With much wailing and gnashing of teeth...

[kristopher]

When I write that there is an energy war between the established entities that provide out societies with electricity from a system designed around centralized thermal generation, one response is to claim it is a "conspiracy theory". Nothing could be further from the truth. What I'm pointing out is nothing more than behavior driven by self interest as these companies and people act together in a way better characterized as a sort of protective herding behavior.

This Bloomberg business press article demonstrates the motive that leads these entities to engage in actions such as trying to discredit the renewable competition by saying "they can't do alone"; or by claiming dire consequences on the climate change front even though nuclear is now acting more to prop-up coal and obstruct renewable deployment than any other technology. It is also what leads them to deny the very real problems associated with nuclear energy itself. The fact is there will NEVER be a time when the entities that profit from centralized thermal generation will agree that it is a good idea to shut these plants down. They will forever be meeting calls to cut their profits by pressing their case to the public with the total lack of ethics we have come to accept as a norm of corporate action.

Germany’s Nuclear Exit Sparks Despair Among Energy Companies

...Unsurprisingly, the three largest incumbents–E.ON, RWE and EnBW Energie Baden-Wuerttemberg–last week reported plummeting earnings for the first nine months of the year. Impairments, raised nuclear provisions for the earlier dismantling of reactors, and lost production volumes all dragged down profits.

But don’t expect this to be the end of the story: earnings will continue to be under pressure next year from the fallout of the nuclear exit decision, albeit to a lesser extent than this year. Part of the financial burden of the nuclear exit is related to the fact that the utilities traditionally sell the bulk of their electricity production ahead of physical delivery to customers.

RWE, for instance, has already sold more than 90% of its 2012 German power output. At the beginning of 2011–around three months before the Fukushima nuclear meltdown that triggered the German policy reversal–RWE had sold more than 50% of its 2012 production in Germany.

The idled reactors, however, cannot produce any electricity anymore. As a result, the utilities have to either produce power in more expensive thermal power plants like coal-fired facilities or buy the missing volumes on the market at higher prices.

Analysts said this could result in several hundreds of millions of euros in lost earnings...

http://blogs.wsj.com/source/2011/11/14/germanys-nuclear-exit-sparks-despair-among-energy-companies/?mod=google_news_blog

[OKIsItJustMe]

1. Just curious

Do you count Concentrated Solar Power as part of this band of centralized thermal generation?

[kristopher]

2. There are some technologies that fit into both centralized and distributed systems

The question of "where you start" is what differentiates the two ways of conceptualizing power delivery. That question manifests itself with another question specific to the technology - Does (in this case) concentrated solar power deployment work a way that drives the increase of energy consumption or does it get developed in a way that drives energy efficiency?

If you think developing CSP projects will produce so much energy that it becomes a cultural entity trying to find ever more ways to put that power to use, then yes, it would be a part of "this band of centralized thermal generation".

If, on the other hand, you think that CSP will not develop into that sort of infrastructural entity, then the answer is no, it isn't.

[FBaggins]

3. Hard to claim that you aren't pushing a conspiracy theory model...

...when your other thread explicitly claims that the nuclear industry coordinates with bloggers and then also claim that anyone posting just about anything that you disagree with is part of this network of intentional lies.

But this is hardly a surprise. Irrational paranoia leads not only to conspiracy theories, but also to the denial that they are conspiracy theories. They're just a reality that the less...um... "enlightened" are unable to see.

[kristopher]

4. That isn't a conspriacy, that is corporate PR.

Here is the original post you refer to:

How the nuclear industry uses its bloggers network to lie to the public
There is a network of "nuclear bloggers" that work with and are coordinated by the nuclear industry. There is a point person at the nuclear industry lobbying group the "Nuclear Energy Institute:" that is responsible for social media outreach and at nuclear industry conventions the bloggers are invited to attend hosted workshops (promoted and planned by employees of US Dept of Energy Labs) designed to spread the nuclear gospel...

more at:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=316695&mesg_id=316695

And this is the supporting information for the OP.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=316695&mesg_id=316752

The bloggers probably aren't being paid, btw. From what I see they are wannabe scientists that couldn't make the grade and who are now having a semi-religious experience through being noticed by their deities.



