Please share far and wide!

Wednesday, August 31, 2016

As Internet Trolls Take Over ENENEWS, We Find The Pro Nuke Kumbaya To Exist Elsewhere Too

A Pro Nuke Article, on a site normally associated with Climate Clarity, shows many pro nukists in the Crowd.

And they are lying through their teeth and using false arguments just like paid trolls do.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/08/30/claim-countries-which-favour-nuclear-power-are-not-making-enough-effort-to-install-renewables/comment-page-1/#comment-2290177

Nuclear is too costly, too dangerous. Germany made the right move to get rid of nuclear and go heavy on renewables. Solar PV farm contracts are selling at less than 4 cents, but old already paid for nuclear dies at retail rate of 14 cents (Kewaunee)
I am an expert and have done over 2000 projects, mostly Hawaii. Where is became very obvious that the grid is way more robust and with way more diversity than even this conservative engineer had anticipated. With electric cars plugged in the grid 94% of the time and used to buffer renewable, the need for any additional storage is a decade off.
How much is too costly? I claim that nuclear electricity is the cheapest of all sources. Who is right? Give me the numbers you are using for your allegation.
It is too dangerous? On the contrary. The safest of all sources, where wind is the most dangerous one with the greatest loss of live per unit of electricity produced. Aside from the documented killing of birds and bats. In that sense, your car is more dangerous; Hiroshima and Nagasaki that received irradiation incomparable to anything you might think of have been thriving cities where wasteland was forecast to stay for millennia. Wildlife about Chernobyl is thriving.
You did not read my comment, or you refuse to address the issue of cost.
They shut down Kewaunee selling at 14 cents. Nuclear gets around 5 cents per kWH subsidies.
Solar on PV farms has contracts to supply at 4 cents and less now.
Danger is NOT to the workers, it is to the public and the environment. All plants leak, they submit an annual report on how much. Then the occasional sacrifice zone created by accidents, which by the way, are always covered up until they have to fess up.
Bomb radiation presents mostly a one time attack, in which much of the fission fraction is very short lived I-131, half life of 8 days. Incidentally, the Japanese got off “easy” because the I-131 goes to the thyroid like a magnet and does it most harm there, however since the Japanese eat lots of kelp and are therefore fully loaded in iodine, they didn’t absorb much of the radioactive stuff.
Chernobyl is not thriving. There is wildlife because there are few people, Cesium in the environment has remarkably not gone down even though half life says it should. Insects and Fungi and decomposition of stuff is just not present, not working the way they should. Wolves are much smaller than their healthy breathren, many species of birds no longer exist.
I expect more from readers at WUWT.

6 comments:

  1. My reply to a comment there: Goldrider August 30, 2016 at 7:42 pm
    Countries with nuclear power have more people who can do basic MATH.

    Reply
    Janice Moore August 30, 2016 at 7:45 pm
    +1

    Reply
    pyeatte August 31, 2016 at 4:37 pm
    Nuclear power is renewable regardless of what the eco-nuts want to claim. Same goes for hydroelectric power. Smart countries are not putting all their eggs into wind and solar boondoggles.

    Reply
    NW sage August 31, 2016 at 4:52 pm
    Agree – I thought the rationale for the wind/solar stuff was to reduce CO2. Seems to me that anything that produces power without involving making CO2 meets that goal completely. Hydro is a form of solar and nuclear is the direct conversion of mass to energy. Whats to not like as a FIRST choice?

    Graham Bonsall September 1, 2016 at 10:32 am
    How renewable is the mining\refining process? Are we making more Uranium or Plutonium naturally anywhere in the solar system right now? No? And direct conversion of mass to energy? Where is that happening? do you think we even get a single percent of the decay heat to convert to electricity by boiling water and spinning a big turbine? No? hmmm seems like we AREN’T getting the direct energy from mass conversion are we… so far we have no real way to do that.. the best we got is the direct transfer of heat to electricity… like the RTG… and that technology is as old as the steam locomotive. Way to go Nuclear! Keeping people in the steam age for the last 70 yrs! Einstein said (paraphrased): “Its a Hell of a way to boil water!”

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Im Graham Bonsall in the above reply chain

      Delete
    2. Einstein was a great thinker, yet never had his hands on control rods. Its like someone who never raced Formula One claim to be a Grand Prix champ. Kaku has that problem too. Stock has never manipulated and controlled the chain reaction as well. Its a thrill a minute.

      Delete
    3. The universe makes more uranium and plutonium than we'll ever need. Read up on Oklo. Fission was on the earth before man.

      Delete
    4. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  2. Stick a fork in the rat farm. They couldnt stop post Fukushima nuclear or affect the kind of change they wanted. Soet of like this blog. Venturing off the main topic too much.All for the wrong reason.

    Nuclear gets stronger.

    ReplyDelete

Insightful and Relevant if Irreverent Comments