@Mario Lento, you are simply chanting the pro-nuclear mantra. An industry that is worse, even, than climate science for distortions, lies, closing ranks to protect the guilty, and cover-ups. Why do you wish an economic disaster on poor, elderly, and families struggling to get by? Have you no compassion?
My first point, as I wrote above, is the economics. The other defects of nuclear power will be addressed later.
My article will fully address inherent engineering defects of nuclear power.
To Janice Moore, no refuting was done by your hero Mario – he simply parroted time-worn talking points.
richardscourtney
September 25, 2013 7:51 am
dbstealey:
This is a comment pertaining to my post to you at at September 24, 2013 at 2:45 pm which asked you not to stop the Punch and Judy show.
In that post I wrote
Please do not encourage Roger Sowell to desist.
I ask because I am enjoying the Punch and Judy show.
Sowell has had his ‘accident’ with the ‘baby’ of truth and he is still beating up on the ‘Judy’ of reason.
You have arrived like the constable to restore order but too soon.
Sowell has yet to deal with the sausages and I eagerly await the surreal form of the crocodile.
Please allow him to continue to his traditional self destruction. Remember, if he continues then the hangman awaits.
The sausages have arrived!
Toby the dog (in the form of several commentators) has devoured the nonsense about windfarms from Roger Sowell so he is now holding the next sausage in his ravings about nuclear power. Toby has started to nibble that one, too, and looks certain to devour it. But (at September 25, 2013 at 6:56 am) Mr Punch has promised to drive Toby away by presenting the crocodile in the form of an “article {which} will fully address inherent engineering defects of nuclear power”.
I wonder what colour the crocodile will be. Green is traditional.
Richard
kadaka (KD Knoebel) on September 24, 2013 at 9:15 pm
– – – – – – – –
kadaka (KD Knoebel),
Thanks for your due diligence.
87% works.
The Westinghouse nuclear org is a US registered company who does have capability to license per the NRC process.
I cannot see the current NRC position being able to withstand challenge.
John
phlogiston
September 25, 2013 10:21 am
Roger Sowell says:
September 24, 2013 at 9:57 pm
My personal comments to you were not appropriate, my apologies.
The essential problem with your position is that it does not correspond to historical fact. We are not talking about a new technology someone has just invented. The nuclear industry is well into its second half-century, with thousands of reactor-years of safe operation. Nuclear accidents typical of all industries have been massively inflated by paranoic radiophobia. In rational terms they are unremarkable compared to accidents in other industries, Bhopal etc. Real deaths from Chernobyl for example are less than 200 from radiation, but many more from social and psycological stress of entirely unnecessary relocation of people. But the belief (this is all it is) of most of the European public for example is that tens / hundreds of thousands of the deaths that routinely occur due to human non-immortality have been claimed for radiation fallout. Even the much vilified Russian RBMK reactors of Chernobyl type had an acceptable safety record and provided many countries a sizeable chunk of their electricity for many decades.
And as I have argued, the costs of nuclear are so grossly distorted by irrational and abusive regulatory requirements and political overheads that meaningful economic analysis of the nuclear industry is hardly really possible.
[p.s. the most serious safety issue of the nuclear era was not connected to power generation but the military. We now learn that an H bomb falling from a stricken B52 over north Carolina in 1961 started a detonation sequence and was only stopped from going off by a single faulty electrical switch. ] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-24183879
kadaka (KD Knoebel)
September 25, 2013 2:33 pm
Nuclear power is so dead in the US, it is growing new plants.
From the SCANA Corporation website, Investor Relations, selected Nuclear Development Updates, go there for links:
May 22, 2013 – SCE&G Placed Unit 2 Containment Vessel Bottom Head
SCE&G placed the containment vessel bottom head in the Unit 2 nuclear site on May 22, 2013…
August 14, 2013 – SCE&G Files BLRA Status Report for 2nd Quarter, 2013
SCE&G filed its BLRA Status Report for the 2nd Quarter, 2013 with the South Carolina Office of Regulatory Staff, providing updated information on the status of construction of V.C. Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 & 3.
August 30, 2013 – Media Day Held at V.C. Summer Nuclear Station
About 15 members of the South Carolina media gathered at the V.C. Summer Nuclear Station to hear the latest updates on the new nuclear development project and see the construction for themselves.
September 18, 2013 – Public Service Commission of South Carolina Approves SCE&G Rate Adjustment Under Base Load Review Act
On September 18, 2013, the Public Service Commission of South Carolina (SCPSC) approved an increase of $67,240,232 or approximately 2.87 percent to the retail electric rates of South Carolina Electric & Gas Company (SCE&G), principal subsidiary of SCANA Corporation. The new rates will be effective for bills rendered on and after October 30, 2013. Otherwise, the report for the second quarter filed by SCE&G with the SCPSC on August 14, 2013 pursuant to the provisions of the Base Load Review Act continues to be accurate in all material respects.
