CNN debate on renewables (Jacobson) versus nuclear (Brand) February 22, 2010

[kristopher]

Nuclear Power's Time Has Come
Stewart Brand
http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/02/22/brand.nuclear.power.pro/index.html

Nuclear power is too risky
Mark Z. Jacobson
http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/02/22/jacobson.nuclear.power.con/

Also see supporting analysis by Jacobson:
http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/revsolglobwarmairpol.htm

[NNadir]

1. Does this mean you're going to post the same reference to Jacobsen's paper 4,181 times?

Could you, um, spare us from the vast circle jerk of anti-nukism or at least try to find just ONE person in this country who has been injured by nuclear power in the last 30 years of blather about "risky" nuclear power.

Let me guess. Your stupid cars and trucks are risk free, as is all of those particulates that neither you nor Jacobsen seem to know about, the one's that are in the lung tissue of every man woman and child in this country.

Nuclear power need not be perfect to be vastly superior to the stuff you don't care about.

[jpak]

13. Spare us the neve-ending circle jerk of wacko pronucuclar-ism and the fake molten salt breeders

:evilgrin:

[OKIsItJustMe]

2. See prior threads

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=232603&mesg_id=232603
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=232602&mesg_id=232602

[Statistical]

3. Half life vs infinite life

Half life vs infinite life

Obviously you do not want to go and get close to nuclear fuel. On the other hand, when you take the fuel out of the reactor and put it in storage, 175 years, seven generations later, the radioactivity of that fuel is one billionth of what it is when you took it out of the reactors. This stuff actually has a half-life that is good. ...

Mercury doesn't have a half life, when mercury gets into the system, it bioconcentrates to the point where we tell pregnant women not to eat wild fish and shellfish because the mercury has accumulated, mostly from coal burning. ...

Proliferation

CNN: What about nuclear proliferation, the potential for spread of nuclear weapons due to greater use of nuclear power?

Brand: First of all you want to separate out nations where that's a worry and where it's not a worry. China and India we really need to have stop burning coal. ... Now is there a proliferation issue there? Not really -- China and India have nuclear weapons.

The figure I quoted at TED was that 21 nations have nuclear power, only seven have nuclear weapons, and in every case they got the nuclear weapons first, then the nuclear power. Sweden has nuclear power -- 40 percent of their power is from nuclear. Do we worry about them having nuclear weapons? Probably not.

Since the topic on DU is usually about building nuclear reactors in the United States. How does going from 104 reactors to 124 or 184 change proliferation risk?

[kristopher]

4. Since the reality is about meetiing GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE needs...

And since that would require up to 7,000 new nuclear reactors (using YOUR estimate of how much nuclear is required) I'd say the implications for proliferation are obvious.

As to your attempt to boil it down to a false choice between either nuclear waste of coal waste, well, it is just that, and attempt to create a false choice since the third and most acceptable alternative is to use renewable energy sources so that we have neither coal waste nor nuclear waste.

[OKIsItJustMe]

5. A Q&A from a DoE solar FAQ

http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/solar/cfm/faqs/third_level.cfm/name=photovoltaics/cat=Applications#Q49

...

Q: When will solar electric systems replace coal and nuclear power plants?

A: Right now, our nuclear and fossil-fuel-based energy is quite inexpensive compared with the cost of solar energy. Oil and coal prices are low in most places, so solar energy still can't compete on a first-cost basis in many regions of the world, such as the United States. As this situation changes, we'll begin to see many more solar energy systems being built in areas that now use fossil fuels and nuclear energy for electricity generation.

Another driver in the deployment of solar systems is public demand for clean energy. Fossil-based energy pollutes the environment, and nuclear energy creates hazardous waste. If we stop to consider the environmental and health costs of fossil-fuel and nuclear energy, then solar energy already makes sense today.

However, in developing countries where there is little or no supply system for conventional energy, solar energy is being used more and more. It can be much less expensive than many other options, and the environmental benefits associated with this cleaner form of energy are significant. In developing countries, the key barriers to wider use are the need for financing and for electric distribution networks.

...

[kristopher]

6. See also

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x236101

[OKIsItJustMe]

7. I believe my favorite line may be

... If we stop to consider the environmental and health costs of fossil-fuel and nuclear energy, then solar energy already makes sense today. ...

