Kajajuk says: @ur momisugly August 3, 2013 at 5:56 pm
Same suggestion i have posted at least twice before…
A dynamic harmony between capitalism….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That is what you get when you let people be free and don’t regulate and tax them to death. Americans were (are?) the most generous people on earth and give away more wealth as individuals than our government does. (can’t find the original link) but this one will do.
America the generous
….American generosity is not dependent on the government or public policy. It should be pointed out that conservatives, criticized by liberals as health care and welfare slashers and greedy capitalists, give far more to charity than liberals. Arthur Brooks wrote in his now-famous book, “Who Really Cares,” that households headed by conservatives give 30% more to charity than households headed by liberals. Conservatives also give more blood and donate more of their time to volunteer work…
Socialist want to give away OTHER PEOPLE’s money and then claim the kudos for themselves.
Gail Combs says:
August 4, 2013 at 10:17 am
Socialist want to give away OTHER PEOPLE’s money and then claim the kudos for themselves.
=====================================================================
Reminds me of a quote I once heard:
“A liberal (US definition) is someone who feels a great debt to their fellowman and is determined to pay that debt using your money.”
(I first heard it from G. Gordon Liddy but I don’t know if it originated with him.)
milodonharlani
August 4, 2013 10:40 am
Lars P. says:
August 4, 2013 at 7:18 am
Re glacial phase oceanic salinity, a study from the North Pacific the findings of which would also apply to the North Atlantic:
Effect of Pleistocene glaciation upon oceanographic characteristics of the North Pacific Ocean and Bering Sea
CONSTANCE SANCETTA*
(Received 23 October 1982; in revised form 28 January 1983; accepted 28 April 1983)
Abstract–
During intervals of Pleistocene glaciation, insolation of the high-latitude northern
hemisphere was lower than today, particularly during summer. Growth of continental ice sheets
resulted in a lowering of sea level by more than 100 m in the Bering Sea. As a result, the Bering
Strait was closed and most of the Bering continental shelf exposed. A proposed model predicts that (1) sea-ice formation would occur along the (modern) outer continental shelf, (2) advection would transport the sea ice over the deep basin, and (3) brine would flow into the basin at some intermediate depth to enhance the halocline. The result would be a low-salinity surface layer with a cold, thick halocline and reduced vertical mixing. Diatom microfossils and lithologic changes in sediment cores from the North Pacific Ocean and Bering Sea support the model and suggest that the proposed oceanographic conditions extended into the North Pacific, where the cold low-salinity
laycr was enhanced by meltwater from continentally derived icebergs.
Levity.
I think this was my personal best.
1. Gunga Din says:
May 9, 2012 at 5:35 pm
Stopping by Yamal One Snowy Evening
by Michael Mann
What tree this is, I think I know.
It grew in Yamal some time ago.
Yamal 06 I’m placing here
In hopes a hockey stick will grow.
But McIntyre did think it queer
No tree, the stick did disappear!
Desparate measures I did take
To make that stick reappear.
There were some corings from a lake.
And other data I could bake.
I’ll tweek my model more until
Another hockey stick I’ll make!
I changed a line into a hill!
I can’t say how I was thrilled!
Then Climategate. I’m feeling ill.
Then Climategate. I’m feeling ill.
RACookPE1978
Editor
August 4, 2013 11:13 am
(trimmed)
u.k.(us)
August 4, 2013 12:15 pm
I’ve tried, but it never came out like this:
“It’ll be a happy day when American embassies are again built in busy downtown intersections out of normal materials – and not, as they are now, bunkers located in distant lots surrounded by high fences. Such a change will only be possible when the safety of Americans depends not on walls, metal detectors and Marine guards, but on the deterrence established by years of terrible retribution against anyone who so much as harms a single American citizen.” http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2013/08/on-closed-embassies-the-worldwide-travel-alert
Kajajuk
August 4, 2013 12:21 pm
Gail Combs says:
August 4, 2013 at 10:17 am
————————-
Bailing out the failed banks is the glory of capitalism? Is that what you mean by “Socialist want to give away OTHER PEOPLE’s money and then claim the kudos for themselves.”?
Contravening the wishes of the majority of citizens is democracy?
I propose that when banks fail in a “free-market” system, whether the fault is with the banks or naught, the bank should be nationalized. A consequence other banks would take to heart!
Later the bank could be privatized again…
Quantitative easing, another interesting “capitalist” innovation, is the creation of money to be put in a pile to earn interest for nothing. Would not an “easing” be better spent on infrastructure and innovation (research & development)?
The government could be a mitigating medium between the mob’s base instincts and the common good.
