing assurance, he said.

..."The complexity of building nuclear plants strikes me as an ongoing, as well as a historical, problem," Pope said.

..."I hope a reminder of what went wrong can help us all approach big issues with open minds and a measure of humility," Pope said. "The problems we face in energy policy are too serious, especially in an era of global warming, to fall back on answers that failed us a generation ago."...

http://www.tri-cityherald.com/2010/10/21/1218106/author-wppss-still-has-lessons.html

The author of the book has identified an assortment of reasons for the failure decades ago. Judging by it's positioning within the article, the root causes seen are both related to system complexity - the internal complexity of bringing a project of this scale into being and the external complexity of the variables involved in power demand.

These are the same fundamental economic issues that STILL face the nuclear industry 40 years and hundreds of billions of dollars later.

6 nuclear industry lies.

1. nuclear power is cheap;

2. learning and new standardized designs solve all past problems;

3. the waste problem is a non-problem, especially if we’d follow the lead of many other nations and “recycle” our spent fuel;

4. climate change makes a renaissance inevitable;

5. there are no other large low-carbon “baseload” alternatives;

6. there’s no particular reason to worry that a rapidly expanding global industry will put nuclear power and weapons technologies in highly unstable nations, often nations with ties to terrorist organizations."

Remember these questions?

1) Why are no turn key nuclear plants being built?

2) Why are all the planned projects in the US being abandoned, even when there are unprecedented levels of governmental support?

3) Why were no plants even being proposed for jurisdictions that do not have construction work in progress (CWIP) policies on the books to allow the builders to recoup cost overruns and the costs of abandoned projects?


They are the ones that nuclear "environmentalists" http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x262189">would rather take a beating over than simply answer directly. That is because they capture the heart of the problem of complexity, costs, and the required transfer of risk to the public sector. The answers are below ordered 1,3,2 for clarity in the narrative.


1) Why are no turn key nuclear plants being built?

No one builds turnkey reactors because they will destroy their company if they do. The complexity of the facility and the "deal" are so severe in a globally competitive environment that there are ALWAYS unexpected variables that WILL arise and bring a degree of chaos to the planned course of building. The cost is so large per project and the probability is so high that significant problems will arise that there simply are no companies that can routinely take on the losses that are part and parcel of building nuclear power plants under turnkey contracts.

Since a turnkey project holds the vendor 100% responsible for those losses, it is not possible to find a vendor that will accept the existential threat to their existence that a turnkey project represents.


3) Why were no plants even being proposed for jurisdictions that do not have construction work in progress (CWIP) policies on the books to allow the builders to recoup cost overruns and the costs of abandoned projects?

IN ALL CASES the risk will be transferred to the public in some fashion or another. Currently in the US the acronym CWIP covers one such method of transferring the risk to the public. When Bush offered loan guarantees for 50% of the construction costs to vendors, they were joyous, but little action actually followed.

Instead of the decline of 40% predicted by the nuclear industry and those academics who uncritically used data provided by nuclear vendors, what we saw instead were rapid and extremely large cost increases between 2003-2009 of 200-400%.

So we didn't see much enthusiasm actually begin to manifest itself until Obama upped the amount guaranteed to 80% (and added/enhanced a slew of other less central subsidies). However, the other 20% of debt simply could not be placed with investors if the proposed plants were unable to offer investors the protection of CWIP ratepayer based recovery of their money should construction costs rise further, construction schedules slip (with attendant huge increases in interest charges), or if the projects were totally abandoned as in the article above.


2) Why are all the planned projects in the US being abandoned, even when there are unprecedented levels of governmental support?
Derived from the sheer size and complexity of these projects is the INEVITABLE CONSEQUENCE that the financial payback period is going to require 40-60 years of reasonably accurate demand and price forecasting. Simply put, that is impossible.

Because the costs are rising and demand is unavoidably uncertain over such a time span even with guarantees regular investors (as opposed to investment by government-tied vendors such as France's EDF at Calvert Cliffs or Japans Mitsubishi at South Texas) do not want to be involved in projects that face such a probability of failure.



Related information:
CBO estimate on nuclear loan guarantees

For this estimate, CBO assumes that the first nuclear plant built using a federal loan guarantee would have a capacity of 1,100 megawatts and have associated project costs of $2.5 billion. We expect that such a plant would be located at the site of an existing nuclear plant and would employ a reactor design certified by the NRC prior to construction. This plant would be the first to be licensed under the NRC’s new licensing procedures, which have been extensively revised over the past decade.