[Statistical]

8. Even under that very rosy and optimistic prediction

the author concedes that in a decade 93% of generation will NOT be solar.

For some percentage of worlds energy supply it is a question of nuclear or coal.

[kristopher]

9. That logic fails

Nuclear power's time to completion is anything but well established. It is much more reasonable to conclude that any money you envision being spent on nuclear will 1) provide more immediate carbon reduction benefit if invested in solar (even at current prices) since the solar can start generating electricity immediately.

...if you start building a coal, gas, or nuclear power plant in, say, New Jersey, and next door you start at the same time to build a solar power plant of equal annual output, then by the time the thermal plant is finished, the solar plant will be producing cheaper electricity, will deliver ~2.5× a coal plant’s on peak output, will have enjoyed more favorable financing because it started producing revenue in year one, and will have been made by photovoltaic manufacturing capacity that can then reproduce the solar plant about every 20 months —so you’d be sorry if you’d built the thermal plant.

- Lovins, Four Nuclear Myths

The second failure in your reasoning is that you disregard the effect that a stronger commitment to solar would have on the price curve. As shown in the graph is it trending towards parity with coal within a decade. Dedicating the government support you want for nuclear (a fundamental and *unending* requirement for nuclear) to solar instead would unquestionably result in accelerating the price decline.

[Statistical]

10. wtf? the chart(made by a pro solar group) has accounted for increased demand from lower prices.

The chart is logarithmic

It is projecting a 10,000% increase in installed solar capacity due to falling prices.
Even that would only be 7% of worlds power needs.

[kristopher]

11. It DOESN'T account for the price effect of Xferring nuclear subsidies to solar

That would be an additional LARGE input into the pricing trend.

[Statistical]

12. It hasn't accounted for that because it is NEVER going to happen.

You are in the minority and your views aren't even support by Democratic leadership. The Republicans are even more pro-nuclear.

Accept it more nuclear reactors will be built and it will reduce GHG emissions.

[kristopher]

14. No, your position is a minority one, expecially among carbon management analysts

As I've said many times, the work by Jacobson is a sample of what we've all done and it always ends up the same -so that group is NOT in your corner. And the public is certainly not, especially if given a choice between nuclear and renewables instead of the false choice nuclear industry polling always uses (coal or nuclear).
Renewables: 91% support
More coal and nuclear 52%

Associated Press/Stanford University Poll conducted by GfK Roper Public Affairs & Media. Nov. 17-29, 2009. N=1,005 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.1.

"In general, would you favor or oppose building more nuclear power plants at this time?"
Favor 49 Oppose 48 Unsure 3

***********************************************************************

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

“To address the country’s energy needs, would you support or oppose action by the federal government to ?” (Half Sample)
"Develop more solar and wind power"
Support 91, Oppose 8, Unsure 1

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

And I'd bet that direct polling

[Statistical]

15. You "proved' my position is a "minority" with 3 polls showing majority support nuclear power.

:rofl:

I really don't know what to say.

Thanks for the "proof" now I don't need to look it up.

[kristopher]

17. 91>52

I'll be happy to concede your point if you show a valid poll where the choice is:

Do you want energy infrastructure money spent on future energy source to be
A: Renewable energy (solar, wind, geothermal etc)
B: Nuclear fission power

Care to bet on the outcome?

The rate of "strong" support for nuclear power is only about 25%.

[Statistical]

19. How about adding C (both) and D (neither)?

Given the results of the polls you posted C would likely have highest (or high) support.

It is only a binary choice in your mind.

If 91% of people support solar and 52% support nuclear than at a minimum about half the people who support solar also support nuclear.

Assume that every single person who doesn't support nuclear supports solar (unlikely because many don't support either but this helps establish a minimum)

100%-52% = 48% do not support nuclear energy. If all of them support solar then 91%-48% = 43% who support solar also support nuclear. Once again this isn't the likely breakdown but rather the minimum. If more (any) people don't support either then the % who come from pro-nuclear camp is greater.

At a minimum slightly less than half of the people who support solar also support nuclear energy.