In my dynamic paradigm the “socialism” is to mitigate the effects of capitalism for the common good and capitalism is to mitigate the effects of socialism for the common good. No feudalism or cash driven master and slave mentality but a society where risk is taken for its own sake because to fail is just a loss of stuff and not generational misery. People’s basic needs are never at risk only their individual prosperity, which is not permanent anyways.
And so “socialists” endeavor to invest part of a “common wealth” (other peoples money i guess) to ensure the health of the commons AND the “capitalist” endeavor to invest part of a “common wealth” in ventures for individuals as well as ensuring a fair “playing field”.
Gunga Din says:
August 4, 2013 at 10:12 am
PS I lived in NH for 3 years back in the early ’80′s. Nashua had it’s earliest snowfall on record the 6 months I was there. I think it was 3 or 6 inches on October 3rd…if I remember correctly.
======================================================================
Well, I didn’t remember correctly. It was 1″ October 10, 1979. They call it the “earliest measurable snowfall”.
=============================================================
I guess that event was to early to be labeled “extreme”.
Kajajuk
August 4, 2013 12:44 pm
Charles Tossy says:
August 3, 2013 at 7:10 pm
———————
Are you accepting resumes for your zombies? Do you pay minimum wage”
Auto
August 4, 2013 1:10 pm
jorgekafkazar says:
August 3, 2013 at 4:28 pm
David Ball says: “Spending the money to go to mars is very short-sighted.”
Depends on who we send, David.
=========
A number of images flashed through my mind . . . .
Thanks indeed jorgekafkazar for a minute of levity for an old sea dog!
Auto.
@ur momisugly RACookPE, I’m encouraged that you have a grasp of a power grid evolution, but even you have missed the obvious point.
Yes, isolated islands grew their power grids in small increments. They generally have expensive power today anywhere from $.25-$.35 per kWh. This presents a golden opportunity for nuclear power advocates, since the high price paid by the islanders can be greatly reduced to 3 or 4 cents if they would only replace the multiple generators with a modern nuke of appropriate size.
The islanders could even overcome the poor load-following ability of a nuke by running it at baseload and using pumped storage hydroelectric for load-following.
The islanders could overcome the problem of periodic nuclear plant outages for refueling by keeping their current generators ready to run.
A nuclear power company should be jumping at such an opportunity, if the fabled economics of a nuclear power plant were as advertised.
Yet very clearly, none have done so.
One suspects that the true economics of a nuclear power plant would be exposed for all to see if one were to be built on an island of roughly 1 million people, and 1,000 MW daily peak load.
Nuclear reactor sales companies are not about to let that happen.
Roger Sowell;
Yet very clearly, none have done so.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Well sure they have. But they were met by a battery of activist fear mongering attorneys scaring the bujeezus out of the local population and throwing every legal manouver they could at preventing the power plant from being built.
Then, when the power plant company gives up, the activist attorneys claim the reason was that it wasn’t economical in the first place, and congratulate themselves and forcing the poor islanders into energy poverty for their own good.
DirkH
August 4, 2013 2:16 pm
Roger Sowell says:
August 4, 2013 at 1:25 pm
“The islanders could overcome the problem of periodic nuclear plant outages for refueling by keeping their current generators ready to run.”
You have not reacted on my calculation showing how you cherrypicked your 1 million population exactly so as to make the entire grid dependend on exactly one plant. Now you use the necessity for backup capacity to “show” the missing economics.
A very simple lawyer trick that might convince a very stupid judge. Now let’s talk again about a real island with 100 million inhabitants which used to produce 80% of their electricity with nukes, called Japan… I notice that you have nothing to say about real examples, only about your very cherrypicked imaginary scenarios.
Germany had 23 nukes, which were cyclically refueled every 2 years, so that at any given moment one of them rould be refueled and revisited.
Why don’t you talk about working examples, Roger?
DirkH
August 4, 2013 2:21 pm
Roger, you have deliberately constructed an uneconomic example and then you ask around, why doesn’t whis work? See, it’s uneconomic!
You could just as well ask why an average worker does not buy a Ferrari to drive to work and use that as your argument why gasoline cars are uneconomic.
It’s beyond ridiculous. You can pull such stunts on Grist. They won’t check numbers.
Incidentally, CANDU reactors are continuously fueled with no shutdown required.
In fact, the CANDU reactors (yes, I’m Canadian) are a good example of a system that was designed from the start to generate power, not to create fissionable material for weaponization. They also have quite a few fueling options, including as-mined uranium requiring little fuel enrichment.