Based on current industry practices, CBO expects that any new nuclear construction project would be financed with 50 percent equity and 50 percent debt. The high equity participation reflects the current practice of purchasing energy assets using high equity stakes, 100 percent in some cases, used by companies likely to undertake a new nuclear construction project. Thus, we assume that the government loan guarantee would cover half the construction cost of a new plant, or $1.25 billion in 2011.

CBO considers the risk of default on such a loan guarantee to be very high—well above 50 percent. The key factor accounting for this risk is that we expect that the plant would be uneconomic to operate because of its high construction costs, relative to other electricity generation sources. In addition, this project would have significant technical risk because it would be the first of a new generation of nuclear plants, as well as project delay and interruption risk due to licensing and regulatory proceedings.

Note the price - $2.5 billion was to be only for the first plant. Future plants were, according to the assumptions provided by the nuclear industry, expected to have lower costs as economy of scale resulted in savings.

In fact, since the report was written (2003), the estimated cost has risen to an average of about $8 billion. You have to wonder what that does to the “risk ...that ... the plant would be uneconomic to operate because of its high construction costs, relative to other electricity generation sources”?

Does that risk diminish or increase when the price rises from $2.5 billion to $8 billion?

[DrGregory]

1. THANK YOU - you point out the problem

Since a turnkey project holds the vendor 100% responsible for those losses, it is not possible to find a vendor that will accept the existential threat to their existence that a turnkey project represents.
============================================================================

"..the turnkey project holds the vendor 100% responsible for those losses..."

Yes - it holds the vendor responsible even when the losses are NOT the
fault of the vendor.

Shoreham is the prime example. The vendor(s) did their job. They built the
plant, and it passed its startup tests. The Shoreham plant was a completely
operable plant.

So why was it not operated? It fell victim to POLITICAL problems. The
Governor of New York used, or more like ABUSED, his power to see to it that
the plant would not operate. He had the Public Utility Commission issue a
ruling that LILCO could not charge for the Shoreham-generated electricity.
He made sure the State of New York would NOT approve the required emergency
plans, when those plans mirror the State-approved emergency plans for the
reactors at Brookhaven National Lab.

So how would that be the fault of the vendor? Should the vendor really be
held responsible when the problems were not within the vendor's control?

Given that, we all understand that it is perfectly reasonable for the
vendor to NOT accept responsibility for circumstances not within the
vendors control.

Now, Tommy "One Note", do you know any other tunes besides "turnkey"?

Dr. Greg

[kristopher]

2. The current subsidies include fast tracking authority and subsidies for that.

I've already pointed out that the current program contains $500,000,000 per project in ADDITIONAL subsidies to insulate the vendors against stoppages required by regulatory authorities. They have also eliminated the ability of the public to participate in all but the most preliminary stages of plant construction and operation through either the political process or through the courts.

Yet they still can find no takers.

It isn't regulatory uncertainty, it is the size and time scale of the projects that doom their economics.

[kristopher]

20. You are welcome.

Why haven't you addressed the current policy framework for nuclear as highlighted in post #2?

[kristopher]

3. Remember how the nuclear chickens were cackling - now they sound like crickets.

[DrGregory]

5. How eloquent...

Remember how the nuclear chickens were cackling - now they sound like crickets.
--------------------------------------------

How eloquent... and how TOTALLY DEVOID of any content.

Dr. Greg

[DrGregory]

4. BALONEY!!!

No one builds turnkey reactors because they will destroy their company if they do. The complexity of the facility and the "deal" are so severe in a globally competitive environment that there are ALWAYS unexpected variables that WILL arise and bring a degree of chaos to the planned course of building.
===================================================================

If this were true, then we should stop building anything complex, because
the complexity is always going to sink us.

Fortunately, the above statement is HOGWASH. Nuclear reactors are complex.
However, we know and understand those complexities, and we design reactors
that WORK.

If it were the case that a significant number of reactors just failed to
operate when they were fueled and commanded to start, then you would have
a point. But that does NOT happen.

EVERY power reactor built has started and worked. The problems that
nuclear power has are NOT technical problems or problems of complexity.

The problems that nuclear power has are POLITICAL. We have severely
UNSCRUPULOUS politicians that pervert the laws to please the anti-nuke
"greenie" eco-wackos, and they drive up the costs / monetary risks such
that the utility executives don't want to gamble the health of the company
in such a risk-generating environment.

