David Suzuki

[kristopher]

19. Are you now so far gone you are saying MIT's Nuclear Dept is ...

...responsible for putting "scientifically disproven propaganda of the anti-nukes" in their reports on the status of nuclear power?

That's where the list of problems (safety, proliferation, waste and cost) comes from - and trying to obscure their conclusions with propaganda about a fuel cycle we are not prepared for nor are likely to spend money developing is nothing more than a diversion from the reality of the nuclear program the world has committed to.

While a low level, not too bright, politically rightwing technician with no dedication to the pursuit of truth in their work might would pervert a study like you have here, such an act of deception would be considered beyond the pale for anyone within the elite science circles where professional reputation is everything.

You write yet again, "No less than the National Academy of Science states that we can count on renewables for no more than about 20% of our electric production."

As you well know, that is simply untrue. The (now outdated) NAS study states that there are no recognized barriers to a penetration of up to about 20% renewables, but to move beyond and up to penetrations of about 50% would probably require specific policies that are friendlier to renewables than is currently the general norm.
ABOVE 50% they predict a need to restructure the grid in a fashion that places pre-emimence on the way variable generation is managed - ie, more storage and deployment of 'smart grid' technologies.

At no point do they EVER state we can "count on renewables for no more than 20% of our electric production".

No ethical person would make that statement about that report.