Of course they’re not perfect, and still have some of that 50s mindset behind them, but they’re used in many locations and have proven to be safe, with many automatic safety features that require no intervention. For example, moderating rods are held above the reactor by electromagnets and automatically drop into place in the event of power loss, immediately shutting down the reactor. Also in the event of an overheat the fuel chambers deform, causing the reactor to lose criticality.
G. Karst
August 4, 2013 2:36 pm
Roger Sowell: You have expressed opinion on a complicated subject without sufficient understanding of nuclear issues. It is not your fault and hardly unusual among lay persons to misunderstand nuclear fundamentals. There is so much misinformation coming from every media outlet, that it rivals climate “science”. Especially so when it comes to low level radiation effects, attributed cancer numbers through statistics alone, hormesis, etc.
I suggest you abandon your position and begin a review of the actual science.
Having said that, I must warn many here of being overly enthusiastic over the “nuclear” option. I am all for prudent expansion of nuclear build. However, rate of growth required for just the electrification, of the automobile, will require many thousands of “nukes” worldwide. We would quickly outstrip, our ability to staff them with experienced and fully trained operational staff. Instead of a person, of 15 yrs of experience, sitting at the controls – we will have people “simulator” trained, with little experience WORLDWIDE. There will be more accidents due to the large number of reactors, and the lack of experienced staff. Growth cannot exceed our ability to accrue expert personnel.
And that’s all I have to say about that. GK
Kajajuk says:
August 4, 2013 at 12:21 pm
Gail Combs says:
August 4, 2013 at 10:17 am
————————-
Bailing out the failed banks is the glory of capitalism?…..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The USA has not seen actual ‘Capitalism’ for more than a century. FIAT Money drives out ‘Capital wealth’
Bankers are aligned with the socialists. They bankrolled the Bolshevik Revolution.
Robert Minor, Member of the American Communist Party had a 1911 cartoon DEELIGHTED showing a beaming Karl Marx standing in Wall Street with a book ‘Socialism’ tucked under his arm and accepting the congratulations of financial luminaries J.P. Morgan, Morgan partner George W. Perkins, John D. Rockefeller, John D. Ryan of National City Bank, and Teddy Roosevelt. Banking interests (JP Morgan) took control of the US media in 1915 and has had control ever since link
The Fabian Socialists founded the London School of Economics (1895) that has been educating our financial, industrial and political leaders such as John Kennedy, David Rockefeller, and George Soros. link
Do you think ‘Socilism’ would be anything but a minor foot note in history if it was not backed by bankers, politicians and industrial leaders?
Mother Jones
…. ADM’s [Archer Daniels Midland Co.] bottom line has always been interwoven with public policy. To reinforce this relationship, Andreas has contributed impressively to the campaigns of politicians, from Richard Nixon and Hubert Humphrey to Bill Clinton and Bob Dole.
…Andreas announces that global capitalism is a delusion. “There isn’t one grain of anything in the world that is sold in a free market. Not one! The only place you see a free market is in the speeches of politicians. People who are not in the Midwest do not understand that this is a socialist country.”
It might seem odd that a man with personal assets well into nine figures would be so quick to hoist the red flag of socialism over the American heartland. But Andreas is essentially right…..
….For all ADM’s size, the question now is not whether the government can survive without ADM but whether ADM can survive without the government. Three subsidies that the company [needs]….
The first subsidy is the Agriculture Department’s corn-price support program. Despite ADM’s close association with corn, this is the least important subsidy to the company…..
Of more benefit to ADM is the Agriculture Department’s sugar program…. forcing Americans to spend $1.4 billion per year more for sugar… The irony is that, aside from a small subsidiary in Metairie, La., ADM has no interest in sugar. Its concern is to keep sugar prices high to prevent Coke and all the other ADM customers that replaced cane sugar with corn sweeteners from switching back. “The sugar program acts as an umbrella for them,” says Tom Hammer, president of the Sweetener Users Association. “It protects them from economic competition.”
The third subsidy that ADM depends on is the 54-cent-per-gallon tax credit the federal government allows to refiners of the corn-derived ethanol used in auto fuel. For this subsidy, the federal government pays $3.5 billion over five years. Since ADM makes 60 percent of all the ethanol in the country, the government is essentially contributing $2.1 billion to ADM’s bottom line. No other subsidy in the federal government’s box of goodies is so concentrated in the hands of a single company.
Robert Shapiro, author of a corporate welfare report for the Progressive Policy Institute, describes ADM’s federally supported journey this way: “ADM begins by buying the corn at subsidized prices. Then it uses the corn to make corn sweeteners, which are subsidized by the sugar program. Then it uses the remainder for the big subsidy, which is ethanol.”