The vendors don't assume the risk by building "turnkey" plants because they
are doing their jobs properly. The reactors WORK. The vendor doesn't have
any levers to deal with the political problems. If they make a better
reactor, will the bonehead anti-nuke that is protesting out front, or the
equally boneheaded lawyer for the anti-nuke coalition withdraw their lawsuits?

Dr. Greg

[kristopher]

8. As usual you completely misrepresent the problem. That your only recourse, eh?

Since you do not have truth on your side you are forced to rant and dissemble.**

You wrote, "...then we should stop building anything complex, because the complexity is always going to sink us.
Fortunately, the above statement is HOGWASH. Nuclear reactors are complex. However, we know and understand those complexities, and we design reactors that WORK."

This is an example of a reactor that worked as designed. The amount of planning that didn't prevent this event is nearly unimaginable. So are the potential worst-case consequences.

The reactor core at the Davis-Besse nuclear plant sits within a metal pot designed to withstand pressures up to 2,500 pounds per square inch. The pot -- called the reactor vessel -- has carbon steel walls nearly six inches thick to provide the necessary strength. Because the water cooling the reactor contains boric acid that is highly corrosive to carbon steel, the entire inner surface of the reactor vessel is covered with 3/16-inch thick stainless steel.

But water routinely leaked onto the reactor vessel's outer surface. Because the outer surface lacked a protective stainless steel coating, boric acid ate its way through the carbon steel wall until it reached the backside of the inner liner. High pressure inside the reactor vessel pushed the stainless steel outward into the cavity formed by the boric acid. The stainless steel bent but did not break. Cooling water remained inside the reactor vessel not because of thick carbon steel but due to a thin layer of stainless steel. The plant's owner ignored numerous warning signs spanning many years to create the reactor with a hole in its head.

Workers repairing one of five cracked control rod drive mechanism (CRDM) nozzles at Davis-Besse discovered extensive damage to the reactor vessel head. The reactor vessel head is the dome-shaped upper portion of the carbon steel vessel housing the reactor core. It can be removed when the plant is shut down to allow spent nuclear fuel to be replaced with fresh fuel. The CRDM nozzles connect motors mounted on a platform above the reactor vessel head to control rods within the reactor vessel. Operators withdraw control rods from the reactor core to startup the plant and insert them to shut down the reactor.

The workers found a large hole in the reactor vessel head next to CRDM nozzle #3. The hole was about six inches deep, five inches long, and seven inches wide. The hole extended to within 1-1/2 inches of the adjacent CRDM nozzle #11. The stainless steel liner welded to the inner surface of the reactor vessel head for protection against boric acid was at the bottom of the hole. This liner was approximately 3/16-inch thick and had bulged outward about 1/8-inch due to the high pressure (over one ton per square inch) inside the reactor vessel....

-UCS "Aging Nuclear Plants", Davis-Besse: The Reactor with a Hole in its Head
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/nuclear_power/acfnx8tzc.pdf







Scapegoating of Davis Besse by NRC
http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/federal-agency-scapegoating-0141.html

Retrospective
http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_power/nuclear_power_risk/safety/davis-besse-retrospective.html

**define: dissemble
To disguise or conceal something; to feign; To deliberately ignore something; to pretend not to notice; To falsely hide one's opinions or feelings en.wiktionary.org/wiki/dissemble

[NNadir]

9. The millions and millions and millions and millions of people who died from Beese Davis

all are very, very, very, very, very, very, very appreciative of your concern.

Thank you so much, genius, for remembering the dead.

Of course, your pals in the dangerous fossil fuel industry have not caused a http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/mar/22/air-pollution-deaths">one shred of risk ever
and of course, http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/412202">fact that three percent of all US deaths are atrributable to air pollution are of no concern to anti-science, anti-intellectual nonsense mongers, who insist that ONLY nuclear power be perfect and that the status quo can kill at will, so long as they issue exceedingly stupid and oblivious predictions - on going for more than 50 years now about the http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.renewables/page/trends/table1.html">solar nirvana that will come soon, just like Jesus, who is also coming soon.

Of course, there are people who are not faith based renewable snake oil sales people who insist that nuclear power need not be perfect to better than everything else and that it only need better than every thing else.

