Five Myths About Nuclear Energy

[kristopher]

Five Myths About Nuclear Energy
By Kristin Shrader-Frechette | JUNE 23, 2008

Atomic energy is among the most impractical and risky of available fuel sources. Private financiers are reluctant to invest in it, and both experts and the public have questions about the likelihood of safely storing lethal radioactive wastes for the required million years. Reactors also provide irresistible targets for terrorists seeking to inflict deep and lasting damage on the United States. The government’s own data show that U.S. nuclear reactors have more than a one-in-five lifetime probability of core melt, and a nuclear accident could kill 140,000 people, contaminate an area the size of Pennsylvania, and destroy our homes and health.

In addition to being risky, nuclear power is unable to meet our current or future energy needs. Because of safety requirements and the length of time it takes to construct a nuclear-power facility, the government says that by the year 2050 atomic energy could supply, at best, 20 percent of U.S. electricity needs; yet by 2020, wind and solar panels could supply at least 32 percent of U.S. electricity, at about half the cost of nuclear power. Nevertheless, in the last two years, the current U.S. administration has given the bulk of taxpayer energy subsidies—a total of $20 billion—to atomic power. Why? Some officials say nuclear energy is clean, inexpensive, needed to address global climate change, unlikely to increase the risk of nuclear proliferation and safe.

On all five counts they are wrong. Renewable energy sources are cleaner, cheaper, better able to address climate change and proliferation risks, and safer. The government’s own data show that wind energy now costs less than half of nuclear power; that wind can supply far more energy, more quickly, than nuclear power; and that by 2015, solar panels will be economically competitive with all other conventional energy technologies. The administration’s case for nuclear power rests on at least five myths. Debunking these myths is necessary if the United States is to abandon its current dangerous energy course.


Myth 1. Nuclear Energy Is Clean

The myth of clean atomic power arises partly because some sources, like a pro-nuclear energy analysis published in 2003 by several professors at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, call atomic power a “carbon-free source” of energy. On its Web site, the U.S. Department of Energy, which is also a proponent of nuclear energy, calls atomic power “emissions free.” At best, these claims are half-truths because they “trim the data” on emissions.

While nuclear reactors themselves do not release greenhouse gases, reactors are only part of the nine-stage nuclear fuel cycle. This cycle includes mining uranium ore, milling it to extract uranium, converting the uranium to gas, enriching it, fabricating fuel pellets, generating power, reprocessing spent fuel, storing spent fuel at the reactor and transporting the waste to a permanent storage facility. Because most of these nine stages are heavily dependent on fossil fuels, nuclear power thus generates at least 33 grams of carbon-equivalent emissions for each kilowatt-hour of electricity that is produced. (To provide uniform calculations of greenhouse emissions, the various effects of the different greenhouse gases typically are converted to carbon-equivalent emissions.) Per kilowatt-hour, atomic energy produces only one-seventh the greenhouse emissions of coal, but twice as much as wind and slightly more than solar panels.

Nuclear power is even less clean when ...

http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=10884

[Dead_Parrot]

1. The Catholic church talking about myths?

Now THAT is comedy.

Lev 19:19
Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a fuel-rod mingled of uranium and plutonium oxides come upon thy reactor.

[kristopher]

2. Why do nuclear proponents so often resort to logical fallacies like 'shoot the messenger'?

I thought they did an excellent job of clearly laying out the policy rationale. If they are as off base as you suggest, then surely you can pick their absurd arguments apart without resorting to such weak attempts at distraction...

[NNadir]

3. Because almost always the "messenger" is insufferably stupid.

[bananas]

10. Pro-nuke messengers are insufferably stupid.

But I am a pacifist, I would not shoot them, even if they deserve it.

[NNadir]

14. Well, "pacifist," I would say that your indifference has killed a lot of people.

More than 300,000 people in Europe alone died from air pollution in 2005.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4283295.stm

You couldn't care less.

On the other hand, you're pretty fucking religious about leaping under the table with a tin foil hat when someone drops a radioactive bolt in a nuclear power plant.

Ignorance KILLS.

[bananas]

85. Did they put you on the bus

or did you get on it yourself?

[kristopher]

17. About the author

Kristin Shrader-Frechette teaches biological sciences and philosophy at the University of Notre Dame. Her latest book, Taking Action, Saving Lives: Our Duties to Protect Environmental and Public Health (Oxford University Press, 2007), has been nominated for a National Book Award.

Nnadir, where can I read some of your peer reviewed work? Is that what you think your writings at dailykos are?

[Dead_Parrot]

21. Bjørn Lomborg is also a professor with a book published

Presumably, you think he's great. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_M._Morris">Henry Morris had a PhD and wrote lots of books, so must be really great, right?

[kristopher]

22. More shoot the messenger???

With a dash of 'poisoning the well' and 'guilt by association'.

Poor feller is blowing a gasket...

[Dead_Parrot]

24. Just hanging your "Appeal to authority" out to dry. nt

[kristopher]

28. It wasn't an appeal to authority.

I made no statement; I only listed the author's bio that was included with the article. But now that you mention it, the fact that she's a scientist and a professor of philosophy does give her words greater credibility than if she possessed a BA in journalism.

[Dead_Parrot]

31. Ah, right.

So you weren't appealing to her authority in post #17, but you are now. OK.

[kristopher]

36. Not even a good try...

Nnadir had just written, "Because almost always the "messenger" is insufferably stupid."

Whatever you might think of her conclusions, anyone that is a professor of philosophy isn't stupid.

[kristopher]

37. NOW I'm making an appeal to authority

It is hardly a logical fallacy, however...

Kristin Shrader-Frechette, Biographical Sketch
Kristin Shrader-Frechette has held senior professorships at the University of California and the University of Florida. Currently
she is O’Neill Family Professor, Department of Biological Sciences and Department of Philosophy, at the University of Notre Dame,
where she also directs the Center for Environmental Justice and Children’s Health. She studied physics at Xavier University and
then graduated summa cum laude, in 1967, with an undergraduate major in mathematics from Edgecliff College, Xavier University.
In 1972, she received her Ph.D. in philosophy from the University of Notre Dame. Shrader-Frechette also did postdoctoral work
for 2, 1, and 2 years, respectively, in biology (community ecology), economics, and hydrogeology. She has held Woodrow Wilson
Foundation, National Science Foundation, and Carnegie Foundation Fellowships in philosophy of science and has held
offices/served on committees in the US National Academy of Sciences, the Risk Assessment and Policy Association, the American
Philosophical Association, the Philosophy of Science Association, the Society for Philosophy and Technology, the International
Society for Environmental Ethics. Shrader-Frechette has been a member of many boards and committees of the International
Commission on Radiological Protection, US Environmental Protection Agency, National Council on Radiation Protection and
Measurement, and the National Research Council/National Academy of Sciences, including its Board on Environmental Studies
and Toxicology, its Committee on Risk Characterization, and its Committee on Zinc-Cadmium-Sulfide Dispersions.

In 2004 Shrader-Frechette became only the third American to win the World Technology Award in Ethics. Earlier a Harvard
professor won for work in biomedical ethics, and a Princeton professor won for work in development ethics. Shrader-Frechette
won for her work in public-health and environmental ethics. Associate Editor of BioScience until 2002, Shrader-Frechette is
currently Editor-in-Chief of the Oxford University Press monograph series on Environmental Ethics and Science Policy and a
member of the US EPA Science Advisory Board. She also serves on the editorial boards of 18 professional journals. Past-
President of the Society for Philosophy and Technology, and Past President of the Risk Assessment and Policy Association, she
also is Past President of the International Society for Environmental Ethics. Shrader-Frechette was the first woman president of
all three international organizations (SPT, RAPA, ISEE). She has served as Principal Investigator (PI) for grants from the National
Science Foundation, the National Endowment for the Humanities, the Council on Philosophical Studies, and the US Department
of Energy. NSF has continuously funded her research for 25 years. She recently finished research as PI on a $224,000 NSF grant
on ethical/policy issues associated with worker exposure to ionizing radiation. Currently she is a member of the project team for
a $ 3-million NSF grant, “Global Linkages of Biology, Environment, Society” and is PI on another NSF grant, one examining
methodological problems in epidemiological statistics.

Most of Shrader-Frechette's research analyzes mathematical, biological, or ethical problems in risk assessment, public health,
or environmental justice – especially those related to radiological, ecological, and energy-related risks. An enthusiastic teacher
as well as a researcher, she also has won the annual university-wide award for "Outstanding Teacher." Shrader-Frechette has
published more than 350 articles and 15 books /monographs:
Nuclear Power and Public Policy (1980, 1983);
Environmental Ethics (1981, 1991);
Four Methodological Assumptions in Cost-Benefit Analysis (1983);
Science Policy, Ethics, and Economic Methodology (1984);
Risk Analysis and Scientific Method (1985);
Nuclear Energy and Ethics (1991);
Risk and Rationality (1991);
Policy for Land: Law and Ethics (1992);
Burying Uncertainty: Risk and the Case Against Geological Disposal of Nuclear Waste (1993);
Method in Ecology (1993);
The Ethics of Scientific Research (1994),
Technology and Human Values (1996),
Environmental Justice: Creating Equality, Reclaiming Democracy (2002), and
Taking Action, Saving Lives: Our Duties to Protect Environmental and Public Health (2007).

Her theoretical essays have appeared in philosophical journals such as Ethics, Journal of Philosophy,
Philosophy of Science, and Synthese, as well as in science journals such as Science, BioScience, Health Physics, Conservation
Biology, Quarterly Review of Biology, OIKOS, and Trends in Ecology and Evolution. She has also published in more applied
journals such as Environmental Professional, Environment and Values, Energy Policy Studies, IEEE Spectrum, IEEE Technology
and Society, Environmental Ethics, and Journal of Business Ethics. Her books and articles have been translated into 13
languages – Chinese, Czech, Dutch, French, German, Hungarian, Italian, Japanese, Korean, Norwegian, Russian, and Spanish.