T….During the 1992 election, Andreas gave more than $1.4 million in “soft money” (which goes to party organizations rather than individual candidates, and is exempt from limits) and $345,650 more in contributions to congressional and senatorial candidates…
…. President Clinton has been extraordinarily generous to ADM, last year pushing through a mandate that 30 percent of the gasoline sold in the nation’s most polluted cities contain ethanol products by 1996–and receiving a $100,000 check at essentially the same time…..
Tom in Texas
August 4, 2013 4:55 pm
The continuing horror of nuclear energy (and CO2):
Aug 3 (Reuters) – A carbon dioxide spray used as a flame retardant was inadvertently released and an alert declared at a nuclear power plant in southern Alabama early on Saturday, plant owner Alabama Power Company said, adding there were no signs of fire or damage and no injuries or health threats.
The Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant operates a two-unit electric-generating plant near Dothan, Alabama, about 200 miles (320 km) south of Birmingham.
The gas was released during maintenance in Unit 1, but both units operated at full capacity during the incident, Alabama Power spokesman Ike Pigott said, with personnel safely isolating the carbon dioxide.
Roger Sowell says:
August 4, 2013 at 1:25 pm
> The islanders could even overcome the poor load-following ability of a nuke by running it at baseload and using pumped storage hydroelectric for load-following.
Hmm. On east coast islands, a lot are flat. Like all the barrier islands. Is that pretty much New Jersey to Texas? Or they don’t have an affordable place for pumped storage (Manhatten) or don’t need local power (Long Island, Staten Island, Mount Desert Island).
Ah, I know a bit about Nantucket. They used to have a diesel generator that was getting tired an unreliable, there was rejoicing when they got plugged into the mainland via an undersea cable. Marthas Vineyard is closer to Cape Cod, they must have an undersea cable too.
Umm, what islands are you thinking of? Ah, only 15, mentioned in your http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2009/07/nuclear-plants-on-islands-nutty-idea.html . Oahu is the only US island.
I wonder why the French haven’t built a nuke there. Hmm, the islanders (well, the ones that make things happen, perhaps) want to go 100% Green. See 2008’s http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/08/14/us-renewables-reunion-idUSL146633820080814 . I wonder how that’s working out. “Some 36 percent of Reunion’s electricity already comes from renewables, mostly hydroenergy and sugar cane fiber, bagasse.” Decent starting point.
Oops: “Dieudonne said the temperature difference between sea water at the surface and at a 1,000-metre depth is about 22 degrees Celsius (71F).” [Eye-roll now.] Probably a stupid “helpful” addition by Reuters. People should write 22 C° for that (as opposed to 22°C). Sigh.
> The islanders could overcome the problem of periodic nuclear plant outages for refueling by keeping their current generators ready to run.
Unless the islanders have good connections to Washington (and not just US islands 🙂 ), I’d think they’d be reluctant to replace something that works until it either becomes too unreliable or unable to keep up with demand. Then they wouldn’t have adequate backup. I suppose they could bring an extra generator in on a barge or something.
Roger Sowell:
Well I have to say, you’re a bit off the norm here at WUWT. I just had this same basic debate with a friend who was convinced CO2 was causing global warming, ocean acidification, degraded reefs, etc., etc. My argument to him was if you’re that concerned about CO2 there is no credible option available which doesn’t include a hefty increase in nuclear power. He didn’t like that idea.
So you’re anti-nuclear, but see no problem with CO2? You and James Hansen would make an interesting odd couple.
My reading of your comments is you object to nuclear over safety issues; everything else you’ve mentioned regarding cost is peripheral. Would you be open to change your position based on new reactor designs, or do you believe that all nuclear is inherently unsafe? You’ve said you’d let the US navy keep their nuclear ships — why? Is there something less unsafe about navy reactors, or is that just a political calculation that you can’t get a nuclear ban enacted if it includes the US navy?
We’ve managed the risk of nuclear powered ships since 1954. We’ve also managed the risk of B-52’s carrying live thermonuclear bombs in the air round the clock every day of the year for over 30 years during the cold war, and had to retrieve four weapons when a B-52 went down in the Atlantic off the coast of Spain in 1966. Do you believe the risk of modern nuclear reactors is so much greater than what we’ve already managed for over 60 years that they must be shut down immediately?
What about the risk of extended brownouts/blackouts covering major urban areas? What would the casualty figures be if New York City had to go without electrical power for 72 hours, or a week? I think it extremely likely the extra deaths in such a case would exceed those of all nuclear power fatalities (both civilian and military) several times over. But that’s just my opinion, and I hope we never find out.