We know for sure what the anti-nukes don't care about.

http://www.rmi.org/rmi/Amory+B.+Lovins">Famous Anti-nuke Amory Lovins describes his revenue sources:

Mr. Lovins’s other clients have included Accenture, Allstate, AMD, Anglo American, Anheuser-Busch, Bank of America, Baxter, Borg-Warner, BP, HP Bulmer, Carrier, Chevron, Ciba-Geigy, CLSA, ConocoPhillips, Corning, Dow, Equitable, GM, HP, Invensys, Lockheed Martin, Mitsubishi, Monsanto, Motorola, Norsk Hydro, Petrobras, Prudential, Rio Tinto, Royal Dutch/Shell, Shearson Lehman Amex, STMicroelectronics, Sun Oil, Suncor, Texas Instruments, UBS, Unilever, Westinghouse, Xerox, major developers, and over 100 energy utilities. His public-sector clients have included the OECD, the UN, and RFF; the Australian, Canadian, Dutch, German, and Italian governments; 13 states; Congress, and the U.S. Energy and Defense Departments.

Have a nice oblivious, oil soaked Gulf kind of day, status quo boy.

[DrGregory]

10. AMEN!!! Brother AMEN!!!

[DrGregory]

11. Davis-Besse again

Since you do not have truth on your side you are forced to rant and dissemble.**

You wrote, "...then we should stop building anything complex, because the complexity is always going to sink us.
Fortunately, the above statement is HOGWASH. Nuclear reactors are complex. However, we know and understand those complexities, and we design reactors that WORK."

This is an example of a reactor that worked as designed. The amount of planning that didn't prevent this event is nearly unimaginable. So are the potential worst-case consequences.
==============================================

Why would you "think" ( term used loosely ) that you would need to
define the word "dissemble" for me? Do you think ( ibid ) that
I'm lacking in vocabulary?

The reactor worked. Although it would have been desirable for this
malfunction to have been prevented or at least caught earlier, the
fact remains that the reactor still worked properly even with the
fault.

However, even with the fault as shown above, the reactor operated
properly until the fault was discovered. Contrary to the incessant
bleating of the anti-nuke crowd, a nuclear reactor is NOT like a
Swiss watch. It doesn't break or pose a risk at the slightest fault.

On the contrary, a reactor can experience a rather large fault and
still operate safely. Again, this fault tolerant behavior is just
like the philosophy in the airline industry.

When the Airbus ran into the flock of geese over New York and lost
both engines, did the Airbus immediately fall out of the sky due to
lack of engines?

NO - the Airbus was designed so that it would glide for a limited
distance and afford the captain the opportunity to choose a suitable
place to set the craft down. Additionally, the craft was designed
to make a water landing survivable so the captain could choose to
set the plane down in the Hudson River.

We are all familiar with the fact that airliners are not fragile
Swiss watches and don't crash when some small thing goes wrong.
When airliners do crash, it usually due to a litany of problems.
So even when a jet airliner looses all its engine power, that is
not an immediate prescription for disaster. We all know this and
can be confident in choosing an airliner as our mode of travel.

Why, oh WHY then do we have people who proliferate this ridiculous
mantra that a nuclear power plant will pose a risk when the slightest
thing goes wrong?

What do the anti-nukes "think" was going to happen?

We've gotten these ridiculous scenarios from the anti-nukes before
that are totally devoid of any understanding of the laws of physics.
The "cartoon laws of physics" as exemplified by the Roadrunner and
Coyote cartoons appear almost reasonable in comparison with the
"science-free" delusions of the anti-nukes.

Dr. Greg

[kristopher]

15. Still can't hold an honest discussion eh?

ttp://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x262570#262801

[Kolesar]

28. Three First Energy employees were convicted on account of lying to the NRC about Davis Besse

remember?

[kristopher]

35. Yep. nt

[DrGregory]

6. As well it should...

IN ALL CASES the risk will be transferred to the public in some fashion or another.
------------------------------------

As well it should. The problem we have is a system
of laws and licensing procedures that make nuclear power
plants cost many many many times what they could otherwise
be built for.

These laws were written by the legislatures in the service
of the people. If these laws don't work properly and
cause excessive costs for no good reason, then it should
be the public that bears those costs.

When the public revolts at having to pay those costs, then
maybe they will get after the legislatures to FIX the laws
that exacerbate costs for no good purpose.

The cause of the problems are the laws. The people that
wrote those ill-working laws are the legislators. The
legislators work for the people.