Do you also claim this a "conspiracy theory"?

Japanese nuclear power company under fire over unethical conduct

Mark Willacy reported this story on Monday, October 17, 2011 08:14:00

TONY EASTLEY: The Japanese government minister in charge of the nuclear industry has lashed out at one of the country's leading nuclear energy companies accusing it of watering down a report that found the firm guilty of manipulating public opinion.

An independent panel found that the Kyushu Electric Power company stacked public meetings with employees pretending to be ordinary citizens. The report also implicated the governor of the prefecture in the scandal....

http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2011/s3341024.htm

[FBaggins]

5. Bloggers aren't part of a corporation

And posters on internet sites who read those bloggers most certainly aren't.

Do you also claim this a "conspiracy theory"?

Of course not.

[kristopher]

6. They don't have to be "part of the corporation" to work on behalf of corporate interests.

Is that you Rod?

From the American Nuclear Society Newsletter 2010 Winter Meeting
A gathering of bloggers
An unofficial session was held by nuclear bloggers attending the ANS Winter Meeting. Like the nuclear industry in general, the bloggers wrestle with the problem of getting their messages out to the public.

These bloggers generally are skilled communicators who are passionate about nuclear technology. It shows in the depth of their coverage of industry issues, from Dan Yurman’s piece on the nuclear renaissance and small reactors at his blog site, Idaho Samizdat , to Rod Adams’s article about efficiency improvements and cost- reduction efforts related to uranium enrichment on his Atomic Insights blog, to John Wheeler’s comments on the media’s misinterpretation of a tritium incident at a nuclear power plant in India at his Web site, This Week in Nuclear.

More than 40 people attended the session, which was organized by Yurman, Adams, Wheeler, and the Nuclear Energy Institute’s Dave Bradish, and sponsored by Areva and the Cool Hand Nuke Web site. Using an open-dialogue format, the bloggers and others in attendance shared their experiences in the use of the new social media, including blogs, Twitter, Face- book, and other online tools and services. The discussion touched on issues such as the Department of Energy’s ill-fated Yucca Mountain Project, the DOE’s loan guarantee program, and the rhetoric of antinukes who connect commercial nuclear power to nuclear weapons.

Many attendees commented during the session. Lisa Stiles, project manager of workforce planning for Dominion Resources Services, related a story about how Twitter was used in an effort to frustrate noted antinuclear author Helen Caldicott during a book tour. Stiles related that nuclear engineering students sent out “tweets” about Caldicott’s planned visits to various universities, and students flocked to Caldicott’s appearances to question her about the nuclear misinformation in her book. Eventually, according to Stiles, Caldicott stopped taking questions from the audience during her book tour.

Bradish, a blogger on NEI’s site...

http://www.new.ans.org/pubs/magazines/download/a_677





Sample "experience" for bloggers:
Two Meetups At ANS Winter Meeting - Value of Face to Face Interactions
Rod Adams

Like many people who blog, I use it as a tool to communicate with people who share a common interest, but not a common location. Sometimes, however, there are wonderful opportunities to actually meet people in person with whom you have shared thoughts and ideas for several years. I had just such an opportunity last night - in fact, in a "cup overflowing" kind of way, I had two such opportunities.

The first event was a gathering of nuclear bloggers, micro-bloggers, podcasters, and even a few lurkers who read a lot of what the rest of us continue to produce. Dan Yurman of Idaho Samizdat (BTW, Dan, will you be changing the name of your blog when you make that move?) was the primary spark with the idea, but Jarret Adams of Areva Blog, David Bradish of NEI Nuclear Notes, and John Wheeler of This Week In Nuclear jumped in and worked together to make it all happen. (I am sure that there were others who made sure that the food showed up on time, that the room was arranged, and that the posters were prominently displayed. I apologize if I have forgotten to provide credit where it is due, but that is why I have comments enabled here.)

A good time was had by all, the conversation was lively, and renewed sense of fellowship was reinforced. We have a strong foundation of knowledge that we are learning to share with others in a way that makes our technology more accessible and understandable.