:hi:

[kristopher]

20. No, I don't think so. The same people who support COAL support nuclear.

Only +-25% "strongly" support nuclear, the rest are in the drill baby drill camp. Their priority is energy security, and they have no regard for the environmental consequences of their energy supply. They therefore do not assign a value to external costs that do not directly affect them. What they do not know (because of the successful misinformation campaign waged by the nuclear industry) is the true financial costs of nuclear. When/if that becomes common knowledge nuclear support will evaporate. The only hope the industry has is to lowball the public into a new round of commitments for nuclear plants before they come out of the ether. The plan has to be that once the public regulators have fallen for the lowball and already allowed $100+ billion of public money to be spent, it will be possible to keep sucking money out of the public's pocket for another couple of decades through "cost overruns", rate hikes, and bankruptcies of loan guaranteed plants.

CBO expects that any new nuclear construction project
would be financed with 50 percent equity and 50 percent debt. The high equity participation
reflects the current practice of purchasing energy assets using high equity stakes, 100 percent
in some cases, used by companies likely to undertake a new nuclear construction project.
Thus, we assume that the government loan guarantee would cover half the construction cost
of a new plant, or $1.25 billion in 2011.
CBO considers the risk of default on such a loan guarantee to be very high—well above
50 percent. The key factor accounting for this risk is that we expect that the plant would be
uneconomic to operate because of its high construction costs, relative to other electricity
generation sources. In addition, this project would have significant technical risk because
it would be the first of a new generation of nuclear plants, as well as project delay and
interruption risk due to licensing and regulatory proceedings.

No, the public isn't with you, you just are hoping like hell to get their money while they are still asleep...

[Statistical]

21. You fail at math:

I spelled it out in my post but you simply cant under stand simply comparison of two percentages.

It is impossible given the % of support for nuclear and % of support for solar for there to not be a substantial overlap.

It is called basic math. The majority of the public supports nuclear power.

[kristopher]

22. No, they don't.

I understand your attempt to frame poorly worded polling, but the fact is that you said people agree with you and not with me. You are not correct.
91% of the people are in favor of renewable energy - that is my position.
52% support nuclear power - that is your position.

My position is that in a policy world of limited government resources, support for both nuclear power and renewable power are mutually exclusive - the two require completely different distribution constructs to operate with any degree of high efficiency.

IF there were polling that explicitly tested the exact positions that you and I hold, the evidence is extremely strong that there would little more than about 25% support for nuclear recorded.

[Statistical]

23. I think you need to lookup the word "majority"

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

A majority, also known as a simple majority in the U.S., is a subset of a group consisting of more than half of the group.

A majority of American's support nuclear power.

I never claimed that wasn't also true for wind or solar. While support for wind & solar may be higher than doesn't change the fact that a majority of Americans DO support nuclear energy.



Even more important than the level of support is the gradual increase in support since the lows of 2001 (related to Bush hyper-TERRA ????). Support has been gaining by about 1.5% per year. If the first reactors go well in GA and we see lots of positive news support will climb even faster.

[kristopher]

25. The poll you are using is an an outlier.

Your claim still has no merit because this is what you wrote: "You are in the minority".

No, I am not. You like to use that poll because it SEEMS to show support for nuclear power. It does not. As I explained before, it merely shows concern about energy security. If you asked, "Do you support the use of soy sauce as one of the ways to provide electricity in the US?" you would get the same result. This is all of the same group that says "you can build a coal plant next to my house" and MOST of the group that says "drill baby drill" (although you lose even 5% of those).


And I *still* understand your attempt to frame poorly worded polling, but the fact is that you said people agree with you and not with me, that I was "in the minority". You are not correct.
91% of the people are in favor of renewable energy - that is my position.
52% support nuclear power - that is your position.

My position is that in a policy world of limited government resources, support for both nuclear power and renewable power are mutually exclusive - the two require completely different distribution constructs to operate with any degree of high efficiency.

IF there were polling that explicitly tested the exact positions that you and I hold, the evidence is extremely strong that there would little more than about 25% support for nuclear recorded.

You can dream of that enhanced support, but sooner or later the bill for those plants is going to come due; and in the meantime renewables are going to be gaining ground. The shame of it is that so much time and money are going to be wasted before the rip off becomes obvious enough to end the charade.

[Statistical]

27. You math skills are horrible.

91% support solar. That doesn't mean 91% oppose nuclear.
52% support nuclear. A majority supports both solar & nuclear (and wind).


Your position is NOT just pro-renewable.
Your position is pro-renewable AND ANTI-NUCLEAR.
91% do not support that position.

No study anywhere indicates ANTI-NUCLEAR support is 90%+. None even show it at 50%+. So your ANTI-NUCLEAR position is a minority in this country.