Shrader-Frechette is currently working on two new volumes: Nuclear Power and Climate Change and Risks of Risk Assessment.
Widely requested as a lecturer by university, government, and industrial groups in the Americas, Europe, China, India, Africa, and
Russia, Shrader-Frechette has been invited to address the National Academies of Science in three different countries. She has
served as an advisor to numerous governments and international organizations, including the United Nations and the World Health
Organization. She and her husband Maurice, a mathematician/computer scientist, have two children, Danielle and Eric, both
recent honors graduates of Princeton. Danielle is a financial analyst for Disney, and in 2007 Eric completed an M.D./Ph.D. at the
University of California. The family spends free time canoeing, scuba diving, hiking and doing volunteer work.


I very seldom use this, but ROTFLMAO.

[bluedawg12]

107. kristopher- you are citing her credentials, which is fair

it helps to establish her expertise.

I guess citing an expert is less preferable than citing ones "beliefs" and "personal opinions".

[wtmusic]

46. LOL nt.

[bluedawg12]

104. Lomberg is a RW darling climate change denier.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Skeptical_Environmentalist
The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World (Danish: Verdens Sande Tilstand, literal translation: The Real State of the World) is a controversial book by Danish environmentalist author Bjørn Lomborg, which argues that claims on certain aspects of global warming, overpopulation, declining energy resources, deforestation, species loss, water shortages, and a variety of other global environmental issues are unsupported by analysis of the relevant data.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bjorn_Lomborg

>>Bjørn Lomborg (born January 6, 1965) is an Adjunct Professor at the Copenhagen Business School, director of the Copenhagen Consensus Centre and a former director of the Environmental Assessment Institute in Copenhagen. He became internationally-known for his best-selling and controversial book The Skeptical Environmentalist.

In 2001, he attained significant attention by publishing The Skeptical Environmentalist, a controversial book whose main thesis is that many of the most-publicized claims and predictions of environmentalists are exaggerated.

After the book's publication, members of the Danish and international scientific community accused Lomborg of "scientific dishonesty". These allegations were investigated by appropriate arms of the Danish government and in the end, no official charges were left standing. However, there are scientists who remain critical of Lomborg's work

In March 2002, the newly elected center-right prime minister, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, appointed Lomborg to run Denmark's new Environmental Assessment Institute (EAI). On June 22 2004, Lomborg announced his decision to resign from this post to go back to the University of Aarhus, saying his work at the Institute was done and that he could better serve the public debate from the academic sector.

In 2002, Lomborg and the Environmental Assessment Institute founded the Copenhagen Consensus, which sought to establish priorities for advancing global welfare using methodologies based on the theory of welfare economics. A panel of prominent economists was assembled to evaluate and rank a series of problems. The project was funded largely by the Danish government, and co-sponsored by The Economist

Bjørn Lomborg has also recently authored Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming, which is a new and controversial examination of global warming and the measures being taken to combat it.

The book argues that, while global warming is a genuine concern, the problem needs to be dealt with in a responsible way. He suggests that the solutions currently suggested by Kyoto etc. are both prohibitively expensive, and therefore will not be followed-through, but even if they were fully implemented, they would result in only a minuscule change, perhaps slowing global warming by only 5 years or so, by even the most optimistic predictions.<<

[SergeyDovlatov]

112. Doesn't seem Lomborg is a denier from the snippet you posted.

"The book argues that, while global warming is a genuine concern, the problem needs to be dealt with in a responsible way. He suggests that the solutions currently suggested by Kyoto etc. are both prohibitively expensive, and therefore will not be followed-through, but even if they were fully implemented, they would result in only a minuscule change, perhaps slowing global warming by only 5 years or so, by even the most optimistic predictions."

Apart from subjective "prohibitively expensive" part. What is incorrect in this?

Recent IPCC report shows prediction with Kyoto and without and it indeed doing to little to alter the warming trend in any significant way.

[kristopher]

113. Lomborg is an 'environmental skeptic'

Lomborg is an 'environmental skeptic' meaning:
"Environmental scepticism denies the seriousness of environmental problems, and self-professed ‘sceptics’ claim to be unbiased analysts combating ‘junk science’. This study quantitatively analyses 141 English-language environmentally sceptical books published between 1972 and 2005. We find that over 92 per cent of these books, most published in the US since 1992, are linked to conservative think tanks (CTTs). Further, we analyse CTTs involved with environmental issues and find that 90 per cent of them espouse environmental scepticism. We conclude that scepticism is a tactic of an elite-driven counter-movement designed to combat environmentalism, and that the successful use of this tactic has contributed to the weakening of US commitment to environmental protection."

More from “The organisation of denial: Conservative think tanks and environmental scepticism”

at: http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/index.php/csw/details/organizing_denial/

[Howzit]

123. Does this mean SergeyDovlatov does not have a point?

What effect would Kyoto have on climate change if implemented?
Is there agreement on the size of this effect?
Would such an effect be meaningful?
Would the cost of achieving such an effect be justified?


If the effect of Kyoto wouldn't be meaningful, but yet it would be too costly to even be implemented, what other options are there? More of the same lost battles?

[kristopher]

125. I don't understand your question about Dovlatov

Kyoto wasn't designed to "solve" the climate change problem in one fell swoop. It was designed to create an environment in the world's marketplace that would direct efforts of industry towards finding solutions to global warming. It was built around the idea that properly directed markets work so, yes, it could have been meaningful if the US (acting on behalf of corporate fossil fuel interests) hadn't acted to obstruct it's implementation. There were weaknesses with Kyoto; but that is inevitable with a global agreement and is no excuse for the failure of the US to take the threat of global warming seriously.

The Bushies claimed that pursuing a path to solve global warming would be an economic act that would cripple us; those of us who support action argued that NOT taking action would economically cripple us. Looking at our economy based on current energy prices and the increasing severity of necessary remedial action, it isn't difficult to see who was correct.

[Howzit]

126. The current cost of energy is due largely to the falling dollar

The dollar is falling due to inflation. The inflation is due to the fact that the money wasted in Iraq has to come from somewhere. When money is created out of nothing it steals value from the money already in your pocket.

Just remind me again which president didn't sign the Kyoto protocol because of objections in the senate - I am a little hazy on that.

[NNadir]

38. You can't read any of my work.

The reason is that you can't read, period.

One of the insufferably stupid forms of bad thinking - and 100% the anti-nuke stuff on this cite consists wholly of bad thinking - is the appeal to authority fallacy.

Again from the laundry list of anti-nuke rhetoric, www.nizkor.org which I have to quote in response to anti-nuke cult thinking is here: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html

I quote:

This sort of reasoning is fallacious when the person in question is not an expert. In such cases the reasoning is flawed because the fact that an unqualified person makes a claim does not provide any justification for the claim. The claim could be true, but the fact that an unqualified person made the claim does not provide any rational reason to accept the claim as true.

When a person falls prey to this fallacy, they are accepting a claim as true without there being adequate evidence to do so. More specifically, the person is accepting the claim because they erroneously believe that the person making the claim is a legitimate expert and hence that the claim is reasonable to accept. Since people have a tendency to believe authorities (and there are, in fact, good reasons to accept some claims made by authorities) this fallacy is a fairly common one...

I note, with contempt, that authority is undermined when it conflicts with data.

It happens often, too, that even an expert is wrong. For instance, Chemistry Nobel Laureate H.C. Brown insisted that there was no such thing as non-classical carbocations. The fact that he had a Nobel Prize didn't make non-classical carbocations cease to exist.

The fact that you think appeal to a biologist and philosopher some how validates your stupid arguments is the equivalent of, say, the argument that the grotesque failure of wind and solar energy is a function of Ronald Reagan's election. Such appeal says all we need to know about the abysmal quality of anti-nuke thinking.

In fact, solar and wind have failed to stop climate change in hundreds of countries not run by Ronald Reagan.

For instance, so called "renewable energy" has not stopped dangerous fossil fuel use in Germany.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/tablee3.xls

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/RecentCoalConsumptionBtu.xls

In fact, as I have argued, it has done nothing.

Doing nothing is criminal, kiddie.

In fact, arguably solar and wind failed in the 18th century, but as I have noted elsewhere, anti-nukes are not only ignorant of the sciences - most notably mathematics but chemistry, physics, and biology as well - but of history too.

Now, let's talk about awards.

You do know that Henry Kissinger was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, don't you?

You do understand that Adolf Hitler was nominated for the same prize, don't you?

You don't?

Why am I not surprised?

I note, with contempt, that you attempt to cite a nomination for this meaningless award.

Jerzy Kozinski won the National Book Award. This does not mean that if he made a claim in his life about canal engineering in East Germany that it would have been more meaningful than say that of any civil engineer who happened to be his contemporary.

Now. Nuclear engineering is a complex scientific field. Command of nuclear engineering involves years of study of materials science, statistical mechanics, nuclear physics, chemistry, nuclear chemistry and high level mathematics.

The undergraduate nuclear engineering curriculum at say, MIT, is given here:

http://web.mit.edu/nse/education/undergraduate/degrequirements.html

There are zero subjects on this list wherein you have demonstrated a modicum, or even a whiff, of literacy.

My diaries on the other website stand or fall on their own merits, as do the references therein.

My contempt stands as well. Ignorance is not neutral. It is not passive. Ignorance kills.

Tough shit, kiddie.

[kristopher]

39. In other words you don't have any...

But we all acknowledge that you are the MASTER of the "appeal to false authority" fallacy.