...Finally, on my way back through the hotel lobby to my car, I ran into an friend that I have known for years - ever since she invited me to speak to a group of nuclear engineering students at Penn State in the mid 1990s. Madeline told me to check out the recent press release from her organization that detailed the successful results from advanced gas reactor fuel testing....

http://theenergycollective.com/rodadams/34417/two-meetups-ans-winter-meeting-value-face-face-interactions




Madeline's link identifies her as
AGR TRISO Fuels Contact:
Dr. Madeline Anne Feltus (NE-33)
madeline.feltus at nuclear.energy.gov





Blogger side organizer:
Nuclear Bloggers achieve critical mass at ANS Atlanta (2009)

...There was a peak experience at the annual conference of the American Nuclear Society (ANS) this week (June 14-18, 2009). In a first-of-a-kind meeting Rod Adams from Atomic Insights, John Wheeler from This Week in Nuclear, Kirk Sorensen from Energy from Thorium, and Dan Yurman from Idaho Samizdat met in person and conducted a free-wheeling three-hour long panel titled “Communications in the New Media.” This is an exclusive report to the Energy Collective with highlights from the panel discussion.
It was organized by Dave Pointer, a nuclear scientist from Argonne National Laboratory (ANL) with help from Candace Davison, Penn State, Laura Scheele, ANS, and Laura Hermann, Potomac Communications Group. Ms. Davison moderated the session.

http://theenergycollective.com/djysrv/31012/nuclear-bloggers-achieve-critical-mass-ans-atlanta





Potomac Communications Group (credited with helping to organize meetings with bloggers. rep: Laura Hermann)
List of clients:
Corporations
AREVA Enterprises, Inc.
Butterball
BWX Technologies, Inc.
Constellation Energy
Entergy
Enterra Solutions, LLC
Intellectual Ventures
Lafarge North America
National Grid
Northeast Utilities
Pepco
Progress Energy
Southern California Edison
UniStar Nuclear
USEC Inc.
Washington Group International

Associations/Societies
Alliance for Competitive Taxation
AMT-The Association for Manufacturing Technology
American Institute of Building Design
American Occupational Therapy Association
American Petroleum Institute
American Physical Society
American Society of Microbiology
Circuits and Systems Society of IEEE
COMMON: A Users Group
Components, Packaging and Manufacturing
Technology Society of IEEE
Construction Specifications Institute
Direct Selling Association
Edison Electric Institute
Envelope Manufacturers Association Foundation
Industrial Research Institute
International Association of Forensic Nurses
International Tax Policy Forum
National Fenestration Rating Council
National Mining Association
National Stone, Sand and Gravel Association
Nuclear Energy Institute
Steel Shipping Container Institute
US Chamber of Commerce
Government Agencies
NASA
National Energy Technology Laboratory
Navy Seals
US Army
US Coast Guard
US Department of Commerce
US Department of Energy
US Department of Transportation

Science & Education
American Association for the Advancement of Science
Aspen Institute
DC Children First
Fight for Children
George Washington University
Idaho National Laboratory
National Academy of Engineering
National Science Foundation
Nuclear Cycle Development Institute (Japan)
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Washington Scholarship Fund

Cultural and Charitable
Asian Pacific American Film Festival
Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids
Historical Society of Washington
Open Circle Theatre
Washington Shakespeare Company
Washington Theater Review

http://pcgpr.com/clients.html





And Laura Hermann?
Potomac Communications Group Adds Laura Hermann for Energy/Technology Practice
WASHINGTON, January 17 - Potomac Communications Group, Inc. has strengthened its energy and technology communications practice with the addition of Laura Hermann, who until recently managed public outreach functions for the American Nuclear Society at its headquarters in Illinois.
Hermann also has experience in strategic communications planning and stakeholder outreach with educational and nonprofit organizations, including the American Red Cross of Greater Chicago and a boutique public relations firm specializing in grassroots development. She has also been an adjunct instructor and guest lecturer in the Undergraduate Leadership Program at Northwestern University. She joins PCG as a strategic communications program director...

