Redacted DOE report gives details on MOX boondoogle (MOX=Nuclear fuel with plutonium)

[kristopher]

12. Nuclear has had 50 years of full support from the government and the utilities

All it got us was more coal. That's because they both work on precisely the same set of economic drivers - build more and bigger plants that are - by design - the heart of a system to drive energy consumption and make more money. The problem for nuclear in that structure is that coal is more profitable. But as far as the energy system goes they are functional twins.

Just released.

Solar energy holds the best potential for meeting humanity’s future long-term energy needs while cutting greenhouse gas emissions — but to realize this potential will require increased emphasis on developing lower-cost technologies and more effective deployment policy, says a comprehensive new study, titled “The Future of Solar Energy,” released today by the MIT Energy Initiative (MITEI).

https://newsoffice.mit.edu/2015/mitei-report-future-solar-energy-0505

Report:
https://mitei.mit.edu/futureofsolar

Your claims that you care about anything except the technology itself is belied by your continued false attacks on renewable energy sources based on specious reasoning and overt misrepresentation of the facts.

The base of support for nuclear is the same as for fossil fuels - those with traditional values placing priority on energy security.

CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. Oct. 16-18, 2009. N=1,038 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

“To address the country’s energy needs, would you support or oppose action by the federal government to ?” (Half Sample)

"Increase coal mining"
Support 52, Oppose 45, Unsure 3

"Build more nuclear power plants"
Support 52, Oppose 46, Unsure 2

"Increase oil and gas drilling"
Support 64, Oppose 33, Unsure 3

"Develop more solar and wind power"
Support 91, Oppose 8, Unsure 1

"Develop electric car technology"
Support 82, Oppose 17, Unsure 2

"Require more energy conservation by businesses and industries"
Support 78, Oppose 20, Unsure 2

"Require more energy conservation by consumers like yourself"
Support 73, Oppose 25, Unsure 3

"Require car manufacturers to improve the fuel-efficiency of vehicles sold in this country"
Support 85, Oppose 14, Unsure 1

Asked of those who support building more nuclear power plants:
"Would you favor or oppose building a nuclear power plant within 50 miles of your home?"
Favor 66, Oppose 33

We've covered this territory before. That poll supports the Whitfield paper perfectly. And the Whitfield paper provides the insight needed to understand your bizarre antisocial behavior on an energy forum serving liberal Democrats.

52% traditionalist, 40% altruist. Given their values, we could expect to see an overlap is in the area of support for renewables. The traditionalist is primarily concerned about security and stability for home and country so the main concern they want addressed is "steady power" otherwise referred to as "energy security". That results in a 'let's pursue all alternatives' strategy on their part.

The 40% that are altruists reject coal and nuclear because of their high external costs. They do not trust the nuclear industry to tell the truth about the problems associated with nuclear any more than they expect the coal industry to tell the truth about coal.

"Trust in environmental institutions and perceived risks from global environmental problems do not predict attitudes toward nuclear power."

The results reported in this line tell us that concern for climate change is offset by the lack of belief in nuclear power's ability to solve the problem without creating another mess. Among this group renewables are perceived (correctly) as a superior alternative to nuclear. They also are arriving at their conclusions independently since whether or not they trust environmental institutions has no bearing on their conclusions.

What is truly interesting is what this tells us about the beliefs behind your posts. You attack renewable energy without fail - one of a very, very small minority to do so.

I would posit that the poll gives evidence that your beliefs and values as you have displayed them here are not rational if we judge them by the values in this survey that we've so far looked at.

In point of fact, however, there are 4 categories included in the survey: traditional, altruistic, open-to-change, and egoistic. I interpret your unceasing attacks on renewables, in spite of the clear and unequivocal evidence of their worth argues that your values are grouped in the egoistic area, probably with emphasis on the facet of "wealth, material possessions, and money".

Also note that: "Individuals with lower scores on the NEP (New Environmental Paradigm) scale (i.e., with less concern for the biosphere) have greater trust in nuclear organizations." p.433

Traditional values
Family security, safety for loved ones
Honoring parents and elders, showing respect
Self-discipline, self-restraint, resistance to temptation

Altruistic values
Respecting the earth, harmony with other species
Protecting the environment, preserving nature
Equality, equal opportunity for all
Social justice, correcting injustice, care for the weak
Unity with nature, fitting into nature
A world at peace, free of war and conflict

Openness to change values
An exciting life, stimulating experiences
Curious, interested in everything, exploring
A varied life, filled with challenge, novelty, and change

Egoistic values
Influential, having an impact on people and events
Authority, the right to lead or command
Wealth, material possessions, money p.430


You attempt to ally yourself with altruistic values, however that simply isn't consistent with your rejection of renewables and is more likely a ploy motivated by your embrace of the other egoistic values - (you want to be influential, to have an impact on people and events; you believe you should have authority and the right to lead or command on the issue) and if that takes espousing values on an internet forum that are contradicted by your actual stance, then you will do it.

The monetary motive seems probably due to the conflict between this appeal to altruism and your rejection of renewable power as even an "all of the above" choice, since either renewables are almost certainly going to crowd out nuclear, or nuclear is almost certainly going to crowd out renewables. If you were just looking to influence people for ego gratification, you wouldn't reject renewable energy, you would embrace it. So the monetary value seems most likely.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=260147&mesg_id=260328