This is the person you called stupid:

Kristin Shrader-Frechette, Biographical Sketch

Kristin Shrader-Frechette has held senior professorships at the University of California and the University of Florida. Currently
she is O’Neill Family Professor, Department of Biological Sciences and Department of Philosophy, at the University of Notre Dame,
where she also directs the Center for Environmental Justice and Children’s Health. She studied physics at Xavier University and
then graduated summa cum laude, in 1967, with an undergraduate major in mathematics from Edgecliff College, Xavier University.
In 1972, she received her Ph.D. in philosophy from the University of Notre Dame. Shrader-Frechette also did postdoctoral work
for 2, 1, and 2 years, respectively, in biology (community ecology), economics, and hydrogeology. She has held Woodrow Wilson
Foundation, National Science Foundation, and Carnegie Foundation Fellowships in philosophy of science and has held
offices/served on committees in the US National Academy of Sciences, the Risk Assessment and Policy Association, the American
Philosophical Association, the Philosophy of Science Association, the Society for Philosophy and Technology, the International
Society for Environmental Ethics. Shrader-Frechette has been a member of many boards and committees of the International
Commission on Radiological Protection, US Environmental Protection Agency, National Council on Radiation Protection and
Measurement, and the National Research Council/National Academy of Sciences, including its Board on Environmental Studies
and Toxicology, its Committee on Risk Characterization, and its Committee on Zinc-Cadmium-Sulfide Dispersions.
In 2004 Shrader-Frechette became only the third American to win the World Technology Award in Ethics. Earlier a Harvard
professor won for work in biomedical ethics, and a Princeton professor won for work in development ethics. Shrader-Frechette
won for her work in public-health and environmental ethics. Associate Editor of BioScience until 2002, Shrader-Frechette is
currently Editor-in-Chief of the Oxford University Press monograph series on Environmental Ethics and Science Policy and a
member of the US EPA Science Advisory Board. She also serves on the editorial boards of 18 professional journals. Past-
President of the Society for Philosophy and Technology, and Past President of the Risk Assessment and Policy Association, she
also is Past President of the International Society for Environmental Ethics. Shrader-Frechette was the first woman president of
all three international organizations (SPT, RAPA, ISEE). She has served as Principal Investigator (PI) for grants from the National
Science Foundation, the National Endowment for the Humanities, the Council on Philosophical Studies, and the US Department
of Energy. NSF has continuously funded her research for 25 years. She recently finished research as PI on a $224,000 NSF grant
on ethical/policy issues associated with worker exposure to ionizing radiation. Currently she is a member of the project team for
a $ 3-million NSF grant, “Global Linkages of Biology, Environment, Society” and is PI on another NSF grant, one examining
methodological problems in epidemiological statistics.
Most of Shrader-Frechette's research analyzes mathematical, biological, or ethical problems in risk assessment, public health,
or environmental justice – especially those related to radiological, ecological, and energy-related risks. An enthusiastic teacher
as well as a researcher, she also has won the annual university-wide award for "Outstanding Teacher." Shrader-Frechette has
published more than 350 articles and 15 books /monographs: Nuclear Power and Public Policy (1980, 1983); Environmental Ethics
(1981, 1991); Four Methodological Assumptions in Cost-Benefit Analysis (1983); Science Policy, Ethics, and Economic
Methodology (1984); Risk Analysis and Scientific Method (1985); Nuclear Energy and Ethics (1991); Risk and Rationality (1991);
Policy for Land: Law and Ethics (1992); Burying Uncertainty: Risk and the Case Against Geological Disposal of Nuclear Waste
(1993); Method in Ecology (1993); The Ethics of Scientific Research (1994), Technology and Human Values (1996), Environmental
Justice: Creating Equality, Reclaiming Democracy (2002), and Taking Action, Saving Lives: Our Duties to Protect Environmental
and Public Health (2007). Her theoretical essays have appeared in philosophical journals such as Ethics, Journal of Philosophy,
Philosophy of Science, and Synthese, as well as in science journals such as Science, BioScience, Health Physics, Conservation
Biology, Quarterly Review of Biology, OIKOS, and Trends in Ecology and Evolution. She has also published in more applied
journals such as Environmental Professional, Environment and Values, Energy Policy Studies, IEEE Spectrum, IEEE Technology
and Society, Environmental Ethics, and Journal of Business Ethics. Her books and articles have been translated into 13
languages – Chinese, Czech, Dutch, French, German, Hungarian, Italian, Japanese, Korean, Norwegian, Russian, and Spanish.
Shrader-Frechette is currently working on two new volumes: Nuclear Power and Climate Change and Risks of Risk Assessment.
Widely requested as a lecturer by university, government, and industrial groups in the Americas, Europe, China, India, Africa, and
Russia, Shrader-Frechette has been invited to address the National Academies of Science in three different countries. She has
served as an advisor to numerous governments and international organizations, including the United Nations and the World Health
Organization. She and her husband Maurice, a mathematician/computer scientist, have two children, Danielle and Eric, both
recent honors graduates of Princeton. Danielle is a financial analyst for Disney, and in 2007 Eric completed an M.D./Ph.D. at the
University of California. The family spends free time canoeing, scuba diving, hiking and doing volunteer work.

[Dead_Parrot]

4. There's nothing else to aim at, here

I can hardly critise the hundreds of articles referenced by the author, because there aren't any.

"Atomic energy is among the most impractical and risky of available fuel sources." based on what, externalised cost? I don't think so. Capacity? Hardly. Deaths per exajoule? not even close. Some mysterious religious tract kept in a vault in the Vatican? Possibly.
"The government’s own data show that U.S. nuclear reactors have more than a one-in-five lifetime probability of core melt" gets dropped in without a link to the data, or indeed the presumably long list of melted cores. Why is that? More to the point, why don't you even question it?
"Reactors also provide irresistible targets for terrorists" Really? So, every terrorist attack to date has been on reactors? I guess 9/11 was just a publicity stunt, then.
"The government says that by the year 2050 atomic energy could supply, at best, 20 percent of U.S. electricity needs" Where? by what criteria?
"yet by 2020, wind and solar panels could supply at least 32 percent of U.S. electricity" Sums? sources? Storage methods?
"at about half the cost of nuclear power" - Sorces? sums? Capacity is factored in where? Cost of storage?
"Nevertheless, in the last two years, the current U.S. administration has given the bulk of taxpayer energy subsidies—a total of $20 billion—to atomic power." - I guess we're not including war-for-oil as a subsidy, but it would be interesting to see the actual figures, wouldn't it? It would be interesting to compare the subsidies on a per-joule basis, actually, but I guess that's way to much to ask for.

And that's just the first two paragraphs of the introduction - I'll be buggered if I'm sitting here all night pointing out every damn flaw to you.

I thought they did an excellent job of clearly laying out the policy rationale

Did you? That's interesting.

[kristopher]

6. You haven't yet pointed out any flaws. It is a news story, not a journal article.

[notesdev]

8. It's a poorly researched article

Comparing the potential energy supply of nuclear power vs. that of biofuel, solar, and wind generation is like comparing an elephant to a mouse. Nuclear power scales to the level of our needs; fashionable alternatives don't even come close.

[bananas]

11. If you don't know what you're talking about, you make stuff up.

[Dead_Parrot]

15. Precisely. nt

[notesdev]

25. Do I, now?

Tell me then, oh all knowing and wise one, the quantity of annual energy usage demand in the United States, and the quantity of power that can be produced by sources other than coal, nuclear, oil, and hydro power. If you understood the scale you would understand the foolishness of outright rejection of all potential sources of new power generation.

[kristopher]

27. We use about 100 quads/year

of which only about 2.5% is from nonhydro renewables. I and many others understand the scale of the problem and all the technologies involved very well and we disagree with your seeming assessment that scale alone is the determining factor for supporting greater deployment of nuclear technology.
The author of the article made the case very well; try posing an actual argument instead of throwing out more logical fallacies.

[notesdev]

29. Right

So unless you have a proposed source that can scale to a significant percentage of that - which you don't - the only choice available is between coal, oil, and nuclear.

Alternatively, you can pretend that this is not the choice we face and argue yourself out of the decision making process that the harsh reality of mathematics will compel.

[Dead_Parrot]

32. That's a little unfair to hydro...

(just sayin') :)

[notesdev]

33. Hydro in the US is fully exploited

thus it is not available to be expanded to cover additional energy needs that would be required by reducing reliance on oil, which has become a critical economic and strategic imperative.

We can burn coal or build nuclear plants. There is no other realistic solution at present technology levels. People advocating wind, solar, biofuel as alternatives fail to realistically assess the engineering required as well as the environmental impact of using such technologies on the scale necessary to provide for power demand.

What the people who say no to everything are really saying is that they want us to revert to a pre-industrial society, which is all the power generation they approve of would be able to support.

[kristopher]

35. You are simply wrong.

There is no reason to say that with existing technologies, wind and solar cannot meet our energy needs. You don't know what you are talking about regarding renewable resources. I'm eager to see your 'mathematics" proving your assertion.

[kristopher]

114. Still waiting for those harsh mathematical proofs...

[bananas]

41. Here you go

Nuclear energy is teeny tiny compared to renewables:

The estimates of remaining worldwide energy resources vary, with the remaining fossil fuels totaling an estimated 0.4 YJ (1 YJ = 1024J) and the available nuclear fuel such as uranium exceeding 2.5 YJ. Fossil fuels range from 0.6-3 YJ if estimates of reserves of methane clathrates are accurate and become technically extractable. Mostly thanks to the Sun, the world also has a renewable usable energy flux that exceeds 120 PW (8,000 times 2004 total usage), or 3.8 YJ/yr, dwarfing all non-renewable resources.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_resources_and_consumption

There is an estimated 72 TW of wind energy on the Earth that potentially can be commercially viable.<8>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power

We already get more energy from renewables than from nuclear:

Hydro, nuclear, and other (geothermal, solar, wind, and wood and waste) electric power generation ranked fourth, fifth, and sixth, respectively, as primary energy sources in 2005, accounting for 6.3, 6.0, and 0.9 percent, respectively, of world primary energy production (Table 2.9).

http://www.eia.doe.gov/iea/overview.html

A recent Scientific American article:

December, 2007
A Solar Grand Plan
By 2050 solar power could end U.S. dependence on foreign oil and slash greenhouse gas emissions

By Ken Zweibel, James Mason and Vasilis Fthenakis

<snip>

Solar energy’s potential is off the chart. The energy in sunlight striking the earth for 40 minutes is equivalent to global energy consumption for a year. The U.S. is lucky to be endowed with a vast resource; at least 250,000 square miles of land in the Southwest alone are suitable for constructing solar power plants, and that land receives more than 4,500 quadrillion British thermal units (Btu) of solar radiation a year. Converting only 2.5 percent of that radiation into electricity would match the nation’s total energy consumption in 2006.