Download full press release http://www.pcgpr.com/graphics/HermannRelease.pdf




ANS Social Media Meet Up June 28 (2011)
A meet-up of anyone attending the ANS National meeting in Florida June 26-30 who is interested in the use of social media in the nuclear industry will be held Tuesday June 28th, from 6:30-9:00 PM in Rm 307 at the Westin Diplomat hotel in Hollywood, FL. This is the conference hotel for the ANS meeting.
Conference registration information here
http://www.new.ans.org/meetings/c_1

The ANS Public Information Committee is the official host of the social media meet up.

http://djysrv.blogspot.com/search?q=ANS+Winter+Meeting





Social Media Meet Up November 1 at ANS Winter Conference
A meet-up of people attending the ANS Winter Meeting in Washington, DC, interested in the use of social media in the nuclear industry will be held Tuesday, November 1st from 6:30-8:30 PM in the Congressional “A” meeting room at the Omni Shoreham hotel. This is the conference hotel for the ANS meeting. (Google Map) (Red Line: Woodley Park-Zoo)
The ANS Public Information Committee is the official host of the social media meet up. There is no registration or cost to attend the social media meeting, which takes place after hours of the regular ANS conference sessions. Food and beverages will be available.

Sponsors

This conference social media meeting is made possible by the generous support of our sponsors.
· AREVA North America
· Nuclear Energy Institute

http://djysrv.blogspot.com/search?q=ANS+Winter+Meeting




American Nuclear Society Organizer
American Nuclear Society
Home / About / Committees / Public Information Committee

Committee Chair: W. David Pointer

http://www.new.ans.org/about/committees/pic /





David Pointer
Manager, Engineering Simulations Section at Argonne National Laboratory
Greater Chicago Area | Research
Current: Manager, Engineering Simulations Section at Argonne National Laboratory, Principal Nuclear Engineer at Argonne National Laboratory
Past: Guest Graduate Appointment at Oak Ridge National Laboratory

From Linked In

[FBaggins]

7. Nor do those who advocate for other technologies.

There are profit-motivated large corporations with significant interest in renewables as well.

You clearly accuse a difference in character, not just kind.

[kristopher]

8. I haven't seen the type of lying that the nuclear industry engages in anywhere else.

Your comparison is like saying the moneyed voice of Wall Street is the same as the OWS Mic Check.

[FBaggins]

9. Only because you're blind to it.

It isn't because it isn't there.

The only question is whether it's unconscious or intentional.

[kristopher]

10. No, the question that applies is: is it needed or not? Nuclear needs to lie.

Renewables do not.

[FBaggins]

11. Then what's their excuse for doing so?

???

[GliderGuider]

12. I completely agree with this view.

We see the same behaviour all through the corporate/political/military power structure of our civilization. At times this "convergence of mutual self-interest" can crystallize into conspiracy, but most of the time it's not necessary. As long as the players are satisfied that everyone who is "in the game" has the same general goals (the consolidation and protection of wealth and power) no overt conspiracy is usually necessary. Even when it is, the amount of power available to the players means that it can be effectively hidden.

[Nederland]

13. There are two logical possibilities

1) Renewables are capable of "doing it alone".

2) Renewables are not capable of "doing it alone".


The problem for you is that the ability of renewables to "do it alone" exists only in a handful of speculative academic papers. It is a capability that does not exist in reality, which makes it easy for the big centralized thermal generators to make the claims that they do. The solution is simple: renewables need to prove that they can in fact "do it alone". If what you have claimed here in countless cut and paste posts is true, it should not be difficult. There are literally hundreds of utilities in the US alone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_electric_companies). All renewable proponents need to do is to get one of them to convert to the type of arrangement you are touting and prove their case. The bottom line is that until they do that, the big thermal generators will continue to spin FUD very successfully.

[kristopher]

14. A handful of academic papers? Bullpuckey.

It is basic engineering that isn't even as complicated as the computer you are using. You use the same idiotic argument about climate change - let it happen and then we'll know.