Most Americans are middle of the road and "wind + solar + nuclear + conservation" makes a lot of sense to them. This is reflected in the polls (any poll)

A majority of Americans support solar
A majority of Americans support wind
A majority of Americans support nuclear

That sums up my position. If I had been one of the people polled I would have chosen YES for support wind, support solar, and support nuclear. I have always strongly been an "all of the above" kinda guy.

I don't buy into the binary logic you believe in (wind or nuclear) and the American public doesn't either. Even the polls YOU picked show 50%+ of Americans support nuclear energy.

A majority of Americans support nuclear energy. Just because they ALSO support wind/solar/hydro doesn't mean they don't support nuclear.

Also not all members of public are equally important in politics. Voter turnout rises with income. This is well documented and has existed for decades. Voter turnout for people making >$75,000 approaches 80% while support for those making <$30,000 is roughly 50%.



Among people likely to vote support for nuclear power is even higher.

A majority of Americans support nuclear power.

[kristopher]

28. It doesn't matter what you "buy into"

My position is no new nuclear.

You *are* funny though; after thousands of posts where you try to frame the discussion as a "binary" one between nuclear and coal, you now reject the correct idea that there is a fundamental difference in the structure of a centralized and distributed energy grid.
Your claim still has no merit because this is what you wrote: "You are in the minority".

No, I am not. You like to use that poll because it SEEMS to show support for nuclear power. It does not. As I explained before, it merely shows concern about energy security. If you asked, "Do you support the use of soy sauce as one of the ways to provide electricity in the US?" you would get the same result. This is all of the same group that says "you can build a coal plant next to my house" and MOST of the group that says "drill baby drill" (although you lose even 5% of those).


And I *still* understand your attempt to frame poorly worded polling, but the fact is that you said people agree with you and not with me, that I was "in the minority". You are not correct.
91% of the people are in favor of renewable energy - that is my position.
52% support nuclear power - that is your position.

My position is that in a policy world of limited government resources, support for both nuclear power and renewable power are mutually exclusive - the two require completely different distribution constructs to operate with any degree of high efficiency.

IF there were polling that explicitly tested the exact positions that you and I hold, the evidence is extremely strong that there would little more than about 25% support for nuclear recorded.

You can dream of that enhanced support, but sooner or later the bill for those plants is going to come due; and in the meantime renewables are going to be gaining ground. The shame of it is that so much time and money are going to be wasted before the rip off becomes obvious enough to end the charade.

[Statistical]

29. Every poll shows a majority of Americans support nuclear power.

Thus people opposing nuclear power are in the minority.

It isn't that hard of a concept.

Americans CAN support nuclear & renewable at the same time.
The polls indicate they do.
I do too.

Your views (anti nuclear) are in the minority.

[kristopher]

30. The only way you can find to be "right" is to falsify the proposition

My view (and I'm the authority on that because it is, after all, my view) is that renewable energy is preferable to nuclear power.

If renewable energy sources did not exist, I would prefer nuclear over conventional coal, however I would prefer coal with carbon capture and storage over nuclear. In other words, nuclear is my last non-carbon emitting choice.

Since only 8% of people oppose renewable energy, and since 1/2* reject nuclear power, then as I've repeatedly stated, the polling clearly shows that my position is not a "minority" position.

* virtually all polls that ask some iteration of the direct question "do you favor or oppose nuclear power" record a dead tie within the 3 point margin of error. Therefore it is much more accurate to say 1/2 of the people oppose nuclear power based on that, than it is to use a poll that uses an "all of the above" approach to the question of support.

You are really a very dishonest person.

[bananas]

16. Jacobson won the TED debate with Stewart Brand

http://www.brainpickings.org/index.php/2010/02/12/ted-2010-highlights-2/

Despite his charisma, Brand 'lost' in the end -- the audience skew moved from 75/25 in favor of nukes in the beginning of the debate to 65/35 by the end.

[kristopher]

18. The video is here

http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/renew_vs_nuclear.html

[bananas]

24. I can't find it - did they take it down?

Apparently it was posted to youtube a couple of times and taken down.
Jacobson's webpage just links to the TED site, and I can't find it there.
Did they take it down?

[kristopher]

26. Sorry about that, perhaps they are going to be posted.

I downloaded the slides, saw the link to the vid and thought it was there.