However one point you’ve made that I agree with: absent subsidies, regulatory incentives and disincentives, the power industry would build coal plants instead of nuclear. The 50-year price history of coal is remarkably constant (adjusted for inflation). Natural gas has historically been very volatile; its current low price is due to fracking, which is also under attack. If the industry is allowed to continue the practice, it is likely the lower cost of natural gas will favor that technology over coal. The power industry will prefer a low cost to a high one and a stable cost to a volatile one. A stable, low cost fuel will win every time. Right now, absent threatened actions by the EPA and executive orders, that fuel would be coal.
So Roger I have a suggestion for you. Before you try to shut down the nukes, please try to shut down the kooks. Let’s start with the EPA endangerment finding on CO2 and the Obama administration’s declared war on coal. Then we could move on to the fracking debate and related other new technologies to extract more oil and natural gas. Then how about we attack the refusal of the current administration to permit new drilling on the Gulf?
I wonder how many of your lawyer friends who are eager to shut down nuclear power would join you in making competing fossil fuels more abundant? If fossil fuels become cheaper, more abundant and less captive to the phobias of the extreme environmentalists, you will get your wish on nuclear power. Not immediately, but over time as current plants reach the end of their design lifetimes.
I accept that coal is dirty; but I prefer it over no reliable power. I accept that nuclear has risks; but I prefer it over no reliable power. What we have today is a loose coalition of groups determined to save the world from dirty coal, unsafe nuclear, and polluting oil and natural gas. Thanks, but I prefer the risks of any of the above to the near certainty that if our current technological infrastructure collapses then millions, perhaps billions, will die. Nobody’s grandchildren will thank us for that.
Kajajuk says: @ur momisugly August 3, 2013 at 5:56 pm
Same suggestion i have posted at least twice before…
A dynamic harmony between capitalism….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That is what you get when you let people be free and don’t regulate and tax them to death. Americans were (are?) the most generous people on earth and give away more wealth as individuals than our government does. (can’t find the original link) but this one will do.
Socialist want to give away OTHER PEOPLE’s money and then claim the kudos for themselves.
=================================================================
Uh…Gail, all I see is machine code.
=====================================================================
Reminds me of a quote I once heard:
“A liberal (US definition) is someone who feels a great debt to their fellowman and is determined to pay that debt using your money.”
(I first heard it from G. Gordon Liddy but I don’t know if it originated with him.)
Lars P. says:
August 4, 2013 at 7:18 am
Re glacial phase oceanic salinity, a study from the North Pacific the findings of which would also apply to the North Atlantic:
Effect of Pleistocene glaciation upon oceanographic characteristics of the North Pacific Ocean and Bering Sea
CONSTANCE SANCETTA*
(Received 23 October 1982; in revised form 28 January 1983; accepted 28 April 1983)
Abstract–
During intervals of Pleistocene glaciation, insolation of the high-latitude northern
hemisphere was lower than today, particularly during summer. Growth of continental ice sheets
resulted in a lowering of sea level by more than 100 m in the Bering Sea. As a result, the Bering
Strait was closed and most of the Bering continental shelf exposed. A proposed model predicts that (1) sea-ice formation would occur along the (modern) outer continental shelf, (2) advection would transport the sea ice over the deep basin, and (3) brine would flow into the basin at some intermediate depth to enhance the halocline. The result would be a low-salinity surface layer with a cold, thick halocline and reduced vertical mixing. Diatom microfossils and lithologic changes in sediment cores from the North Pacific Ocean and Bering Sea support the model and suggest that the proposed oceanographic conditions extended into the North Pacific, where the cold low-salinity
laycr was enhanced by meltwater from continentally derived icebergs.
Levity.
I think this was my personal best.
1. Gunga Din says:
May 9, 2012 at 5:35 pm
Stopping by Yamal One Snowy Evening
by Michael Mann
What tree this is, I think I know.
It grew in Yamal some time ago.
Yamal 06 I’m placing here
In hopes a hockey stick will grow.
But McIntyre did think it queer
No tree, the stick did disappear!
Desparate measures I did take
To make that stick reappear.
There were some corings from a lake.
And other data I could bake.
I’ll tweek my model more until
Another hockey stick I’ll make!
I changed a line into a hill!
I can’t say how I was thrilled!
Then Climategate. I’m feeling ill.
Then Climategate. I’m feeling ill.