The cycle is complete. When the people suffer because
of the sloppy job of their employees in the legislatures,
then maybe the people will get mad and either demand the
laws be fixed or they will vote out the miscreants that
gave us those laws and vote in good representatives that
will write some sensible laws.

Dr. Greg

[kristopher]

19. Yet despite your claims even pronuclear academics still cite safety as a problem

2003 MIT study "The Future of Nuclear Power"

Findings:

Over the next 50 years, unless patterns change dramatically, energy production and use will contribute to global warming through large-scale greenhouse gas emissions — hundreds of billions of tonnes of carbon in the form of carbon dioxide. Nuclear power could be one option for reducing carbon emissions. At present, however, this is unlikely: nuclear power faces stagnation and decline.

This study analyzes what would be required to retain nuclear power as a significant option for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and meeting growing needs for electricity supply. Our analysis is guided by a global growth scenario that would expand current worldwide nuclear generating capacity almost threefold, to 1000 billion watts,by the year 2050.Such a deployment would avoid 1.8 billion tonnes of carbon emissions annually from coal plants, about 25% of the increment in carbon emissions otherwise expected in a business-as-usual scenario. This study also recommends changes in government policy and industrial practice needed in the relatively near term to retain an option for such an outcome. (Want to guess what these are? - K)

We did not analyze other options for reducing carbon emissions — renewable energy sources, carbon sequestration,and increased energy efficiency — and therefore reach no conclusions about priorities among these efforts and nuclear power. In our judgment, it would be a mistake to exclude any of these four options at this time.

STUDY FINDINGS
For a large expansion of nuclear power to succeed,four critical problems must be overcome:

Cost. In deregulated markets, nuclear power is not now cost competitive with coal and natural gas.However,plausible reductions by industry in capital cost,operation and maintenance costs, and construction time could reduce the gap. Carbon emission credits, if enacted by government, can give nuclear power a cost advantage.


Safety.
Modern reactor designs can achieve a very low risk of serious accidents, but “best practices”in construction and operation are essential.We know little about the safety of the overall fuel cycle,beyond reactor operation.


Waste.
Geological disposal is technically feasible but execution is yet to be demonstrated or certain. A convincing case has not been made that the long-term waste management benefits of advanced, closed fuel cycles involving reprocessing of spent fuel are outweighed by the short-term risks and costs. Improvement in the open,once through fuel cycle may offer waste management benefits as large as those claimed for the more expensive closed fuel cycles.

Proliferation.
The current international safeguards regime is inadequate to meet the security challenges of the expanded nuclear deployment contemplated in the global growth scenario. The reprocessing system now used in Europe, Japan, and Russia that involves separation and recycling of plutonium presents unwarranted proliferation risks.

[DrGregory]

7. Assume defeat?

In addition, this project would have significant technical risk because it would be the first of a new generation of nuclear plants, as well as project delay and interruption risk due to licensing and regulatory proceedings.
--------------------------------------------------------------

But that's just postulating defeat right there.

Why should there be licensing and regulatory delays that cost
mountains of money. It only costs you if you have interruptions
and delays AFTER you start to spend money.

How about doing ALL the licensing and regulation UP FRONT.
BEFORE any money is spent, before any money is borrowed and
interest and carrying charges start racking up; before all
that - hold your hearings and make a decision. Once that
decision is made - live with it.

The problem we have is that we continually revisit our decisions.

We hold hearings and a decision is made by the authorities that
a nuclear power plant should be built and a construction permit
is issued.

The problem we have is that the anti-nukes don't accept the rulings
of authorities charged with making these decisions. When they lose,
they don't act like good citizens and chalk it up to the will of the
majority or those legally charged with making a decision, they obstruct
and cause delays and run up the costs of the project.

They HYPOCRITES that they are, after causing the escalation of costs,
the boneheads have the audacity to complain about the problem they caused!!

Dr. Greg

[kristopher]

12. Complete impotence of nuclear supporters when faced with facts

Well there you have it, folks - nothing but complete impotence is exhibited by the most aggressive of nuclear supporters when faced with the simple, unvarnished truth.

We have compelling documentation that despite their ceaseless appeals to "science" the entire foundation of their push for nuclear power is built on misrepresentations and myths that they have striven mightily to foist upon people who have a genuine desire to make this world a better place.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x262189

...