…
As Taylor figures it, natural gas would need to cost upwards of $20 per mmBTU before gas-fired power would cost as much as wind.
…
Taylor and Tanton figure that at the current price of natural gas, and before counting any subsidies or transmission costs, ratepayers are paying about $8.5 billion more this year for electricity from wind than they would have paid if it were gas-fired power. That amount doesn’t even include the cost of the direct federal subsidies.
What’s more, ratepayers will have to shoulder that cost for as long as the turbines are in operation. That’s $8.5 billion a year that ratepayers are forking over to subsidize a less efficient, more expensive technology; $8.5 billion that could otherwise be invested in natural gas electricity, or better yet, nuclear.
Just think, in South Carolina, power company Scana and its partners are investing about $11 billion to construct two 1,100 mw nuclear reactors on roughly 1,000 acres. To get the same amount of electricity out of wind (remember that turbines operate at an average of less than 50% capacity because of wind’s intermittancy) and you’d need more than 1,700 turbines stretched across 200,000 acres, for an upfront investment of $8.8 billion. The nukes might cost more upfront, but they last longer, they provide reliable base load power and they emit zero carbon.
…
I did find mention of a project delay, June 5, 2013 Reuters piece:
…
In a presentation, Scana said Unit 2, which was expected to enter service in March 2017, will instead likely enter service between the fourth quarter of 2017 and the first quarter of 2018.
Scana said this was due in part to delays in delivery of some components from a unit of construction contractor Chicago Bridge & Iron Co NV (CB&I) from its Lake Charles, Louisiana facility.
CB&I and Westinghouse Electric are building two 1,117-megawatt Westinghouse AP1000 reactors for Scana’s South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G) utility and South Carolina-owned Santee Cooper at the Summer site.
…
Searching further, Chicago Bridge & Iron has a long history of constructing large tanks and pressure vessels, including for nuclear projects. Further research for confirmation required, but it appears they are a qualified company in the United States than can make reactor pressure vessels.
kadaka (KD Knoebel) on September 25, 2013 at 2:33 pm
Nuclear power is so dead in the US, it is growing new plants.
– – – – – – –
kadaka (KD Knoebel),
Regarding CBI, yes they supplied US sited nuclear reactors with major components.
Yes, in the last 25 odd years who supplied the worlds major nuclear components? Not CBI. They have predominately been supplied by the Japanese or Koreans or European consortiums. Mostly Japanese.
Was the basis of awarding CBI a contact because it was the lowest priced bidder by a factor of ~2 or more over European or Asia makers? Was it because it was a domestic supplier?
I am interested. Was the sourcing descision exclusive of a wider purview of globally sourced quality and delivery?
John
Roger Sowell says:
September 25, 2013 at 6:56 am
@Mario Lento, you are simply chanting the pro-nuclear mantra. An industry that is worse, even, than climate science for distortions, lies, closing ranks to protect the guilty, and cover-ups. Why do you wish an economic disaster on poor, elderly, and families struggling to get by? Have you no compassion?
My first point, as I wrote above, is the economics. The other defects of nuclear power will be addressed later.
My article will fully address inherent engineering defects of nuclear power.
To Janice Moore, no refuting was done by your hero Mario – he simply parroted time-worn talking points.
+++++++++++++
Roger: You’re out of your league here.
I expected your non-response and you fell into the trap ever so predictably. You promise to dig up something for later. Your weird claims to garner emotional attention related to ” poor, elderly, and families struggling to get by” ring hollow when your recommendations lead to energy poverty, which effects who? Yes – you know the answer Mr. Lawyer.
Nothing you’ve said, literally nothing, can be substantiated, and it’s documented here for all to see. We already know here at WUWT, that parroting puts one into the difficult-to-defend position of explaining away other people’s words. What’s so ironic is that your words were implanted into your grey matter by someone else, and you have proven to have no basis by which to support your claims. Engineer? Really?
So here’s a teaching moment for you, if you so choose to better yourself. Here’s your assignment:
Give us some observations, data, and facts and then quantify them like an engineer. Then we can test your claims against observations.
Janice, I am back and working in my chosen work in process control again. The plant is in good shape and energy continues to be produced!
Roger Sowell says:
September 23, 2013 at 1:43 pm @ur momisugly davidmhoffer,
You Attacked the messenger, but cannot refute the message. This is a sure sign you have lost the argument. You are indeed a loser!
Argue the facts, sir!
Was or was not coal a greater provider of electric power than was natural gas in the US, until very recently?
You have lost, again.
+++++++++++++
Roger: Seriously, as a lawyer, you should know you are not the judge or jury… you’re the fool who sometimes has to argue a case where he know’s he’s wrong. You confuse yourself to be someone who understands facts. I just don’t see any sign of an engineer in you.
Regarding your statement “Was or was not coal a greater provider of electric power than was natural gas in the US, until very recently?”