To convert the country to solar power, huge tracts of land would have to be covered with photovoltaic panels and solar heating troughs. A direct-current (DC) transmission backbone would also have to be erected to send that energy efficiently across the nation.

The technology is ready. On the following pages we present a grand plan that could provide 69 percent of the U.S.’s electricity and 35 percent of its total energy (which includes transportation) with solar power by 2050. We project that this energy could be sold to consumers at rates equivalent to today’s rates for conventional power sources, about five cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh). If wind, biomass and geothermal sources were also developed, renewable energy could provide 100 percent of the nation’s electricity and 90 percent of its energy by 2100.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-solar-grand-plan

[bananas]

86. Nuclear energy is teeny tiny compared to renewables.

Not that anybody cares.
They are all on their high horses.

[bluedawg12]

108. Well researched magazine article

last I looked Time and Newsweek etc., don't include citations. But she backed it up with a book on the subject.

This looks viable not fashionable:
"Wind now can supply up to 20 percent of electricity, using the current electricity grid as backup, just as nuclear plants do when they are shut down for refueling, maintenance and leaks. Wind can supply up to 100 percent of electricity needs by using “distributed” turbines spread over a wide geographic region—because the wind always blows somewhere, especially offshore."

Hell, she only wrote a book on the environment- not like all of us here who have "opinions".

http://www.amazon.com/Taking-Action-Saving-Lives-Environmental/dp/019532546X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1213324710&sr=1-1
Taking Action, Saving Lives: Our Duties to Protect Environmental and Public Health (Environmental Ethics and Science Policy)- Kristin Shrader-Frechette

"Why, asks Kristin Shrader-Frechette, has the government failed to protect us, and what can we do about it? In this book, at once brilliant and accessible, Shrader-Frechette reveals how politicians, campaign contributors, and lobbyists--and their power over media, advertising, and public relations--have conspired to cover up environmental disease and death. She also shows how science and regulators themselves are frequently "captured" by well-funded polluters and special interests. But most important, the author puts both the blame--and the solution--on the shoulders of ordinary citizens. She argues that everyone, especially in a democracy, has a duty to help prevent avoidable environmental deaths, to remain informed about, and involved in, public-health and environmental decision-making. "

[Dead_Parrot]

9. Err, what?

So, if it's called "news", they can just make stuff up? And you'll think it's "excellent"?

You must be a big fan of Fox News.

[kristopher]

16. Wow that's persuasive.

Where is your evidence they "are making things up"? All I've seen is name calling and an attempt to criticize that is based on the fact that it isn't a journal article.

I saw perhaps two statements that were a bit fudged in that the claim was true but not to the point, but nothing worse than that.

[Dead_Parrot]

19. In that case...

...feel free to address the points I made in #4.

Incidentally, you are the one making claims about it not being a "journal article". I'm criticising it on the basis that it is tripe.

[kristopher]

20. That is all your claims amount to - criticism that it doesn't provide references

About the author:
Kristin Shrader-Frechette teaches biological sciences and philosophy at the University of Notre Dame. Her latest book, Taking Action, Saving Lives: Our Duties to Protect Environmental and Public Health (Oxford University Press, 2007), has been nominated for a National Book Award.

I'm sure it is easy enough to track her down and ask for references if you're so sure that she's making things up.

[Dead_Parrot]

23. Not quite...

...the fact that it make extraordinary claims and doesn't reference them is what triggers my bullshit meter.

Seriously, if you want me to believe for 1 second that US reactors have a 1-in-5 chance of a meltdown you're going to have to damn site better than "Go ask someone in a church".

More to the point, why are you happy with just believing it without any proof?

[kristopher]

26. I judged it to be a well written presentation of a policy position

And the facts that I am aware of (which are quite a few) were not screwed up and unless there is some reason to think otherwise, I will tentatively accept the rest.

So, if you have evidence that something is "made up" please trot it out and we can explore the possibility.

[Dead_Parrot]

30. Well, I gave you list in #4

But since you're evidently having difficulty comprehending the entire post in one sitting, we'll start with the first point:

"Atomic energy is among the most impractical and risky of available fuel sources."

As I mentioned, this not true in terms of external costs, world capacity is about 350Gw at 90% loading (just over 11Ej), and if you count the final predicted Chernobyl toll as "walking dead" the deaths per joule work out about the same as PV.

So, what do you base your belief on?

[kristopher]

34. She is stating a belief.

That is her assessment which she then supports.
Just because you choose to disregard the risks or choose to evaluate them not on potential but on the statistics from limited deployment (compared to what we are discussing for the future), doesn't mean everyone does; nor does it mean your assessment of risk is correct. Especially disingenuous is the failure to recognize the complexity of nuclear technology and associated potential failure at all points in design construction and operation of the large number you want to be built.

[Dead_Parrot]

42. Well, if you ever feel like getting to the point, let me know

But since your entire argument seems to consist of "She's a professor so she's really clever", I don't expect it to be anytime soon.

[kristopher]

45. So you also enjoy building strawmen...

I directly answered your point and I'll now go one step further: You accused the author of basically being a religious nut and making things up because she didn't cite her sources. You'll find them listed in great detail in the associated bibliographies of the listed paper. Link for download is included.
Now if you were a person with any integrity, you'd admit your error.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=154609&mesg_id=154687

[Dead_Parrot]

47. That's a list of her publications, genius...

...not a list of her sources. I assume you know the difference?

Now, having 'trotted out' that "Atomic energy is among the most impractical and risky of available fuel sources" is actually a false statement - and I gave you the reasons why I think so in post #30 - are you still prepared to 'explore the possibility', or are you going to throw your toys out of the pram and go off on another tangent?

[kristopher]

50. It is a list of her sources, my friend.

She wrote the popular press article based on the knowledge and sources used in this list of publications. Her bibliographies for those papers are the sources for the information in the popular press article.

Since her specialty is high level analysis of the issue of risk assessment involving disposal of nuclear waste and the theoretical principles underpinning the analysis of such risk, she is as much of a legitimate authority as exists on the topic. The statement you refer to is a conclusion by a highly qualified expert addressing the focus of their research. You point to this conclusion and say she is "making things up". If you consider the conclusions of a professional in their area of expertise to be "making things up" then you really have an extremely poor grasp of both the English language and the way honest review of professional literature works.

The way something like this is done in the real world is that you challenge her conclusion by either disproving the factual or logical basis of that conclusion. You don't get to just point to it like a child in kindergarten and say "She's saying something I don't like, so she's making things up, waaaaaa."

You whined about the lack of sourcing and challenged her as a religious nut. I've demonstrated that she is a legitimate researcher with considerable expertise in the topic. I've shown you where her sources are listed and the body of academic work upon which the conclusion you dislike is based. She has laid out the arguments supporting her conclusion in her popular press article. Find the points you think are erroneous, go to her papers and look for the sources, then explain why she is wrong in the way she is using that information.

You are clearly wrong about her status as just some religious nut, and you clearly are out of your league in trying to challenge her conclusions. However, if you want to either email her and ask for specific reference to points you disagree with, or else (gasp) actually read about a half dozen of the papers she has written on the topic, then you would able to provide the meat for the substantive discussion I've invited. You state "I gave you the reasons why I think so in post #30". What you gave me are two points that YOU think show the relative risk of nuclear to be acceptable (you equate it with PV) and its generating performance and quantity. You have absolutely no idea whatsoever if those points address her statement that "Atomic energy is among the most impractical and risky of available fuel sources". All you are doing is throwing out two 'facts' with no context, no logic, and not a whiff of connection to her supporting arguments and pretending you've actually written something meaningful.

You haven't. All you've done is demonstrate that your integrity is suspect; and that you are more interested in maintaining belief dear to your heart than you are in understanding the discussion taking place.

[Dead_Parrot]

51. So, another tangent

Have you flicked down to the end of this this paper and read the MIT study she claims to quote? No? Oh well.

And you still have no damn intention of discussing that one point, beyond constant appeals to her authority.

Fuck it, you're not worth the bandwidth.

[kristopher]

53. It is the same path I've been on from the beginning.

It is amazing that you shills can't come up with anything but sour grapes as a way to wriggle out of having to admit you're full of shit.

She is a religious nut.
No she isn't.

She doesn't give references.
I found them for you, oh great and lazy one.

You make a half assed argument treating a conclusion as an argument. I point out twice why basic logic requires you to address the premise of the conclusion in order to challenge the conclusion.
You offer sour grapes and scamper away.

[bananas]

5. Because that's all they've got.

Lots of happy talk and shoot the messenger.

[kristopher]

7. I know; mostly one of three...

3 modes: false logic, insults, false statements

[bananas]

13. Yup.

I've called it bad math, faulty analysis, ad hominems.

[NNadir]

12. Right.. How about a round of 4084 > 4258 or 660 > 860?

http://www.energy.ca.gov/electricity/ELECTRICITY_GEN_1983-2006.XLS

The entire anti-nuke cult consists of illiterate flakes. There is NOT ONE anti-nuke flake on this website who does ANYTHING BUT DOGMA.

It's hardly surprising to see them now citing religious publications - this from the people who showed Galileo the "instruments of torture" because he claimed the earth orbited the sun - as "science."

In 6 years of denial and paranoia, 6 years of "solar will save us" and "wind will save us" and "hydrogen HYPEcar" rhetoric - during which more than 100 billion tons of dangerous fossil fuel waste was dumped into the atmosphere, you have NOT ONCE, cited anything more than pop press garbage.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/tableh1co2.xls

Heckuva job fundie, heckuva job.