1. nuclear power is cheap;

2. learning and new standardized designs solve all past problems;

3. the waste problem is a non-problem, especially if we’d follow the lead of many other nations and “recycle” our spent fuel;

4. climate change makes a renaissance inevitable;

5. there are no other large low-carbon “baseload” alternatives;

6. there’s no particular reason to worry that a rapidly expanding global industry will put nuclear power and weapons technologies in highly unstable nations, often nations with ties to terrorist organizations.

Naturally since the supporters of nuclear energy repeat these false claims every chance they get, the response was filled with vitriol and tended to be more hyperbolic rather than substantive.

In order to address number one, I challenge these supporters to answer these questions. If one understands why the nuclear industry is the ONLY power source that is not able to be built under a turnkey contract, then one also understands why the economics of nuclear fail.


Answer these questions -
1) Why are no turn key nuclear plants being built?

2) Why are all the planned projects in the US being abandoned, even when there are unprecedented levels of governmental support?

3) Why were no plants even being proposed for jurisdictions that do not have construction work in progress (CWIP) policies on the books to allow the builders to recoup cost overruns and the costs of abandoned projects?

Answer those three questions and we'll have something to talk about.

This thread actually began with that block of text, please read what the responses were at the link then compare that this thread.
It is very, very clear that there has been no discussion of the actual economic problems associated with nuclear power plants by proponents claiming superior understanding of the topic. In fact the evidence gathered by this exercise shows what they are actually using as tools of debate and discussion - false facts; false reasoning; false conclusions, personal attacks, and what can only be called harassment.

The only thing missing is the one thing that ALL real, honest-to-goodness scientists deem a fundamental requirement of the practice of science - a dedication to finding the truth before all else.

We do not need nuclear power to address climate change or energy security and directing funds towards nuclear power is, in fact, counterproductive to our efforts.

[DrGregory]

13. One can see it coming...

We have compelling documentation that despite their ceaseless appeals to "science" the entire foundation of their push for nuclear power is built on misrepresentations and myths that they have striven mightily to foist upon people who have a genuine desire to make this world a better place.

It is very, very clear that there has been no discussion of the actual economic problems associated with nuclear power plants by proponents claiming superior understanding of the topic. In fact the evidence gathered by this exercise shows what they are actually using as tools of debate and discussion - false facts; false reasoning; false conclusions, personal attacks, and what can only be called harassment.
-------------------------------------------------------

One can see it coming...the self-righteous bleating and
unsubstantiated pronouncements when the anti-nukes know
they've lost the debate.

Dr. Greg

[Nihil]

16. SPAM spam spam spam ... (n/t)

[kristopher]

17. Still too afraid to engage, eh?

I can understand why; it is impossible to defend nuclear power when all the facts are in evidence.

[Nederland]

24. Right back at you

I'm still waiting on you. Why are you so scared?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x262189#263316

[kristopher]

26. The three questions are answered in the OP; your "cutesy" diversion fails.

Now run on home.

[Nederland]

30. I don't want to run home, I want to engage you

What makes you think we owe you answers when you refuse to answer questions?

The deal is still on the table.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x262189#262198

[pscot]

14. A forlorn outpost

stands lonely sentinal on the banks of the mighty Satsop. There's talk about turning it into a business park.

[kristopher]

18. Kick

[kristopher]

21. All that bull when I issued the challenge but not ONE real response...

...when the facts are laid out?

Can't say that I'm surprised...

[NNadir]

22. Well I know what my response is.

My response is that the bullshitting anti-nukes here can't explain the difference between the cost of electricity in France as compared to Denmark.

It's right here:

http://www.energy.eu/

Maybe the silence is not what you think it is with your very inflated (and unjustifiable) enthusiasm for your babblings. Maybe it's um, contempt for illiteracy.

Could it be?

There is NOT ONE anti-nuke who could identify a "fact" if it bit them the ass. Zero.

Every single anti-nuke who posts here is remarkable for being a zero with analytical skills.

Have a nice cultish day.

[kristopher]

23. Apply to your own behavior those remarkable analytic skills you claim and explain why you did this.

Science is a truth based endeavor Nnadir. If you are compelled to completely disregard the truth like you are shown doing below why should anyone accept anything else you say?

Vestas calls itself in its company reports, the Vestas OIL, GAS and WIND company.

Posted by NNadir on Sat Oct-16-10 09:29 PM

Vestas, OIL, GAS and wind company.