It’s entertaining that someone of your ilk can call davidmhoffer wrong when you don’t have any idea of what you’re talking about. You constantly forget things you’ve said and the contradictions and lack of understanding of concepts makes you look foolish and arrogant.
It is true coal is no longer a greater provider in the US than natural gas. But, this has to do with politics not economics. Maybe too logical for you to understand. Ask Europe why they are building so many dirty coal plants –even though coal there is far more costly than US coal cleaner coal sources.
I rest my case.
Roger Sowell: This post is for you. Listen carefully. The switch from nuclear to Green has been painful for the German Economy and the people who have experienced what people like you foist upon the world caused pain. Nuclear will be the answer, Mr. Lawyer who does not understand economics. We have real world experiments to watch and learn from. Either learn or be ignorant of world lessons. http://www.reuters.com/video/2013/09/23/merkel-must-fix-energy-policy-german-ind?videoId=273870066&videoChannel=1#!
Just watched a public forum on TV in Oz with David Suzuki as guest.
He seems like a nice person – reminds me of Christopher Hutchins . Both of these people always seemed astonished that true, intelligent examination is not possible of emotive subjects.
However, last night David did bravely spend time pointing out that against the PR Machine of Our Owners, little can be done. Even mentioned the “C” word.
“Conspiracy” is as taboo a word as the euphemism for specific female anatomy was before the Black Rap Movement.
Think Titanic and deck chairs……….
THe whole Alternative Energy Movement is a farce, simply prestidigitation, beautifully managed.
Energy waste is not easy to resolve financially. Dead easy technically.
Some time ago, a brilliant young bunch in Oz did some great work on energy waste reduction and the numbers looked better than going nuclear! Simple stuff: reduce speed limits, penalise fun-flying, make fuel expensive enough to force public transport use – like that.
Strangely, they have vanished.
Interesting that you mention Hitchens, who is also quoted upthread in relation to Stalinism.
It was Hitchens—and the lip-service he paid to CAGWism—that first made me realize you don’t need a low IQ to believe the alarmist story. All you need is a (self-confessed, in Hitchens’ case) lack of formal scientific education. Pseudoscience is called pseudoscience because it looks like science to the unwary eye. Still, I must admit to some sadness over the fact that one of my intellectual heroes was gulled into mistaking ecneics for science.
THe end of the Nuclear Debate:
1. watch a movie or two about Chenobyl and Fukishima – oh, and the two well-hidden U.S. events.
2. Who is going to store the ever-growing nuclear waste produced – meaning where?
3. A simple cost projection of the maintenance of “safe” storage for oh, say, just 50,000 years.
Side note: I’ve become a fan of an old TV series: “Air Crash Investigations” in Oz. I’m amazed that a lot more of these complex machines and with their careful engineered maintenance aren’t falling out of the sky.
Oh, they do??
richardscourtney on September 25, 2013 at 5:09 am @John Whitman
– – – – – – – –
richardscourtney,
Thanks for giving me your response in turn in your schedule, we all have our own schedules. Appreciate your discussion.
Your argument is that a new concept of pseudo-science cannot be formed outside of current scientific principles and processes that you articulated quite well. My argument is a concept is needed in the broader philosophical venue than physical science. I am providing that concept.
How did science get to the state we see within the IPCC? If science within itself was the sufficient and necessary explanation then one can’t see how science came to such a state. A broader philosophical set of concepts and systems are in play here.
There is a clear anti-science irrational movement in western philosophy. It developed in open philosophical proceedings, it wasn’t and isn ‘t counter cultural; it was developed within the mainstream of philosophy. An important and perhaps the single sufficient thrust of the movement started with Kant in the 18th century. Its rapid morphing into the recognized sub movements of today (some of them listed in my last post) is legend to students of rational philosophy. You suggest that is indication of obfuscation on my part. In response I have a polite no comment on your allegation.
It looks to me like the IPCC is an important and necessary realization of the anti-science irrational movement in western philosophy. I maintain the philosophy must be critically presented in order for the culture to see its nature as irrational and to refute it. A pseudo-science conception in that regard will be cognitively critical.
For my part the most important next step is to show how irrational philosophy’s anti-science devalued science and its processes came to be cloaked in a perception of rational science. And then and only then to observe the articulations of the IPCC Bureau members’ explicit philosophical justifications of their management of the IPCC, to see if there are explicit realizations of irrational philosophic anti-science.
I conclude this comment with the observation that successful (real) physical science needs a systematic integrated supporting rational philosophy; it cannot exist by itself in a full or partial philosophical vacuum lest it perish from irrational philosophies containing anti-science ideas.
John
PS – as to your relationship with Oldberg: Oldberg is to Whitman as Courtney is to Whitman as Lindzen is to Whitman as Victor Hugo is to Whitman as Watts is to Whitman as etc etc etc etc . . . : ) We are all our own intellectual identities and it is envigoring to see the working of pretty good intellects. I love it.
richardscourtney
September 26, 2013 8:30 am
John Whitman:
I am replying to your post at September 26, 2013 at 8:00 am.