[kristopher]

18. Hmmm

"Achieving greater energy efficiency, however, also requires ending the lopsided system of taxpayer nuclear subsidies that encourage the myth of inexpensive electricity from atomic power. Since 1949, the U.S. government has provided about $165 billion in subsidies to nuclear energy, about $5 billion to solar and wind together, and even less to energy-efficiency programs. All government efficiency programs—to encourage use of fuel-efficient cars, for example, or to provide financial assistance so that low-income citizens can insulate their homes—currently receive only a small percentage of federal energy monies."

http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=10884

[kristopher]

40. Sources for OP article

You can find the sources used in this article (and a whole lot more besides) at the author's website where she makes available much of her published work for download: http://www.nd.edu/~kshrader/pubs/

Check out "Nuclear Waste: The Academy and Million-Year Estimates Quarterly Review of Biology, v.71, #3

"High Level Wastes: Low Level Logic Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

"Science, Environmental Risk assessment, and the Frame Problem BioScience, V.44 #8

"Workplace Pollution: Nuclear Safety, Ethics, and the Exploitation-Avoidance Argument," Risk, Vol. 12.

"Comparativist Rationality and Epidemiological Epistemology: Theory Choice in Cases of Nuclear-Weapons Risk," Topoi, Vol. 2.

"Radiobiology and Gray Science," Science and Engineering Ethics, Vol. 11.

"Mortgaging the Future: Dumping Ethics with Nuclear Waste," Science and Engineering Ethics, Vol. 11.

"Trimming Exposure Data, Putting Radiation Workers at Risk" American Journal of Public Health

But be warned, we've been told by several reputable members of DU that the author is a religious fanatic who is "stupid".

[ladjf]

43. Go Kristopher. You are fighting a good battle against some

anti-alternate energy trolls. It wouldn't matter how solid your arguments were, they would attack you
and any who agreed with you as being "flakes", "stupid" and "uninformed". There is no place in their dogma for solid logic and reality. They will spit out their vitriol incessantly.

Rave on. You have fans on DU.

[madokie]

44. I have to say I agree with you

:hi: wholeheartedly.

[wtmusic]

48. Her claims contradict her references

"The 2003 M.I.T. study, for instance, included neither the costs of reprocessing nuclear material, nor the full interest costs on nuclear-facility construction capital, nor the total costs of waste storage. Once these omissions—from the entire nine-stage nuclear fuel cycle—are included, nuclear costs are about 11 cents per kilowatt-hour."

vs.

"In 2003, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) issued a report entitled, "The Future of Nuclear Power". They estimated that new nuclear power in the US would cost 6.7 cents per kWh."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_new_nuclear_power_plants

An article like this which is so clearly one-sided should be taken with a grain of salt, not to mention she is way outside her field of training (biology/philosophy).

[Dead_Parrot]

49. Hmm.

With a gentle reminder that nuclear plants are required to include waste and decommissioning in the costs of the elctricity:

http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/pdf/nuclearpower-summary.pdf

Our “merchant” cost model uses assumptions that commercial investors would be expected to use today, with parameters based on actual experience rather than engineering estimates of what might be achieved under ideal conditions; it compares the constant or “levelized” price of electricity over the life of a power plant that would be necessary to cover all operating expenses and taxes and provide an acceptable return to investors.

The accompanying table lists a range of prices from 4.2 to 6.7 c/kWh, although the best-case does seem a little, err, optimistic.

Hey ho.

You can see why she was rather vague about her references - the last thing she'd want is anybody actually reading them.

Although that's not something that will trouble her new fans, I'm sure.

[kristopher]

54. Moving in the right direction but no cigar...

So you are saying that this:
"Our “merchant” cost model uses assumptions that commercial investors would be expected to use today, with parameters based on actual experience rather than engineering estimates of what might be achieved under ideal conditions; it compares the constant or “levelized” price of electricity over the life of a power plant that would be necessary to cover all operating expenses and taxes and provide an acceptable return to investors."

Contradicts this:
"The 2003 M.I.T. study, for instance, included neither the costs of reprocessing nuclear material, nor the full interest costs on nuclear-facility construction capital, nor the total costs of waste storage. Once these omissions—from the entire nine-stage nuclear fuel cycle—are included, nuclear costs are about 11 cents per kilowatt-hour."

I see no evidence that her claims are refuted at all. What I see is a statement that doesn't address the specifics of her assertion in any manner at all. Where is there information about the status of:
1) interest costs on nuclear-facility construction capital
2) the total costs of waste storage
3) the inclusion of the entire nine-stage nuclear fuel cycle as part of the cost basis?

Let me help you; it doesn't address them at all. You are reading into your quote information that simply isn't there.



Added on edit: note these 'escape clauses': "uses assumptions...that would be expected to use".

Assumptions and expectations are key indicators of the fact that information such as she has identified is elsewhere detailed.

[wtmusic]

57. Bunk.

The MIT study is comprehensive and clearly includes interest in its financial model:

"We do not believe that these traditional levelized cost models based on regulated utility cost recovery principles provide a good description of how merchant plants will be financed in the future by private investors. Accordingly, we have developed and utilized an alternative model that provides flexibility to specify more realistic debt repayment obligations and associated cash flow constraints, as well as the costs of debt and equity and income tax obligations that a private firm would assign to individual projects with specific risk attributes,while accounting for corporate income taxes, tax depreciation and the tax shield on interest payments. We refer to this as the Merchant Cash Flow model. We have relied primarily on simulation results using this model under assumptions of both a 25-year and 40-year capital recovery period and 85% and 75% lifetime capacity factors.

Table 5.3 Base Case Assumptions
Nuclear
Overnight cost: $2000/kWe
O&M cost: 1.5 cents/kWh (includes fuel)
O&M real escalation rate: 1.0%/year
Construction period: 5 years
Capacity factor: 85%/75%
Financing:
Equity: 15% nominal net of income taxes
Debt: 8% nominal
Inflation: 3%
Income Tax rate (applied after expenses, interest and tax depreciation): 38%
Equity: 50%
Debt: 50%
Project economic life: 40 years/25 years"

http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/

So she is either being disingenuous or never read the study.

[kristopher]

58. You really have no idea of how to do research, do you?

Again, you have to find where HER original argument is. Unless you know what it is, how can you rebut it. I'd suggest emialing her and asking. In this case she specified that the 9 stages (?) of the entire processing process weren't included. Her criticism was pretty explicit. I can't imagine why you have such a problem reading.

[wtmusic]

62. Conclusions first, data second. Exactly why her article is worthless.

That's not how science works, my friend.

She claims interest was not involved in the computations, when it was. I have to email her to ask her why?

If someone seriously misrepresented their source that way, it's likely other data is misrepresented in a biased and prejudicial manner too. Not worth my time (or yours) reading further.

[kristopher]

63. You are confusing the scientific process with the dissemination of the conclusions.

You are AGAIN confusing the scientific process with the dissemination of the conclusions. those papers represent her journey through the scientific analysis. An article in the popular press is the way she shares her hard won knowledge with the public.

Frankly your objections are becoming pathetic. She didn't misrepresent any sources - you are just childishly making the invalid claim that she did in order to diminish the cognitive dissonance that is shaking you up so badly. Grow the fuck up.

[wtmusic]

65. I've noticed the number of ad hominems in a reply

is typically proportional to the desperation of the poster. I won't follow you down that hole.

I have yet to see you reconcile her claim that interest was not included in the MIT study, when it clearly was. :shrug:

[kristopher]

66. I didn't REvisit the claim.

Because it had been addressed previously.

Post 54: "The 2003 M.I.T. study, for instance, included neither the costs of reprocessing nuclear material, nor the full interest costs on nuclear-facility construction capital, nor the total costs of waste storage. Once these omissions—from the entire nine-stage nuclear fuel cycle—are included, nuclear costs are about 11 cents per kilowatt-hour."

I see no evidence that her claims are refuted at all. What I see is a statement that doesn't address the specifics of her assertion in any manner at all. Where is there information about the status of:
1) interest costs on nuclear-facility construction capital
2) the total costs of waste storage
3) the inclusion of the entire nine-stage nuclear fuel cycle as part of the cost basis?

Let me help you; it doesn't address them at all. You are reading into your quote information that simply isn't there.


Post 57: In this case she specified that the 9 stages (?) of the entire processing process weren't included. Her criticism was pretty explicit. I can't imagine why you have such a problem reading.


Your tactics are precisely those of the republican machine attempting to discredit authoritative sources of information. Considering you are supporting what has been a solidly Republican position for over 30 years, why does that not surprise me?

For those with severe learning disabilities, here is the way it shakes out:
MIT made claim X.
She reviews claim X and finds error.
You attempt to rebut claim X by citing erroneous material from MIT.
Duh.

I already told you that to rebut her claim you need to find the original paper where she reviews MIT's claim and demonstrates what she sees as an error. If I were you, I wouldn't bet against her being correct.

[wtmusic]

68. Nonsense. A refresher on scientific method and analysis:

The burden of proof falls on whoever makes the claim. She provides a statement that she doesn't back up, and you swallow it whole, apparently based on your preconceived notions. As I've said, I've got far better ways to spend my time than vet what has every appearance of being a semi-religious diatribe.

"If I were you, I wouldn't bet against her being correct." Do you realize how silly that sounds? :crazy:

[kristopher]

70. You've reached the point of absurdity.

Your ability to misconstrue and mischaracterize is nothing short of remarkable, though.

"The burden of proof falls on whoever makes the claim", you say? And precisely how do you envision the burden of proof being met? By annotated footnotes to every editorial written? The body of work she has produced and made publicly available for wizards like you to download and read speaks for itself. You haven't made even the most basic attempt to find out if your suspicions have merit; preferring instead to make half-baked specious claims that aren't supported by the 'evidence' you yourself present.

The only deficiency that exists here is your lack of intellectual integrity.

[wtmusic]

72. I just think it's sort of funny the lengths you're going to to avoid

admitting she mischaracterized the MIT data. It's okay...no one's perfect.