(trimmed)
I’ve tried, but it never came out like this:
“It’ll be a happy day when American embassies are again built in busy downtown intersections out of normal materials – and not, as they are now, bunkers located in distant lots surrounded by high fences. Such a change will only be possible when the safety of Americans depends not on walls, metal detectors and Marine guards, but on the deterrence established by years of terrible retribution against anyone who so much as harms a single American citizen.”
http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2013/08/on-closed-embassies-the-worldwide-travel-alert
Gail Combs says:
August 4, 2013 at 10:17 am
————————-
Bailing out the failed banks is the glory of capitalism? Is that what you mean by “Socialist want to give away OTHER PEOPLE’s money and then claim the kudos for themselves.”?
Contravening the wishes of the majority of citizens is democracy?
I propose that when banks fail in a “free-market” system, whether the fault is with the banks or naught, the bank should be nationalized. A consequence other banks would take to heart!
Later the bank could be privatized again…
Quantitative easing, another interesting “capitalist” innovation, is the creation of money to be put in a pile to earn interest for nothing. Would not an “easing” be better spent on infrastructure and innovation (research & development)?
The government could be a mitigating medium between the mob’s base instincts and the common good.
In my dynamic paradigm the “socialism” is to mitigate the effects of capitalism for the common good and capitalism is to mitigate the effects of socialism for the common good. No feudalism or cash driven master and slave mentality but a society where risk is taken for its own sake because to fail is just a loss of stuff and not generational misery. People’s basic needs are never at risk only their individual prosperity, which is not permanent anyways.
And so “socialists” endeavor to invest part of a “common wealth” (other peoples money i guess) to ensure the health of the commons AND the “capitalist” endeavor to invest part of a “common wealth” in ventures for individuals as well as ensuring a fair “playing field”.
Charles Tossy says:
August 3, 2013 at 7:10 pm
———————
Are you accepting resumes for your zombies? Do you pay minimum wage”
jorgekafkazar says:
August 3, 2013 at 4:28 pm
David Ball says: “Spending the money to go to mars is very short-sighted.”
Depends on who we send, David.
=========
A number of images flashed through my mind . . . .
Thanks indeed jorgekafkazar for a minute of levity for an old sea dog!
Auto.
@ur momisugly RACookPE, I’m encouraged that you have a grasp of a power grid evolution, but even you have missed the obvious point.
Yes, isolated islands grew their power grids in small increments. They generally have expensive power today anywhere from $.25-$.35 per kWh. This presents a golden opportunity for nuclear power advocates, since the high price paid by the islanders can be greatly reduced to 3 or 4 cents if they would only replace the multiple generators with a modern nuke of appropriate size.
The islanders could even overcome the poor load-following ability of a nuke by running it at baseload and using pumped storage hydroelectric for load-following.
The islanders could overcome the problem of periodic nuclear plant outages for refueling by keeping their current generators ready to run.
A nuclear power company should be jumping at such an opportunity, if the fabled economics of a nuclear power plant were as advertised.
Yet very clearly, none have done so.
One suspects that the true economics of a nuclear power plant would be exposed for all to see if one were to be built on an island of roughly 1 million people, and 1,000 MW daily peak load.
Nuclear reactor sales companies are not about to let that happen.
Roger Sowell;
Yet very clearly, none have done so.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Well sure they have. But they were met by a battery of activist fear mongering attorneys scaring the bujeezus out of the local population and throwing every legal manouver they could at preventing the power plant from being built.
Then, when the power plant company gives up, the activist attorneys claim the reason was that it wasn’t economical in the first place, and congratulate themselves and forcing the poor islanders into energy poverty for their own good.
Roger Sowell says:
August 4, 2013 at 1:25 pm
“The islanders could overcome the problem of periodic nuclear plant outages for refueling by keeping their current generators ready to run.”
You have not reacted on my calculation showing how you cherrypicked your 1 million population exactly so as to make the entire grid dependend on exactly one plant. Now you use the necessity for backup capacity to “show” the missing economics.
A very simple lawyer trick that might convince a very stupid judge. Now let’s talk again about a real island with 100 million inhabitants which used to produce 80% of their electricity with nukes, called Japan… I notice that you have nothing to say about real examples, only about your very cherrypicked imaginary scenarios.
Germany had 23 nukes, which were cyclically refueled every 2 years, so that at any given moment one of them rould be refueled and revisited.
Why don’t you talk about working examples, Roger?
Roger, you have deliberately constructed an uneconomic example and then you ask around, why doesn’t whis work? See, it’s uneconomic!
You could just as well ask why an average worker does not buy a Ferrari to drive to work and use that as your argument why gasoline cars are uneconomic.