My post at September 25, 2013 at 5:09 am http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/22/open-thread-13/#comment-1426178
completely refuted your attempted excusing of IPCC pseudoscience.
My post explained – with links to complete and irrefutable documentary evidence – that The IPCC is pure politics pretending to be science because that is its specified job.
Your reply that I am answering ignores all that and reboots to your default position. Nice try but total failure.
Among all your long-winded twaddle in excuse of the IPCC, your post I am answering adds a question; viz.
How did science get to the state we see within the IPCC?
“Science” did NOT “get to the state we see within the IPCC”. You are attempting to pretend that IPCC pseudoscience is science but merely poor science. IT IS NOT.
The IPCC is pure politics pretending to be science because that is its specified job.
Read what I wrote and dispute it if you want, but your iterating your propaganda is tiresome.
Richard
@ur momisugly Mario Lento
You wrote : “You’re out of your league here”.
Thanks for the laugh! I passed your astute observation along to some of my engineering and energy clients.
They are still laughing, at you.
richardscourtney
September 26, 2013 8:50 am
Roger Sowell:
re your post at September 26, 2013 at 8:30 am addressed to Mario Lento.
No, you have lost sight of the plot. That is the sort of fatuous excuse you are supposed to say to the constable when he arrives. You don’t say it to Toby while he is eating your sausages.
I know that variations to traditional Punch and Judy now exist, but confusing Toby for the constable is far, far to untraditional.
Richard
Roger Sowell says:
September 26, 2013 at 8:30 am @ur momisugly Mario Lento
You wrote : “You’re out of your league here”.
Thanks for the laugh! I passed your astute observation along to some of my engineering and energy clients.
They are still laughing, at you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You must be very fortunate to have clients with an even poorer grasp of the facts than do you. If they exist at all.
richardscourtney on September 26, 2013 at 8:30 am
[. . .]
Read what I wrote and dispute it if you want, but your iterating your propaganda is tiresome.
Richard
– – – – – – – –
richardscourtney,
Your response was very welcome.
Politics are well known to have profound philosophical bases.
If, as you said in your latest comment, the IPCC is primarily political then its ‘pseudo-science’ has a definite philosophical base because all politics does. So up to that point we seem, per your last comment, to have agreement.
I go one step past you to identify the philosophy is anti-science irrationalism. We need not identify what the related politics are right now, only that they exist within the IPCC Bureau.
As to your reference to propaganda, I politely respond with no comment, as a dispassionate responder should after very very slowly counting to 1000. : )
John
richardscourtney
September 26, 2013 12:55 pm
John Whitman:
re your series of posts culminating in your post at September 26, 2013 at 12:47 pm.
You seem to think that rude and boorish behaviour is excusable when presented in facetious and prim language. It is not.
You asked for a discussion. I gave you argument supported by documented evidence. You repeatedly ignored everything I said and four times repeated your unsubstantiated propaganda.
I am more than willing to have a discussion, but I refuse to be a tool in your disinformation campaign.
Richard
Roger Sowell says:
September 26, 2013 at 8:30 am @ur momisugly Mario Lento
You wrote : “You’re out of your league here”.
Thanks for the laugh! I passed your astute observation along to some of my engineering and energy clients.
They are still laughing, at you.
++++++++++++
Well now Roger, you surely know how to avoid discussing topics based in facts. But then, that is what you learned in law school. Call people names, bring in claims that people who know one knows, claim to be on your side. Build a facade.
When I was younger, I surrounded myself with people whom I thought were better than me in various ways. I aspired to take on those trait that I admired. Some other people, surround themselves with fools, so they can feel smart.
Two conclusions here:
1) Roger is not used to dealing with people who understand what they are talking about.
2) Roger’s friends whom he claim are laughing at me, are dumber than even Roger.
Roger Sowel: debating style
what he writes about himself
“I passed your astute observation along to some of my engineering and energy clients and they are laughing at you”
“I clearly have a fine grasp of economics, which is why I refuted your writings above.”
He goes on an on about his credentials, but then only has opinions not based in data or fact, and calls people names who know better.
Examples quotations of Sowell’s attempts to discredit people:
“Good day, losers”
“You are indeed a loser”
“Now, “phlogiston” joins the chorus of ignorant nuclear power true-believers.”
“If you understood nuclear power, design limitations, and the regulatory process, you would not make such foolish statements.”
“Mario Lento, you are simply chanting the pro-nuclear mantra”
richardscourtney
September 26, 2013 5:29 pm
Mario Lento:
re your post at September 26, 2013 at 5:20 pm.
Yes, everybody has noticed. I have been comparing his behaviour to that of Mr Punch. Perhaps you don’t know the traditional Punch and Judy show at the British seaside. Wicki gives this description http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punch_and_Judy
Also you may care to do a Ctrl-f for Punch then press return repeatedly to follow my comments on the matter in this thread.