I don't really need to read her entire body of work before I'll get an answer on this, do I? You're defending her research so vigorously, you must read all her work, and can steer me to the right place, no?

[kristopher]

74. Same old, same old

Because it had been addressed previously.

Post 54: "The 2003 M.I.T. study, for instance, included neither the costs of reprocessing nuclear material, nor the full interest costs on nuclear-facility construction capital, nor the total costs of waste storage. Once these omissions—from the entire nine-stage nuclear fuel cycle—are included, nuclear costs are about 11 cents per kilowatt-hour."

I see no evidence that her claims are refuted at all. What I see is a statement that doesn't address the specifics of her assertion in any manner at all. Where is there information about the status of:
1) interest costs on nuclear-facility construction capital
2) the total costs of waste storage
3) the inclusion of the entire nine-stage nuclear fuel cycle as part of the cost basis?

Let me help you; it doesn't address them at all. You are reading into your quote information that simply isn't there.


Post 57: In this case she specified that the 9 stages (?) of the entire processing process weren't included. Her criticism was pretty explicit. I can't imagine why you have such a problem reading.


Your tactics are precisely those of the republican machine attempting to discredit authoritative sources of information. Considering you are supporting what has been a solidly Republican position for over 30 years, why does that not surprise me?

For those with severe learning disabilities, here is the way it shakes out:
MIT made claim X.
She reviews claim X and finds error.
You attempt to rebut claim X by citing erroneous material from MIT.
Duh.

I already told you that to rebut her claim you need to find the original paper where she reviews MIT's claim and demonstrates what she sees as an error. If I were you, I wouldn't bet against her being correct.

[wtmusic]

75. I love that technique - "YOU need to find the original paper..."

No, kristopher, I think you need to find that paper. You're the one pushing it, offering naught but blind confidence in support.

And frankly I don't understand where that confidence comes from -- a biologist/philosopher, with little training in energy, contradicts an entire team at MIT which specializes in the topic?

So maybe not a severe learning disability. Call it a severe gullibility aversion.

[kristopher]

77. ...

MIT made claim X.
She reviews claim X and finds error.
You attempt to rebut claim X by citing erroneous material from MIT.
Duh.

[wtmusic]

78. Do you know what the word "rebut" means?

"To refute, especially by offering opposing evidence". Duh.

I believe the MIT claims are sound -- so I really have no idea WTF you're talking about. :silly:

[kristopher]

79. Spoken like a true Bushie.

"Screw contradictory evidence," he says, "I'll believe what I want to believe."

[wtmusic]

80. Tut, tut.

I'll read her four-page paper in the morning and likely learn something from it.

And maybe in the morning you'll stop acting like an angry child and we can have a discussion.

Good night.

[kristopher]

81. The discussion coould have began 1000 words ago

If you weren't so intent on being a *.

[kristopher]

87. Sure is taking a long time to read 4 pages...

And that included endnotes.

[wtmusic]

88. Sorry, someone keeps duping their own posts in E/E

and I've been busy alerting on that.

I'll read now. ;-)

[wtmusic]

89. Some general impressions.

The date of this paper (1996) is significant in that there is little mention of anthropogenic global warming as a far greater concern.

While we're debating about the importance of whether dose and very nebulous risk standards may protect us 1 million years into the future, the planet is being strangled by atmospheric carbon which will do all of us in within 1,000 years.

There is also the implicit assumption that once we place nuclear waste in repository it will stay there for 1 million years. Finding ways to recycle/neutralize nuclear waste will be a priority, and if we figured out how to split the atom a scant 40 years after we discovered what it even was it's reasonable to assume that sometime between now and 1,000,2008 there will be progress on that front.

[kristopher]

91. The 5 myths article is current.

So tell us what she wrote about. Be sure and include the support for your assertions of her scientific illiteracy and bias.

[wtmusic]

93. OK.

KSF claims the MIT study is incomplete because:

"On its Web site, the U.S. Department of Energy, which is also a proponent of nuclear energy, calls atomic power “emissions free.” At best, these claims are half-truths because they “trim the data” on emissions.

While nuclear reactors themselves do not release greenhouse gases, reactors are only part of the nine-stage nuclear fuel cycle."

Yet the MIT study makes no pretense about recommending a once-through fuel cycle:

"Our analysis leads to a significant conclusion: The once-through fuel cycle best meets the criteria oflow costs and proliferation resistance."

KSF's disingenuous tack that this is some kind of omission reveals either shoddy resourcing or a biased interpretation.

[kristopher]

94. You're the one engaging in biased interpretation

There is no way that a once through fuel cycle is descriptive of the system we are considering to meet the demands of global warming. To assert in any way that it is, is a flat out lie.

[wtmusic]

96. Oh really?

From those liars at MIT:

"For the next decades, government and industry in the U.S. and elsewhere
should give priority to the deployment of the once-through fuel cycle,
rather than the development of more expensive closed fuel cycle
technology involving reprocessing and new advanced thermal or fast
reactor technologies. "

More importantly:
"In the United States, people do not connect concern about global warming
with carbon-free nuclear power. There is no difference in support for build-
ing more nuclear power plants between those who are very concerned about
global warming and those who are not. Public education may help improve
understanding about the link between global warming,fossil fuel usage,and
the need for low-carbon energy sources."

[kristopher]

99. How many reactors are required to address GW

How many reactors are required to address GW and where is the fuel to power them into the next century going to come from? The ONLY way those needs will be met is through breeder technology and you know it.

It's tempting to say that the MIT study seems to be limiting itself to the most favorable presentation of information possible. But I rather suspect that impression is more attributable to your selective quoting than the authors intent.

Shrader-Flechette is correctly calling them on it as it relates to pricing and plans to address GW.

[wtmusic]

101. Well you won't know until you read it, now will you?

More than 4 pages. Sorry.

http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/

[kristopher]

103. Thank you for the link

...the prospects for nuclear energy as an option are limited, the report finds, by four unresolved problems: high relative costs; perceived adverse safety, environmental, and health effects; potential security risks stemming from proliferation; and unresolved challenges in long-term management of nuclear wastes....

I'll give it a thorough reading if the Repukes steal the election.

[kristopher]

95. And you still haven't addressed the false allegations you made against the author.

[wtmusic]

97. You still haven't shown them to be false. nt

[kristopher]

100. Sure I have.

But more important is what you've shown of your character.

[wtmusic]

102. *briefly hunts for hara-kiri blade, then remembers dental appointment*

:rofl:

[kristopher]

52. She is presicely in her field of expertise.

Physics, Mathematics, Biology, Philosophy.
equals someone highly qualified to evaluate the method and manner of the scientific discussion on: Risks analysis of the disposal of nuclear waste

How are her statements regarding storage costs contradictory? She said the report said $0.067 /kWh as written but htere were costs omitted; when the omitted costs are included, nuclear costs rise to about $0.11 /kWh.

Where is the contradiction?

If it is one sided, then you should be able to demonstrate where it is one sided. This is the same "shoot the messenger/poison the well" BS we see from uninformed laypeople routinely. It presumes that she operated in the same way most people operate: they have an existing worldview that gives them a predetermined conclusion and that they then go out and find information to support that conclusion, ignoring contradictory information. I hate to sound like a broken record, but that isn't the way peer review works; most especially at the level of professional interaction this person routinely engages in. Her data and conclusions are routinely and closely scrutinized and the counter arguments are aired in both professional arena's and public discourse. She may have a bias, but it is minimized to a large degree by this process. Her conclusions are most likely able to stand independent of any bias that may have existed. And frankly, having now read several of her papers, I believe you are off target about the existence of a bias. Her conclusions you interpret as evidence of that bias are, in fact, the legitimate conclusions that the data led her to.

I find her to be extremely credible and worth listening to.

[wtmusic]

56. Her bias is obvious.

"Private financiers are reluctant to invest in it, and both experts and the public have questions about the likelihood of safely storing lethal radioactive wastes for the required million years."

All private financiers are reluctant to invest, or just some? How is low-level radioactive waste encased in glass pucks lethal? If I grind them up and swallow them? Who in their right mind ever thought lethal radioactive wastes have a "required" storage lifetime of one million years (she apparently is outside of the field just enough to be unaware of the likely possibility that wastes can be recycled)?

By any scientific standard this paper is a joke. Bold claims with no references, or references I have to find myself by reading her life's work does not an argument make. And the bottom line: too many adjectives and too one-sided. If nuclear power was truly the work of the devil it would not make up 20% of the American and 80% of the French power mix.

[kristopher]

59. Her papers deal with the million year time frame because that is the standard that is set.

THE WAY NUCLEAR POWER IS FUNDED IS WITH GOVERNMENT GUARANTEES AND SPECIAL LAWS THAT RELEASE THEM FROM LIABILITY. PRIVATE EQUITY FUNDS WONT TOUCH THEM.

You are a self styled 'expert' and you don't know those two things?

Do yourself a favor and read.

[wtmusic]

64. The 1-million year EPA reg is the result of a hysterical lawsuit

to stop Yucca Mountain and is not based on any hard science whatsoever.

Without a realistic alternative to spewing CO2 into the air, humankind will be dead and gone 999,000 years before that law expires.

[kristopher]

67. It IS the EPA reg, right? Where is your apology?

[wtmusic]

69. Never denied it.

Maybe you can show me a scientific basis for one million years having anything to do with radiation or radioactive waste.

I didn't think so.

[Name removed]

71. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[wtmusic]

73. No, the fact there is a standard doesn't prove there is a legit reason for it.

The fact that slavery once existed doesn't prove that the concept of slavery is legit.

There IS no scientific basis for selecting one million years. As I stated before, it's entirely the result of hysteria and legal posturing to stop Yucca Mountain:

"We thought that <10,000 years> was generally the limit of scientific certainty in our ability to predict with confidence," Cotsworth told National Public Radio.