It’s beyond ridiculous. You can pull such stunts on Grist. They won’t check numbers.
milodonharlani says:
August 4, 2013 at 10:40 am
Thanks milodonharlani! Found the article here:
http://ic.ucsc.edu/~acr/BeringResources/Articles%20of%20interest/Bering%20Sea%20general/Sancetta%201983.pdf
It is not exactly what I searched but there are good points in it. Looks like many things that we consider “constant” are not constant at all on geological scales…
Incidentally, CANDU reactors are continuously fueled with no shutdown required.
In fact, the CANDU reactors (yes, I’m Canadian) are a good example of a system that was designed from the start to generate power, not to create fissionable material for weaponization. They also have quite a few fueling options, including as-mined uranium requiring little fuel enrichment.
Of course they’re not perfect, and still have some of that 50s mindset behind them, but they’re used in many locations and have proven to be safe, with many automatic safety features that require no intervention. For example, moderating rods are held above the reactor by electromagnets and automatically drop into place in the event of power loss, immediately shutting down the reactor. Also in the event of an overheat the fuel chambers deform, causing the reactor to lose criticality.
Roger Sowell: You have expressed opinion on a complicated subject without sufficient understanding of nuclear issues. It is not your fault and hardly unusual among lay persons to misunderstand nuclear fundamentals. There is so much misinformation coming from every media outlet, that it rivals climate “science”. Especially so when it comes to low level radiation effects, attributed cancer numbers through statistics alone, hormesis, etc.
I suggest you abandon your position and begin a review of the actual science.
Having said that, I must warn many here of being overly enthusiastic over the “nuclear” option. I am all for prudent expansion of nuclear build. However, rate of growth required for just the electrification, of the automobile, will require many thousands of “nukes” worldwide. We would quickly outstrip, our ability to staff them with experienced and fully trained operational staff. Instead of a person, of 15 yrs of experience, sitting at the controls – we will have people “simulator” trained, with little experience WORLDWIDE. There will be more accidents due to the large number of reactors, and the lack of experienced staff. Growth cannot exceed our ability to accrue expert personnel.
And that’s all I have to say about that. GK
Is this a joke?
Kajajuk says:
August 4, 2013 at 12:21 pm
Gail Combs says:
August 4, 2013 at 10:17 am
————————-
Bailing out the failed banks is the glory of capitalism?…..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The USA has not seen actual ‘Capitalism’ for more than a century. FIAT Money drives out ‘Capital wealth’
Bankers are aligned with the socialists. They bankrolled the Bolshevik Revolution.
Robert Minor, Member of the American Communist Party had a 1911 cartoon DEELIGHTED showing a beaming Karl Marx standing in Wall Street with a book ‘Socialism’ tucked under his arm and accepting the congratulations of financial luminaries J.P. Morgan, Morgan partner George W. Perkins, John D. Rockefeller, John D. Ryan of National City Bank, and Teddy Roosevelt. Banking interests (JP Morgan) took control of the US media in 1915 and has had control ever since link
The Fabian Socialists founded the London School of Economics (1895) that has been educating our financial, industrial and political leaders such as John Kennedy, David Rockefeller, and George Soros. link
Do you think ‘Socilism’ would be anything but a minor foot note in history if it was not backed by bankers, politicians and industrial leaders?
The continuing horror of nuclear energy (and CO2):
Aug 3 (Reuters) – A carbon dioxide spray used as a flame retardant was inadvertently released and an alert declared at a nuclear power plant in southern Alabama early on Saturday, plant owner Alabama Power Company said, adding there were no signs of fire or damage and no injuries or health threats.
The Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant operates a two-unit electric-generating plant near Dothan, Alabama, about 200 miles (320 km) south of Birmingham.
The gas was released during maintenance in Unit 1, but both units operated at full capacity during the incident, Alabama Power spokesman Ike Pigott said, with personnel safely isolating the carbon dioxide.
Roger Sowell says:
August 4, 2013 at 1:25 pm
> The islanders could even overcome the poor load-following ability of a nuke by running it at baseload and using pumped storage hydroelectric for load-following.
Hmm. On east coast islands, a lot are flat. Like all the barrier islands. Is that pretty much New Jersey to Texas? Or they don’t have an affordable place for pumped storage (Manhatten) or don’t need local power (Long Island, Staten Island, Mount Desert Island).
Ah, I know a bit about Nantucket. They used to have a diesel generator that was getting tired an unreliable, there was rejoicing when they got plugged into the mainland via an undersea cable. Marthas Vineyard is closer to Cape Cod, they must have an undersea cable too.
Umm, what islands are you thinking of? Ah, only 15, mentioned in your http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2009/07/nuclear-plants-on-islands-nutty-idea.html . Oahu is the only US island.