Richard
richardscourtney: writes: “Yes, everybody has noticed. I have been comparing his behaviour to that of Mr Punch. Perhaps you don’t know the traditional Punch and Judy show at the British seaside. Wicki gives this description http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punch_and_Judy”
Yes – I had forgotten about Punch and Judy…. I had seen them as a kid, thank you for raising awareness of his likeness. Very appropriate use for comparison Richard! I just had to jump in here, as mr. lawyer was using old fashioned slimeball tactical attempts to distract people from his avoidance of truth and fact. His stated resume does not fit his image here in front of so many who see him for what he is.
With people like Sowell, there is no exchange of knowledge, just political theatre.
Janice Moore
September 26, 2013 6:22 pm
“…clients with an even poorer grasp of the facts than do you.” (David Hoffer) LOL. Or, perhaps, Sowell is working pro bono; those clients will laugh at anything you want them to.
Well, Mr. Green Eyes Sowell, my “hero” convinced me. Your attempt to persuade did not. In other words, he refuted you. I hold for Lento, et. al.. (BANG! — gavel down)
Whether or not the RPC’s (Rules of Professional Conduct) for your state address civility, did you not take an “Oath of Attorney” when you were sworn in? Your discourteous, rude, disingenuous, behavior at WUWT is a disgrace to the legal profession. Your fellow attorneys care, even if your clients do not. That you are KNOWN to be an attorney here makes it even more imperative that you behave in a manner that is above reproach. It is lawyers like you that inspire all the lawyer jokes.
You may not a hero, but, take heart! You are an inspiration.
****************** @ur momisugly Mario Lento, so glad you made it back safely and all is well.
GOOD FOR YOU, WUWT Science Giants, heroes all, for dignifying Mr. Sowell’s obfuscations and ignorance with such thoughtful responses. There are many of us out here, silently reading along, grateful for your taking the time to help us find out the truth.
@Mario Lento, you are simply chanting the pro-nuclear mantra. An industry that is worse, even, than climate science for distortions, lies, closing ranks to protect the guilty, and cover-ups. Why do you wish an economic disaster on poor, elderly, and families struggling to get by? Have you no compassion?
My first point, as I wrote above, is the economics. The other defects of nuclear power will be addressed later.
My article will fully address inherent engineering defects of nuclear power.
To Janice Moore, no refuting was done by your hero Mario – he simply parroted time-worn talking points.
dbstealey:
This is a comment pertaining to my post to you at at September 24, 2013 at 2:45 pm which asked you not to stop the Punch and Judy show.
In that post I wrote
The sausages have arrived!
Toby the dog (in the form of several commentators) has devoured the nonsense about windfarms from Roger Sowell so he is now holding the next sausage in his ravings about nuclear power. Toby has started to nibble that one, too, and looks certain to devour it. But (at September 25, 2013 at 6:56 am) Mr Punch has promised to drive Toby away by presenting the crocodile in the form of an “article {which} will fully address inherent engineering defects of nuclear power”.
I wonder what colour the crocodile will be. Green is traditional.
Richard
If Mr Sowell has the credentials he claims, then one can only wring one’s hands in despair at the utter failure of the higher education system.
– – – – – – – –
kadaka (KD Knoebel),
Thanks for your due diligence.
87% works.
The Westinghouse nuclear org is a US registered company who does have capability to license per the NRC process.
I cannot see the current NRC position being able to withstand challenge.
John
Roger Sowell says:
September 24, 2013 at 9:57 pm
My personal comments to you were not appropriate, my apologies.
The essential problem with your position is that it does not correspond to historical fact. We are not talking about a new technology someone has just invented. The nuclear industry is well into its second half-century, with thousands of reactor-years of safe operation. Nuclear accidents typical of all industries have been massively inflated by paranoic radiophobia. In rational terms they are unremarkable compared to accidents in other industries, Bhopal etc. Real deaths from Chernobyl for example are less than 200 from radiation, but many more from social and psycological stress of entirely unnecessary relocation of people. But the belief (this is all it is) of most of the European public for example is that tens / hundreds of thousands of the deaths that routinely occur due to human non-immortality have been claimed for radiation fallout. Even the much vilified Russian RBMK reactors of Chernobyl type had an acceptable safety record and provided many countries a sizeable chunk of their electricity for many decades.
And as I have argued, the costs of nuclear are so grossly distorted by irrational and abusive regulatory requirements and political overheads that meaningful economic analysis of the nuclear industry is hardly really possible.
[p.s. the most serious safety issue of the nuclear era was not connected to power generation but the military. We now learn that an H bomb falling from a stricken B52 over north Carolina in 1961 started a detonation sequence and was only stopped from going off by a single faulty electrical switch. ]
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-24183879
Nuclear power is so dead in the US, it is growing new plants.