Opponents of the Yucca Mountain plan countered with a lawsuit, arguing that the 10,000-year regulation did not extend far enough into the future. The courts agreed, so the EPA extended the regulation to 1 million years—100 times longer than the period covered by the original regulation.

Regulating Nuclear Waste for 1 Million Years: What are the Dangers?
The implications of trying to regulate something as dangerous as nuclear waste for such a long period of time has a lot of people worried, because no one can predict what the world will be like 1 million years from now, what kind of changes will occur during that time, or whether there will even be anyone left to protect in 1 million years."

http://environment.about.com/od/nuclearenergywaste/a/nuclear_waste.htm

[kristopher]

76. Maybe we are finally making some progress.

Let's recap:

WT post 56: "Who in their right mind ever thought lethal radioactive wastes have a "required" storage lifetime of one million years (she apparently is outside of the field just enough to be unaware of the likely possibility that wastes can be recycled)?

By any scientific standard this paper is a joke."

K post 59: "Her papers deal with the million year time frame because that is the standard that is set."

WT post 64: "The 1-million year EPA reg is the result of a hysterical lawsuit to stop Yucca Mountain and is not based on any hard science whatsoever."

K post 67: "It IS the EPA reg, right? Where is your apology?"

WT post 69: "Never denied it. Maybe you can show me a scientific basis for one million years having anything to do with radiation or radioactive waste."

K post 71: "Sure you did.
You clearly had no idea that this standard formed the basis of the work evaluating the storage of nuclear wastes. You are the supposed expert here. I mean, you claim you are knowledgeable enough to reject out of hand the work of a clear authority in the field, yet you don't know the most basic things about the topic being discussed. If you knew ANYTHING you wouldn't need me to explain the scientific basis of the time selection, would you? If you knew even the BASICS of the research in the field, you'd be able to state the reasons that time scale was selected and the reasons that it should be rejected.
The fact that it is the standard means there is a reason for it. But you, the self presented authority can reject it without even knowing what that reason is."

WT post : "No, the fact there is a standard doesn't prove there is a legit reason for it."

So here we are with you still not knowing at all what it is you are arguing against. I posted the discussion so that you wouldn't be tempted to mischaracterize what had transpired to date.

The fact is you haven't, even yet, bothered to learn what it is you are arguing against. Here is her statement that you have gone on and on and on about without knowing the basis of what she meant: "Private financiers are reluctant to invest in it, and both experts and the public have questions about the likelihood of safely storing lethal radioactive wastes for the required million years."

It is obvious that you have made a knee jerk assessment of her position and proceeded balls-to-the-wall without any doubt about your original ill conceived and unsupported supposition. What do you really know of her position regarding the million year requirement? What do you know of her approach to and viewpoint of the intersection of science and public policy making?

Now, since it's late and I'm getting tired of stacking up evidence to show your 'analysis' for what it is, I'll make one small concession; go to her list of pubs and read "Science versus educated guessing - risk assessment, nuclear waste, and
public policy." It's only 4 pages, it shouldn't take you long.

Then come back and share with us all what she actually was referring to in that line you've been so focused on.

[kristopher]

98. Just for the record

What Shrader-Frechette wrote was that whether we use 10,000 years or 1,000,000 years as a goal for storage, the 'scientific' forecasts of risks are nothing more than opinions wearing the guise of science. She documents her assertion with excerpts from NRC and DOE studies acknowledging a variety of impossible to predict variables.
Her basic thesis is that practices such as this (opinion posing as science) are harmful to the ability of the public to place trust in the scientific community as a whole.

[bananas]

82. All private financiers are reluctant to invest.

That's a fact.

[bluedawg12]

110. info. in investment climate:

http://www.nei.org/newsandevents/wallstreet/

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 “provides meaningful incentives for the construction of new nuclear plants and advanced coal generation facilities. … Fitch views EPACT’s provisions to spur development of a handful of new nuclear and coal-based facilities as an effective way to mitigate the risks relating to commercialization of the targeted new technologies. Demonstration of successful commercial performance of several such facilities will likely reduce investment costs, shorten the construction cycle for subsequent plants and avoid the need for extraordinary subsidies for follow-on facilities. Thus, these incentives could have far-reaching consequences in the 2015–2020 period, despite few immediate investment effects.”

—Fitch Ratings Ltd.
“Energy Policy Act of 2005”
Aug. 2, 2005
“Utilities will likely spend more than $40 billion by the end of the decade to meet more stringent environmental requirements. Most of this will be for scrubbers on coal plants. We also believe that carbon-reduction legislation to address global warming will get much more attention in 2006. We view large nuclear utilities as beneficiaries of the rising cost profile of coal generation and potential future carbon reduction. For nuclear utilities, the benefits of these environmental costs are already having an impact. Because the costs of nuclear power are relatively stable, these higher prices lead to higher margins for the nuclear plants (which run all hours that they are available). Beyond these near-term trends, we believe that nuclear utilities represent a free option on potential future carbon-reduction legislation, … which should be all added margin for a nuclear plant.”

—Merrill Lynch
“Cleaning the Environment”
Dec. 6, 2005


“We see a convergence of powerful economic and political forces … that should lead to a renaissance of nuclear power. The momentum for new nuclear construction has been building quietly over several years, sustained not only by the industry but also by federal officials who believe strongly in the future of nuclear power as an emission-free and secure source of electricity. Nuclear has an increasingly strong case to make.”

—Prudential Equity Group LLC
“Back On Line: U.S. Nuclear Power Generation Set For Resurgence”
January 2005


“The favorable trend for all these measures of plant performance can be attributed in part to changes in the way that the NRC measures plant performance, as well as the sector’s proactive response to meeting much stricter inspection requirements imposed by the NRC.”

—Moody’s Investors Service
“Nuclear Power Trends in the United States”
February 2004

[bananas]

111. Those are old.

These are more recent - much more info at the first two links:

"Estimates released in recent weeks by experienced nuclear operators — NRG Energy Inc., Progress Energy Inc., Exelon Corp., Southern Co. and FPL Group Inc. — “have blown by our highest estimate” of costs computed just eight months ago, said Jim Hempstead, a senior credit officer at Moody’s Investors Service credit-rating agency in New York."
http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2008/05/12/its-the-economics-stupid-nuclear-powers-bogeyman

"Interestingly, when Nuclear Power Joint Fact-Finding was released, the nuclear industry press chose to either focus on other aspects – in particular the ‘finding’ that nuclear is a viable option for dealing with climate change – or ignore the report altogether. Considering the number of organisations involved in the nuclear industry that backed the report, this low level of coverage is anomalous, and suggests a certain amount of discomfort with the findings.
However, prohibitively high though it may at first appear to be, even the figure for new build costs in The Keystone Center report is considered too low by some observers."
http://www.neimagazine.com/story.asp?storyCode=2047917


NIRS Statement on Cancellation of Idaho Nuclear Reactor

TAKOMA PARK, MARYLAND - January 28 - Today, MidAmerican Nuclear Energy Company announced that it is cancelling its plans to build a new nuclear reactor in Payette County, Idaho.

The company cited the poor economics of nuclear power for its decision, saying that its “due diligence process has led to the conclusion that it does not make economic sense to pursue the project at this time.”

MidAmerican was planning on Warren Buffett’s Berkshire/Hathaway company to provide major financing for the project. Buffett is a major owner of MidAmerican.

Which leads NIRS to the obvious conclusion: if Warren Buffett cannot figure out how to make money from a new nuclear reactor, who can?

“This cancellation is the first of the new nuclear era,” said Michael Mariotte, executive director of Nuclear Information and Resource Service, “but it won’t be the last. Even before any new nuclear construction has begun in the U.S., cost estimates have skyrocketed and are now 300-400% higher than the industry was saying just two or three years ago.”

“The extraordinary costs of nuclear power, coupled with its irresolvable safety and radioactive waste problems, killed the first generation of reactors, and are going to end this second generation as well. But it would be tragedy if the U.S. wasted any money on new reactors, when resources are so desperately needed to implement the safer, cheaper, faster, and sustainable energy sources needed to address the climate crisis,” Mariotte added.

http://www.commondreams.org/news2008/0128-09.htm

[bluedawg12]

106. Well, oil IS the work of the devil and it makes up a large share

of our energy consumption.

Markets and government subsidies do not gaurantee the best choice of energy supply and yes, we can make Faustian deals even at 20% energy consumption. LMAO.

[bananas]

84. I did read the MIT study, and it doesn't include reprocessing costs

The reasons it doesn't include reprocessing costs is because reprocessing is expensive,
so they assumed a once-through fuel cycle with no reprocessing.
The 11 c/kwh comports with the Keystone study, which is optimistic according to more recent analysis by Moody's et sl.

[wtmusic]

90. That's correct

Then why does the OP author insist on including these costs? :shrug:

[kristopher]

92. Because they are part of the actual price of producing electricity

Because they are an inevitable part of the actual price of producing electricity if we attempt to expand nuclear generation on the scale needed to address climate change.

[Dogmudgeon]

55. *** Kristin Shrader-Frechette's website ***

Here is a link to the professional website of http://www.nd.edu/~kshrader/">Kristin Shrader-Frechette.

There has been some discussion of her work. Some is posted there, including her CV.

You can check things out for yourself.

--p!

[kristopher]

60. We agree.

[chknltl]

61. Thank you kristopher

Well thought out article and well fought against the usual suspects. I have been in the DU since 05...just long enough to figure out that the ignore button is great for folks who resort to condescending name calling instead of actual debate. Of the 4 I currently have on ignore, 3 of them lurk in this forum and pounce on articles such as yours. The reason for throwing them on ignore is not so much that they can't produce somewhat meaningful debates it is because they invariable resort to trollish behavior. Thank you for your OP, I wish I could have seen it early enough to have recommended it. Bookmarked thread and link.

[bananas]

83. I'll second that.

Kris has a lot more patience than I do.
Thank you, Kristopher!