I wonder why the French haven’t built a nuke there. Hmm, the islanders (well, the ones that make things happen, perhaps) want to go 100% Green. See 2008’s http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/08/14/us-renewables-reunion-idUSL146633820080814 . I wonder how that’s working out. “Some 36 percent of Reunion’s electricity already comes from renewables, mostly hydroenergy and sugar cane fiber, bagasse.” Decent starting point.
Oops:
“Dieudonne said the temperature difference between sea water at the surface and at a 1,000-metre depth is about 22 degrees Celsius (71F).” [Eye-roll now.] Probably a stupid “helpful” addition by Reuters. People should write 22 C° for that (as opposed to 22°C). Sigh.
> The islanders could overcome the problem of periodic nuclear plant outages for refueling by keeping their current generators ready to run.
Unless the islanders have good connections to Washington (and not just US islands 🙂 ), I’d think they’d be reluctant to replace something that works until it either becomes too unreliable or unable to keep up with demand. Then they wouldn’t have adequate backup. I suppose they could bring an extra generator in on a barge or something.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-h-bailey/scientific-research_b_3340682.html?utm_hp_ref=physics
This remind you of any group?…(c;]
Don’t look now, but the sea ice extent in the Antarctic is now at 3 SD from the long term mean. Just ~ 1% of the time would this be happening.
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_stddev_timeseries.png
Roger Sowell:
Well I have to say, you’re a bit off the norm here at WUWT. I just had this same basic debate with a friend who was convinced CO2 was causing global warming, ocean acidification, degraded reefs, etc., etc. My argument to him was if you’re that concerned about CO2 there is no credible option available which doesn’t include a hefty increase in nuclear power. He didn’t like that idea.
So you’re anti-nuclear, but see no problem with CO2? You and James Hansen would make an interesting odd couple.
My reading of your comments is you object to nuclear over safety issues; everything else you’ve mentioned regarding cost is peripheral. Would you be open to change your position based on new reactor designs, or do you believe that all nuclear is inherently unsafe? You’ve said you’d let the US navy keep their nuclear ships — why? Is there something less unsafe about navy reactors, or is that just a political calculation that you can’t get a nuclear ban enacted if it includes the US navy?
We’ve managed the risk of nuclear powered ships since 1954. We’ve also managed the risk of B-52’s carrying live thermonuclear bombs in the air round the clock every day of the year for over 30 years during the cold war, and had to retrieve four weapons when a B-52 went down in the Atlantic off the coast of Spain in 1966. Do you believe the risk of modern nuclear reactors is so much greater than what we’ve already managed for over 60 years that they must be shut down immediately?
What about the risk of extended brownouts/blackouts covering major urban areas? What would the casualty figures be if New York City had to go without electrical power for 72 hours, or a week? I think it extremely likely the extra deaths in such a case would exceed those of all nuclear power fatalities (both civilian and military) several times over. But that’s just my opinion, and I hope we never find out.
However one point you’ve made that I agree with: absent subsidies, regulatory incentives and disincentives, the power industry would build coal plants instead of nuclear. The 50-year price history of coal is remarkably constant (adjusted for inflation). Natural gas has historically been very volatile; its current low price is due to fracking, which is also under attack. If the industry is allowed to continue the practice, it is likely the lower cost of natural gas will favor that technology over coal. The power industry will prefer a low cost to a high one and a stable cost to a volatile one. A stable, low cost fuel will win every time. Right now, absent threatened actions by the EPA and executive orders, that fuel would be coal.
So Roger I have a suggestion for you. Before you try to shut down the nukes, please try to shut down the kooks. Let’s start with the EPA endangerment finding on CO2 and the Obama administration’s declared war on coal. Then we could move on to the fracking debate and related other new technologies to extract more oil and natural gas. Then how about we attack the refusal of the current administration to permit new drilling on the Gulf?
I wonder how many of your lawyer friends who are eager to shut down nuclear power would join you in making competing fossil fuels more abundant? If fossil fuels become cheaper, more abundant and less captive to the phobias of the extreme environmentalists, you will get your wish on nuclear power. Not immediately, but over time as current plants reach the end of their design lifetimes.
I accept that coal is dirty; but I prefer it over no reliable power. I accept that nuclear has risks; but I prefer it over no reliable power. What we have today is a loose coalition of groups determined to save the world from dirty coal, unsafe nuclear, and polluting oil and natural gas. Thanks, but I prefer the risks of any of the above to the near certainty that if our current technological infrastructure collapses then millions, perhaps billions, will die. Nobody’s grandchildren will thank us for that.