From the SCANA Corporation website, Investor Relations, selected Nuclear Development Updates, go there for links:
Links there to picture albums and videos of and about the construction.
I found out about it following a mention in an earlier Google search result that had popped up. Dec 21, 2012, Forbes, Why It’s The End Of The Line For Wind Power, where they refer to an ATI report available at link, Wind Power Costs Almost Twice ‘Official’ Estimates:
I did find mention of a project delay, June 5, 2013 Reuters piece:
Searching further, Chicago Bridge & Iron has a long history of constructing large tanks and pressure vessels, including for nuclear projects. Further research for confirmation required, but it appears they are a qualified company in the United States than can make reactor pressure vessels.
– – – – – – –
kadaka (KD Knoebel),
Regarding CBI, yes they supplied US sited nuclear reactors with major components.
Yes, in the last 25 odd years who supplied the worlds major nuclear components? Not CBI. They have predominately been supplied by the Japanese or Koreans or European consortiums. Mostly Japanese.
Was the basis of awarding CBI a contact because it was the lowest priced bidder by a factor of ~2 or more over European or Asia makers? Was it because it was a domestic supplier?
I am interested. Was the sourcing descision exclusive of a wider purview of globally sourced quality and delivery?
John
Roger Sowell says:
September 25, 2013 at 6:56 am
@Mario Lento, you are simply chanting the pro-nuclear mantra. An industry that is worse, even, than climate science for distortions, lies, closing ranks to protect the guilty, and cover-ups. Why do you wish an economic disaster on poor, elderly, and families struggling to get by? Have you no compassion?
My first point, as I wrote above, is the economics. The other defects of nuclear power will be addressed later.
My article will fully address inherent engineering defects of nuclear power.
To Janice Moore, no refuting was done by your hero Mario – he simply parroted time-worn talking points.
+++++++++++++
Roger: You’re out of your league here.
I expected your non-response and you fell into the trap ever so predictably. You promise to dig up something for later. Your weird claims to garner emotional attention related to ” poor, elderly, and families struggling to get by” ring hollow when your recommendations lead to energy poverty, which effects who? Yes – you know the answer Mr. Lawyer.
Nothing you’ve said, literally nothing, can be substantiated, and it’s documented here for all to see. We already know here at WUWT, that parroting puts one into the difficult-to-defend position of explaining away other people’s words. What’s so ironic is that your words were implanted into your grey matter by someone else, and you have proven to have no basis by which to support your claims. Engineer? Really?
So here’s a teaching moment for you, if you so choose to better yourself. Here’s your assignment:
Give us some observations, data, and facts and then quantify them like an engineer. Then we can test your claims against observations.
Janice, I am back and working in my chosen work in process control again. The plant is in good shape and energy continues to be produced!
Roger Sowell says:
September 23, 2013 at 1:43 pm
@ur momisugly davidmhoffer,
You Attacked the messenger, but cannot refute the message. This is a sure sign you have lost the argument. You are indeed a loser!
Argue the facts, sir!
Was or was not coal a greater provider of electric power than was natural gas in the US, until very recently?
You have lost, again.
+++++++++++++
Roger: Seriously, as a lawyer, you should know you are not the judge or jury… you’re the fool who sometimes has to argue a case where he know’s he’s wrong. You confuse yourself to be someone who understands facts. I just don’t see any sign of an engineer in you.
Regarding your statement “Was or was not coal a greater provider of electric power than was natural gas in the US, until very recently?”
It’s entertaining that someone of your ilk can call davidmhoffer wrong when you don’t have any idea of what you’re talking about. You constantly forget things you’ve said and the contradictions and lack of understanding of concepts makes you look foolish and arrogant.
It is true coal is no longer a greater provider in the US than natural gas. But, this has to do with politics not economics. Maybe too logical for you to understand. Ask Europe why they are building so many dirty coal plants –even though coal there is far more costly than US coal cleaner coal sources.
I rest my case.
Roger Sowell: This post is for you. Listen carefully. The switch from nuclear to Green has been painful for the German Economy and the people who have experienced what people like you foist upon the world caused pain. Nuclear will be the answer, Mr. Lawyer who does not understand economics. We have real world experiments to watch and learn from. Either learn or be ignorant of world lessons.
http://www.reuters.com/video/2013/09/23/merkel-must-fix-energy-policy-german-ind?videoId=273870066&videoChannel=1#!
Just watched a public forum on TV in Oz with David Suzuki as guest.
He seems like a nice person – reminds me of Christopher Hutchins . Both of these people always seemed astonished that true, intelligent examination is not possible of emotive subjects.
However, last night David did bravely spend time pointing out that against the PR Machine of Our Owners, little can be done. Even mentioned the “C” word.
“Conspiracy” is as taboo a word as the euphemism for specific female anatomy was before the Black Rap Movement.
Think Titanic and deck chairs……….
THe whole Alternative Energy Movement is a farce, simply prestidigitation, beautifully managed.