[bluedawg12]

105. The OP says: atomic energy is really so risky and expensive

"From an economic perspective, atomic power is inefficient at addressing climate change because dollars used for more expensive, higher-emissions nuclear energy cannot be used for cheaper, lower-emissions renewable energy.

Atomic power is also not sustainable.
Because of dwindling uranium supplies, by the year 2050 reactors would be forced to use low-grade uranium ore whose greenhouse emissions would roughly equal those of natural gas.

Besides, because the United States imports nearly all its uranium, pursuing nuclear power continues the dangerous pattern of dependency on foreign sources to meet domestic energy needs"

[bluedawg12]

109. Here are some facts: World StatisticsNuclear Energy, etc.

http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats/nuclear_statistics/worldstatistics/
World StatisticsNuclear Energy Around the World

Nuclear Energy Around the World
As of March 2008, 30 countries worldwide were operating 439 nuclear reactors for electricity generation and 34 new nuclear plants were under construction in 14 countries.
World Nuclear Power Plants in Operation
World Nuclear Generation and Capacity
Nuclear Units Under Construction Worldwide

Nuclear power plants provided about 15 percent of the world's electricity production in 2007. In total, 16 countries relied on nuclear energy to supply at least one-quarter of their total electricity. Countries generating the largest percentage of their electricity in 2007 from nuclear energy were:

Country Percent
France 76.8
Lithuania 64.4
Slovakia 54.3
Belgium 54.0
Ukraine
48.1
Sweden 46.1
Armenia 43.5
Slovenia
41.6
Switzerland 40.0
Hungary 36.8
S. Korea 35.3
Bulgaria 32.1
....

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf75.html

Supply of Uranium
(June 2008)

Uranium is a relatively common metal, found in rocks and seawater. Economic concentrations of it are not uncommon.
Its availability to supply world energy needs is great both geologically and because of the technology for its use.
Quantities of mineral resources are greater than commonly perceived.
The world's known uranium resources increased 15% in two years to 2007 due to increased mineral exploration.

Current usage is about 65,000 tU/yr. Thus the world's present measured resources of uranium (5.5 Mt) in the cost category somewhat below present spot prices and used only in conventional reactors, are enough to last for over 80 years. This represents a higher level of assured resources than is normal for most minerals. Further exploration and higher prices will certainly, on the basis of present geological knowledge, yield further resources as present ones are used up.

.......

here's what's working now in remote or poorer regions:

http://www.tl.undp.org/undp/news4.html

According to Deputy Country Director Hiroko Takagi, these ‘natural’ options are “more environmental friendly, cost-effective and sustainable.” In disadvantaged areas, says Hiroko, conventional energy sources are lacking and due to necessity, people are forced to prey on forests, with devastating environmental implications.

The three-and-a-half-year pilot project, implemented in close collaboration with the Government, involves the tapping of solar power, gas produced by decomposition of livestock manure (biogas), and improved cooking stoves to meet the domestic energy needs of communities located in isolated areas of Manututo, Liquica and Ainaro districts as well as villages in the periphery of the country’s capital, Dili.

Incidentally, keeping cattle is a way of life in most rural areas of Timor-Leste and therefore securing the livestock manure for processing the biogas is not a big deal. The procedure is also fairly simple

[hunter]

115. I'm going to bump this up.

I saw it just now because it was posted when I was in a bad mood and putting people on ignore.

It was like a blast from the past, OMG, Kristin Shrader-Frechette. Our paths crossed quite a few times in the early eighties.

Her undergraduate degree is in Mathematics, her PhD in philosophy, and she also did "postdoctoral work for 2, 1, and 2
years, respectively, in biology (community ecology), economics, and hydrogeology." (Quoting from her official biography).

All in all, she is a distinguished scientist sorta like "the distinguished physicist Amory Lovins" she quotes in the article.

I've a great fondness for the humanities, and she has a great deal to say about the environment and ethics I agree with, but on the subject of nuclear power I think she hasn't done her homework. She's still stuck somewhere in the 'eighties.

I'm certain there are very solid reasons to oppose nuclear power, but in this case she is attempting to debunk one set of nuclear "myths" by asserting equally dubious anti-nuclear myths.

[kristopher]

116. Ad hominem.

My aren't you clever...

[hunter]

117. She starts from the premise nuclear power is rotten, and digs up factoids to match.

It ain't science, nor does it pretend to be.

Go through her list of publications. Not science.

In a political climate where we have to present "both sides" of a multi-faceted issue, she has made it her business to take the anti-nuclear position. On the other side of the political balance there are equally qualified "pro-nuclear" people. Bureaucracies rely upon the expertise of both sides to obscure messy complicated realities.

In our political process fuzzy myths are preferred over cold hard numbers. Perceptions can be managed, data can be ignored, profits can be made right up until the moment reality bites us in the ass.

I don't expect wind, solar, or nuclear power will save this consumer economy. To the core it is unsustainable.

[kristopher]

118. She does no such thing.

You claim her work isn't science; that's crap. It may not be oriented to the taste of the nuclear technoratti, but her work is meticuous and, judging by its reception in the scientific community, it is well respected and accepted. You decry her review analysis of the claims made by pronuclear forces as fuzzy myth interference with the policy process but you ignore the vast distortion that results from the entrenched financial interests stranglehold over our political process.
The "cold hard numbers" you refer to are a product of that input; an input that requires factual, contextual, and normative analysis in order to be useful in selecting the course that best meets the needs of our culture.

The bottom line is that the claims of the nuclear industry are just that - industry claims. Outside, non-partisan, non-industry analysis by competent professionals like Shrader-Frechette are nearly uniform in their rejection of the positions you endorse because those positions are so clearly a result of ideologically and financially motivated analysis.

http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/nuclear_safety/

[hunter]

119. The article in your original post is a theological perspective ..

...in a magazine devoted to issues of theology.

Did you get to the sidebar to the article?

http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=10896

Or how about the mission of the magazine?

http://www.americamagazine.org/content/about-us.cfm

Myself, I go to Mass on Sunday and tend to stand to the left of mainstream liberal American Catholic Social Justice. I also support gay marriage but eventually the Church is going to come around to my way of thinking, if not now, than sometime in the next century because this is clearly an issue of Social Justice. (BTW, I'm going to make another stab at shaming our local Bishop sometime soon, and ask him to explain to me again why we should deny gay people the ordinary civil right of marriage.)

You are mistaken if you think I endorse nuclear power. I simply believe it's not worth making a big fuss about in comparison to all the other moronic and environmentally destructive ways we use and generate electricity.

If we could knock down the most loathsome hydroelectric plants and shut every damned fossil fueled power plant by building nuclear plants, I'd be agreeable to that. It makes a lot more sense to split atoms for electricity than it does to burn trees, dam rivers, or build wave or tide powered stations along our environmentally sensitive coasts. Solar and wind energy seem not so bad, but I agree with GliderGuider -- like nuclear energy they will be too little too late. We're already burning the furniture in this unsustainable economy, and we are going to regret that we don't have more nuclear power plants, especially when natural gas supplies become tight and no magical LNG tankers appear on our horizons.

Kristin's work isn't science, it's analysis, and a very biased analysis at that. It's what she is paid to do. As I tried to explain previously, the "distortions" you speak of in your reply are the result of our flawed political system which seems incapable of dealing with any problem that can't be divided into two opposing teams, in this case pro-nuclear vs. anti-nuclear.

Unfortunately nature pays no heed to these fantasy football games.

[kristopher]

120. I disagree

It isn't a theological perspective at all. Even you can't make the point that it is or you wouldn't have to resort to red herrings like pointing out the separate piece that IS a theological perspective. You are certainly fond of the use of fallacious arguments since you used the same one twice. It is worth noting that is the extent of your argument; not once do you make a valid point, preferring instead to deal in personal attacks and meaningless excurions into your own private hell.

To say her work isn't science but analysis, demonstrates what I believe to be a fundamental misunderstanding of what science actually is.

[hunter]

121. Show me her science.

Seriously. Go through her publications and show me her science.

She works in the humanities and teaches biology as it relates to the humanities.

I simply reject your appeal to authority, that's all.

I have a very clear understanding of what science is, and what it isn't.

The article of your original post is not scientific. My favorite part was how she brought up "terrorists" in the lead paragraph.

Oh no! Terrorists!!!!

A determined terrorist organization could probably mess up a multi-billion dollar nuclear plant, and maybe even spill some radioactive elements, but then again, they might also fly big airplanes into the World Trade Center.

But I read it anyways -- same old stuff I've been reading for thirty years -- because it brings back some fond memories of when I was young, naive, and utterly reckless.

[kristopher]

122. Define "science"

[Dogmudgeon]

124. It's THE POST THAT ROSE FROM THE GRAVE!

An EXPLOSIONN in a TOP SEKRET LABOROTORY exposed our NNation's TOP SCYENTISTS to a DAEDLY dose of NNucular RRadiation, turning them into MINND-BENNDING MUTANNTS with Top Secret capabilities caused by ...

ATOMIC ENNERGY!!!

A handful of Ordinary readers of Democratic Underground ... they evolved ONNE MILLIONN YEARS in ONNE ELECTIONN CYCLE!

Hurled through the Einstein-Rhododehron-Thornberry Paradigm!

Into QUANTUM DeRack-Gohr-Liszard Space!

Across the Obama-Clinton Paradox!

Beyond the Penn-Teller-Oppenheimer-Fund Threshold!

Trapped by inscrutable BOOLEAN LOGIC!

Posessing STRANGE MYSTICKAL POWERZ caused by NNucular RRadiation!

We have seen what it does to THE HUMAN MINND!

Now see what it does to THE INNHUMAN INTERNNET!

FFEAR THE AATOM!

:yoiks:

WARINING: ABSOLUTELY NO ONE WILL BE ADMITTED BEFORE, DURING, OR AFTER THE TERRIFYING "POWERDOWN" SCENE! WE'LL EVEN KICK YOU OUT OF THE THEATER IF WE HAVE TO. NO EXCEPTIONS! NO EXCUSES! NO REFUNDS!

--p!