11 organizations of more than 1,200,000 engineers: We have the technology to slash global emissions

The technology needed to cut the world’s greenhouse gas emissions by 85% by 2050 already exists, according to a joint statement by eleven of the world’s largest engineering organisations.

...The statement says that generating electricity from wind, waves and the sun, growing biofuels sustainably, zero emissions transport, low carbon buildings and energy efficiency technologies have all been demonstrated. However they are not being developed for wide-scale use fast enough and there is a desperate need for financial and legislative support from governments around the world if they are to fulfil their potential.

...“While the world’s politicians have been locked in talks with no output, engineers across the globe have been busy developing technologies that can bring down emissions and help create a more stable future for the planet.

“We are now overdue for government commitment, with ambitious, concrete emissions targets that give the right signals to industry, so they can be rolled out on a global scale.”

Ithttp://www.imeche.org/news/archives/11-09-23/Future_Climate_2_We_have_the_technology_to_slash_global_emissions_say_engineers.aspx

o The Institution of Mechanical Engineers (IMechE) (UK)
o The Institution of Engineers (India)
o The Association of German Engineers (VDI) (Germany)
o The Japanese Society of Mechanical Engineers (JSME) (Japan)
o The Association of Professional Engineers, Scientists and Managers (APESMA) (Australia)
o The Danish Society of Engineers (IDA) (Denmark)
o The Civil Engineer Organisation of Honduras (CICH) (Honduras)
o The Swedish Association of Graduate Engineers (Sweden)
o The Norwegian Society of Engineers (NITO) (Norway)
o The Finnish Association of Graduate Engineers (TEK) (Finland)
o The Union of Professional Engineers (UIL) (Finland)

These organizations represent over 1.2 million engineers.

[Nederland]

16. You don't get it do you?

It doesn't matter how many people say it can be done. Until you actually do it, the thing remains unproven.

[kristopher]

17. And until the sun comes up tomorrow it remains a question as to whether it will.

It doesn't matter how many times you say that rhetorical absolutism is how we commonly define things, until the rest of the world agrees with you you remain a purveyor of bullpuckey.

[Nederland]

18. Can you not see the difference?

You cannot be this stupid kristopher. The reason that there is no question that the sun will come up tomorrow is because it has done so every day in the past without exception, and this behavior has been observed time and time again. In contrast, the ability of renewables to produce all of the world's power by themselves has never been observed. My claim that the two things are very different is not rhetorical absolutism, it is simple common sense. How you cannot grasp this is baffling.

[kristopher]

20. All of the constituent elements of a distributed grid equally well tested.

There is no question that a distributed renewable grid will "work".

None.

[Nederland]

22. Spoken like someone who has no experience with complex systems

All of the constituent elements of a distributed grid equally well tested.

All you need to do is put them all together! What could go wrong? :eyes:

[kristopher]

23. Why don't you produce some evidence of your position?

Because there is none.

[Nederland]

24. My evidence is your lack of evidence

You claim something is possible, but cannot point to an example of it being done anywhere in the world.

That is MY evidence that you are wrong.

[kristopher]

25. No, my claim is that we have 100 years of experience operating grids and we know how they work

Show one study that contradicts the accepted knowledge that a distributed renewable grid not only will work, but will be MORE RELIABLE than the present focus on centralized generation.

One.

[Nederland]

26. As usual, you miss the point

You care about studies, I care about reality.

Studies do not turn on the lights when you flick the light switch. Real system do that. I could give a shit about whether or not there are any STUDIES that claim that a distributed renewable grid will work or be more efficient than existing infrastructure. What I care about is REALITY.

More importantly, I'm not even saying you are wrong. I would completely support the creation of a distributed renewable grid as a demonstration of the theories. I simply say it is a horrible idea to suggest that the entire world embark on some huge project to build something that has not been proven out in the real world yet. That is hardly an unreasonable position.

[kristopher]

27. No, I'm not missing the point. You are simply full of BS.

100 years of experience in operating the grid tells us unequivocally that renewables in a grid work. YOU are claiming that knowledge base is false. The burden of proof is on you.