Energy waste is not easy to resolve financially. Dead easy technically.
Some time ago, a brilliant young bunch in Oz did some great work on energy waste reduction and the numbers looked better than going nuclear! Simple stuff: reduce speed limits, penalise fun-flying, make fuel expensive enough to force public transport use – like that.
Strangely, they have vanished.
Interesting that you mention Hitchens, who is also quoted upthread in relation to Stalinism.
It was Hitchens—and the lip-service he paid to CAGWism—that first made me realize you don’t need a low IQ to believe the alarmist story. All you need is a (self-confessed, in Hitchens’ case) lack of formal scientific education. Pseudoscience is called pseudoscience because it looks like science to the unwary eye. Still, I must admit to some sadness over the fact that one of my intellectual heroes was gulled into mistaking ecneics for science.
THe end of the Nuclear Debate:
1. watch a movie or two about Chenobyl and Fukishima – oh, and the two well-hidden U.S. events.
2. Who is going to store the ever-growing nuclear waste produced – meaning where?
3. A simple cost projection of the maintenance of “safe” storage for oh, say, just 50,000 years.
Side note: I’ve become a fan of an old TV series: “Air Crash Investigations” in Oz. I’m amazed that a lot more of these complex machines and with their careful engineered maintenance aren’t falling out of the sky.
Oh, they do??
– – – – – – – –
richardscourtney,
Thanks for giving me your response in turn in your schedule, we all have our own schedules. Appreciate your discussion.
Your argument is that a new concept of pseudo-science cannot be formed outside of current scientific principles and processes that you articulated quite well. My argument is a concept is needed in the broader philosophical venue than physical science. I am providing that concept.
How did science get to the state we see within the IPCC? If science within itself was the sufficient and necessary explanation then one can’t see how science came to such a state. A broader philosophical set of concepts and systems are in play here.
There is a clear anti-science irrational movement in western philosophy. It developed in open philosophical proceedings, it wasn’t and isn ‘t counter cultural; it was developed within the mainstream of philosophy. An important and perhaps the single sufficient thrust of the movement started with Kant in the 18th century. Its rapid morphing into the recognized sub movements of today (some of them listed in my last post) is legend to students of rational philosophy. You suggest that is indication of obfuscation on my part. In response I have a polite no comment on your allegation.
It looks to me like the IPCC is an important and necessary realization of the anti-science irrational movement in western philosophy. I maintain the philosophy must be critically presented in order for the culture to see its nature as irrational and to refute it. A pseudo-science conception in that regard will be cognitively critical.
For my part the most important next step is to show how irrational philosophy’s anti-science devalued science and its processes came to be cloaked in a perception of rational science. And then and only then to observe the articulations of the IPCC Bureau members’ explicit philosophical justifications of their management of the IPCC, to see if there are explicit realizations of irrational philosophic anti-science.
I conclude this comment with the observation that successful (real) physical science needs a systematic integrated supporting rational philosophy; it cannot exist by itself in a full or partial philosophical vacuum lest it perish from irrational philosophies containing anti-science ideas.
John
PS – as to your relationship with Oldberg: Oldberg is to Whitman as Courtney is to Whitman as Lindzen is to Whitman as Victor Hugo is to Whitman as Watts is to Whitman as etc etc etc etc . . . : ) We are all our own intellectual identities and it is envigoring to see the working of pretty good intellects. I love it.
John Whitman:
I am replying to your post at September 26, 2013 at 8:00 am.
My post at September 25, 2013 at 5:09 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/22/open-thread-13/#comment-1426178
completely refuted your attempted excusing of IPCC pseudoscience.
My post explained – with links to complete and irrefutable documentary evidence – that
The IPCC is pure politics pretending to be science because that is its specified job.
Your reply that I am answering ignores all that and reboots to your default position.
Nice try but total failure.
Among all your long-winded twaddle in excuse of the IPCC, your post I am answering adds a question; viz.
“Science” did NOT “get to the state we see within the IPCC”. You are attempting to pretend that IPCC pseudoscience is science but merely poor science. IT IS NOT.
The IPCC is pure politics pretending to be science because that is its specified job.
Read what I wrote and dispute it if you want, but your iterating your propaganda is tiresome.
Richard
@ur momisugly Mario Lento
You wrote : “You’re out of your league here”.
Thanks for the laugh! I passed your astute observation along to some of my engineering and energy clients.
They are still laughing, at you.
Roger Sowell:
re your post at September 26, 2013 at 8:30 am addressed to Mario Lento.
No, you have lost sight of the plot. That is the sort of fatuous excuse you are supposed to say to the constable when he arrives. You don’t say it to Toby while he is eating your sausages.
I know that variations to traditional Punch and Judy now exist, but confusing Toby for the constable is far, far to untraditional.
Richard
Roger Sowell says:
September 26, 2013 at 8:30 am
@ur momisugly Mario Lento
You wrote : “You’re out of your league here”.