They know what they are, even if mathematically illiterate purveyors of self delusion and indifference don't.

It's notable that this piece of shit dangerous fossil fuel company suffered huge losses in the middle of the decade for being required to meet five year warranties on their worthless hunks of metal.

Their "solution" to this problem with their reliability did not lead them to improve the crappy gearboxes on their subsidized garbage, but rather to reduce the warranty period from five years to two years.

It is interesting to note that the most transparently dishonest people are the first to accuse others of dishonesty.

Have a nice day.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=261737&mesg_id=262014

Reply #1

They were never in fossil fuel, they started in engineering
NNadir was talking a load of complete bollocks about 'oil and gas'.

# 1898 - Vestas founded by H.S. Hansen, a blacksmith, in the small town of Lem in Denmark. He and his son, Peder Hansen, manufactured steel windows for industrial buildings.
# 1945 - Peder Hansen established the company VEstjyskSTålteknik A/S, whose name was shortened to Vestas. The new company, which initially made household appliances, started to produce agricultural equipment.
# 1970s - During the second oil crisis, Vestas began to examine the potential of the wind turbine as an alternative source of clean energy.
# 1979 - Vestas delivered the first wind turbines. The industry experienced a genuine boom at the start of the 1980s, but in 1986 Vestas was forced to suspend payments because the market in the United States was destroyed due to the expiration of a special tax legislation that provided advantageous conditions for the establishment of wind turbines.
http://www.vestas.com/en/about-vestas/profile/vestas-brief-history.aspx

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x261737#262053


Reply #2

No, you are very, very wrong; they have NEVER been a fossil fuel company
Vestas is a wind turbine company. It does not sell oil or gas. It never has. What it says, in one part of its website, is "Wind, Oil and Gas is Vestas’ vision, which expresses the ambition of making wind an energy source on a par with fossil fuels." So, they want to be as big as the huge oil and gas companies that supply so much of the world's energy. That's where the 'oil and gas' phrase comes from.

I realise that you're hoping no-one will check to see what your link says, because you're counting on them thinking "yet another boring piece of crap from NNadir, why bother looking?", but you are being highly misleading.

It is not a fossil fuel company. Your claim is incorrect, wrong and misleading. You have the gall to accuse others of dishonesty in the same post. You have no shame.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x261737#262052

I would ask you to engage in an honest discussion of the issue; but considering your problem with ethics I'm frankly not interested.

[Kolesar]

29. Your response is *deflection* , as usual

But you adhere to the "never be ashamed of ruining discussion" maxim.
Deflection, insults, etc

[Nederland]

25. Right back at you

Can't say I'm surprised that you are scared to take up my offer...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x262189#263316

[kristopher]

27. I asked three questions you were afraid to answer...

Nothing from you and your cadre of nuclear supporters except attempts as diverting the topic and gratuitous insults based on the fact that I was asking for y'all to answer questions that are crucial to any reasoned persons decision on the worth of nuclear power.

The OP answers the questions and you no longer have any excuses; I assure you that your third grade schoolyard responses are seen for what they are by everyone outside the Sarah Palin Fan Club.

Here is another tidbit to go with the OP:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x263311

[Nederland]

31. I don't want to run home, I want to engage you

What makes you think we owe you answers when you refuse to answer questions?

The deal is still on the table.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x262189#262198

[kristopher]

32. You don't OWE anything - but you decide to attempt to obstruct discussion...

rather than participate. Your attempts to elicit preconditions for your participation is nothing short of childish and marks your contributions as nothing more than attempts to move the subject away from the content of the OP.

That is the only type of "contribution" you seem capable of.

The OP is there, respond or not the facts are clear both on the content of the OP and your unwillingness to discuss them.

[Nederland]

33. Oh, Kristopher

You really think you are fooling anyone? Do you honestly think anyone reading theses posts (if they bother) doesn't know exactly what is going on? I've offered to answer your three questions if you simply agree to respond in kind. It is a perfectly fair arrangement, one actually designed to your advantage because I've offered to go first. Your refusal is ample proof that you have no interest in a level playing field. No, you want to define all the terms, ask all the questions, and control the debate. Sorry, it doesn't work that way.

At this point I think I've given you enough chances to show that you are willing to engage in rational debate. You have consistently refused for several days now, so I'll stop trying. Besides, it was getting a little obnoxious on my part, and for that I am sorry. Take care.

[kristopher]

34. Kick.