[Nederland]

28. You're funny

You are claiming that something that does not exist in the real world will work, and then say the burden of proof is on me?

Kristopher, that is not how the world works. Perhaps the reason that the types of technology you advocate have never been implemented in the real world is that all of the people that advocate them are as naive as you are. If you want someone to give you huge amounts of money to do something, you need to give them real world proof that what you claim is possible. Trust me, if they ask you for proof and you turn around and say "the burden of proof is on you to show that it is not possible", you will never succeed in the market. Yes, you might be able to convince some people to give you a small amount of money for demonstration projects to prove out your ideas, but they will never throw billions of dollars your way until they have far more real world proof than you currently have.

[kristopher]

29. Are you saying that the grid does not exist?

I'll repeat it yet again - we've been operating grids for over 100 years and we understand extremely well how they work. Your claim is nothing more than a sham. So yes, the burden of proof is on you to provide some shred of evidence that the body of knowledge we have accumulated over that time is somehow wrong or lacking in enough depth to support your contention.

Come on, Neds, it shouldn't be hard to find some peer reviewed literature that supports your assertions that a renewable grid will not work.I mean. that is the fundamental claim that would make it far easier for you climate deniers to maintain the status quo -and with all that coal, oil and nuclear money being spent to do just that it is literally inconceivable that such work hasn't been produced if it had the least chance of getting through peer review.

And yet, it doesn't exist.

That isn't even strange.

[Nederland]

30. No

Next question.

[kristopher]

31. .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=313097&mesg_id=317898

[Nederland]

32. .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x317183#317897

[Nederland]

19. This is fucking hilarious

Did you even read the article you linked to? Perhaps you skipped this part:

The joint statement is the product of a landmark biennial conference held yesterday and today at the Institution of Mechanical Engineers. The Future Climate 2 conference brought together speakers from government, academia and engineering institutions from around the world to discuss the technologies needed to combat climate change.

Highlights from the conference included:

The German Association of Engineers (VDI) reported that the phasing out of nuclear power in Germany could lead to a doubling in national carbon emissions by 2050, with domestic renewable energy simply unable to fill the gap. To reach a planned 80% reduction in emissions, Germany must brace itself for expensive technological fixes and the large-scale import of green electricity produced by solar power from the Mediterranean;

The President of the Japanese Society of Mechanical Engineers (JSME) spoke about what happened at the Fukushima nuclear power plant after March’s earthquake and tsunami. The 50 year old technology withstood the earthquake but not the tsunami. The Onigawa power plant, far closer to the earthquake’s epicentre, survived despite being hit by a 13m high wave because its walls stood 14.8m high. Local villagers even sheltered from the tsunami inside the plant;

The UK Committee for Climate Change, which is advising the Government on its low carbon strategy, recommends an energy mix of 40% nuclear, 40% renewable, 15% Carbon Capture and Storage and 5% fossil fuel by 2030. It also suggests that we should aim for 40% of our vehicles to be hybrid and 20% to be wholly electric by 2030;

[kristopher]

21. You're not hilarious, more like pathetic...

The press release reports what happened at the conference.

The statement by the engineers is reported in paragraph one - the 11 organizations of 1,200,000 engineers endorse a statement saying what is is reported in the headline and first paragraph. The only mention of nuclear power in the joint statement is a reference to the Fukushima multiple meltdowns while they explicitly call for the use of renewables and energy efficiency.

The other paragraphs of the press release report other events at the conference with the only positive blurb about nuclear power being the recommendation you quoted which was presented by the "climate committee" appointed by the conservative government that has been on a bought and paid for mission to build nuclear from day one.

[freshwest]

15. It's not in their business model to do it, so they never will. They are good for a few things; but..

They should never have been allowed by the people to become the voice of the government. Now they are bigger than the governments and don't need to listen to anything that those of us who are trying to get a balance between the business model and the bounty of the planet and the needs of people and other living things. They have become destroyers of everything. And a great portion of the public is chained into the death spiral they offer us. So complex.

[kristopher]

33. That's what Lovins warned of in 1976.

He articulated the position so well that he is reviled to this day by proponents of the use of nuclear power.