Thanks for the laugh! I passed your astute observation along to some of my engineering and energy clients.
They are still laughing, at you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You must be very fortunate to have clients with an even poorer grasp of the facts than do you. If they exist at all.
– – – – – – – –
richardscourtney,
Your response was very welcome.
Politics are well known to have profound philosophical bases.
If, as you said in your latest comment, the IPCC is primarily political then its ‘pseudo-science’ has a definite philosophical base because all politics does. So up to that point we seem, per your last comment, to have agreement.
I go one step past you to identify the philosophy is anti-science irrationalism. We need not identify what the related politics are right now, only that they exist within the IPCC Bureau.
As to your reference to propaganda, I politely respond with no comment, as a dispassionate responder should after very very slowly counting to 1000. : )
John
John Whitman:
re your series of posts culminating in your post at September 26, 2013 at 12:47 pm.
You seem to think that rude and boorish behaviour is excusable when presented in facetious and prim language. It is not.
You asked for a discussion. I gave you argument supported by documented evidence. You repeatedly ignored everything I said and four times repeated your unsubstantiated propaganda.
I am more than willing to have a discussion, but I refuse to be a tool in your disinformation campaign.
Richard
Roger Sowell says:
September 26, 2013 at 8:30 am
@ur momisugly Mario Lento
You wrote : “You’re out of your league here”.
Thanks for the laugh! I passed your astute observation along to some of my engineering and energy clients.
They are still laughing, at you.
++++++++++++
Well now Roger, you surely know how to avoid discussing topics based in facts. But then, that is what you learned in law school. Call people names, bring in claims that people who know one knows, claim to be on your side. Build a facade.
When I was younger, I surrounded myself with people whom I thought were better than me in various ways. I aspired to take on those trait that I admired. Some other people, surround themselves with fools, so they can feel smart.
Two conclusions here:
1) Roger is not used to dealing with people who understand what they are talking about.
2) Roger’s friends whom he claim are laughing at me, are dumber than even Roger.
Roger Sowel: debating style
what he writes about himself
“I passed your astute observation along to some of my engineering and energy clients and they are laughing at you”
“I clearly have a fine grasp of economics, which is why I refuted your writings above.”
He goes on an on about his credentials, but then only has opinions not based in data or fact, and calls people names who know better.
Examples quotations of Sowell’s attempts to discredit people:
“Good day, losers”
“You are indeed a loser”
“Now, “phlogiston” joins the chorus of ignorant nuclear power true-believers.”
“If you understood nuclear power, design limitations, and the regulatory process, you would not make such foolish statements.”
“Mario Lento, you are simply chanting the pro-nuclear mantra”
Mario Lento:
re your post at September 26, 2013 at 5:20 pm.
Yes, everybody has noticed. I have been comparing his behaviour to that of Mr Punch. Perhaps you don’t know the traditional Punch and Judy show at the British seaside. Wicki gives this description
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punch_and_Judy
Also you may care to do a Ctrl-f for Punch then press return repeatedly to follow my comments on the matter in this thread.
Richard
richardscourtney: writes: “Yes, everybody has noticed. I have been comparing his behaviour to that of Mr Punch. Perhaps you don’t know the traditional Punch and Judy show at the British seaside. Wicki gives this description
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punch_and_Judy”
Yes – I had forgotten about Punch and Judy…. I had seen them as a kid, thank you for raising awareness of his likeness. Very appropriate use for comparison Richard! I just had to jump in here, as mr. lawyer was using old fashioned slimeball tactical attempts to distract people from his avoidance of truth and fact. His stated resume does not fit his image here in front of so many who see him for what he is.
With people like Sowell, there is no exchange of knowledge, just political theatre.
“…clients with an even poorer grasp of the facts than do you.” (David Hoffer) LOL. Or, perhaps, Sowell is working pro bono; those clients will laugh at anything you want them to.
Well, Mr. Green Eyes Sowell, my “hero” convinced me. Your attempt to persuade did not. In other words, he refuted you. I hold for Lento, et. al.. (BANG! — gavel down)
Whether or not the RPC’s (Rules of Professional Conduct) for your state address civility, did you not take an “Oath of Attorney” when you were sworn in? Your discourteous, rude, disingenuous, behavior at WUWT is a disgrace to the legal profession. Your fellow attorneys care, even if your clients do not. That you are KNOWN to be an attorney here makes it even more imperative that you behave in a manner that is above reproach. It is lawyers like you that inspire all the lawyer jokes.
You may not a hero, but, take heart! You are an inspiration.
******************
@ur momisugly Mario Lento, so glad you made it back safely and all is well.
GOOD FOR YOU, WUWT Science Giants, heroes all, for dignifying Mr. Sowell’s obfuscations and ignorance with such thoughtful responses. There are many of us out here, silently reading along, grateful for your taking the time to help us find out the truth.
Janice: I love your critiques… and textual imagery.
Mario