ojai news at The Ojai Post :: blog, newspaper, events in Ojai, California

Where do these figures come from and why does anybody care?- Ed Nemechek-760-246-8059

I care because it seems obvious to me that the intelligent course of action for a nation with energy issues is to invest in the various abundant and clean energy sources available now. Energy sources without hidden costs. The amount of money used to prop up petroleum and nuclear power can easily be channelled into streamlining solar power, wind power, tidal power etc. Thank goodness that the solar revolution is happening at all but it and others have the potential to become widespread realities at a much faster rate. Imagine a world with solar panels all around the world. Energy grids have the potential to make war obsolete. Money diverted from the warhoggers can be used to develop and implement a vast myriad of energy sources. New battery technologies alone can change the world as we know it. (one example of new battery technology) There are countless others. The energy revolution is a grassroots phenomenon. I suspenct the more decentalized it is the better off we all will be.

TO Sulk Zapper: We have to quit "investing" government money in anything and give people a TAX BREAK. Private enterprise will produce what we need if we just bring back the free market and get government regulation off the backs of us, business, energy producers, and the corporations. Henry Ford Sr. couldn't have made it in todays' world, and that is the socialist tragedy of our times. Freedom can be defined as 'the absence of government control' Let's bring back the good times of LIMITED GOVERNMENT (see:www.JBS.org)- the earth is not dying. Ed Nemechek-760-246-8059

What does the BS in JBS stand for?

I think I know....

Ed is right, "Solar Energy Striking the Earth's Surface: 2,700 billion (coal equivilent)" is a meaningless figure, it's interesting, but if that is supposed to somehow convice everybody that solar is the answer it needs a few more details I would think. 2/3rds of the earth's surface is water, The higher lattitudes the declination of the sun is significant, the United States can hardly make other countries use solar. If the anti-nukers are putting all their energy marbles into solar they are going to have a problem. I personally have no problem with solar energy, I have a couple of photovoltaic panels that I use to power my electric fence to keep the bears away, I also have a solar hot water panel, they work fine, especially when the sun is shining! If you can afford to buy enough panels to power your house then you should do it and you will be helping reduce the overall load on the grid. It all comes down to the cost per kilowatt that solar can provide, and also the number of hours per year that solar energy can be produced. You don't get any electricity from solar at night, and you don't get any electricity from solar when it is cloudy, and during the winter (when the sun is low) the number of hours of electrical generation (depending on latitude ) will be only 6 hours a day. There is a finite limit to the amount of energy striking every square foot of the earth. What is so great about covering over all of our deserts with solar panels? Anyone who would advicate such a thing is saying that our wildlife areas are not important anyway so we might as well just cover them over with solar panels. Do you have any idea how many square mile of solar panels it would take to make a 2000 megawatt power plant? And by 2000 megawatt power plant I mean the equivilent 24hr output (not just 6 to 8 hrs per day)

Ed, do you have any figures on that? or Michael?

The future has passed you by and the present does not exist. You live in a museum hurling strings of words with no meaning against the wall. Current reality is invisible to you. You can only see what you believe because you think you know it all. Surrender to that which you do not know. Take a chance. Open up. Trust that you will survive. Do you expect anyone to believe that you are an authority on Solar Power? On all alternative energy sources? On ways of generating energy that don't even exist yet? Your strutting around amuses and entertains, please continue.

Solar Tower Power

I wonder how many of these babies we could have built with the money that has been spent on idiotic dead ends - like war and nuclear power?

Spaz Zapper, What is your real name? why hide behind an alias? It's easy to thow out accusations when you don't have to back them up. If the solar tower cartoon was really a viable option then the free market place would allow construction and investors would be flocking to get on board. What investor is going to sink money into a monument of stupidity and destruction of a eco-system? Your are welcome to dispute any facts that I have sighted, or do you not deal in facts?

It seems we can't simply rely on one source of power. Brian seems to slam all power concepts other than atomic. We have to develop all these alternatives. I don't care for atomic power other than to recycle our atomic waste. The French have created the best atomic power stations in the world. These same plants can take in our atomic waste and reduce it to a very small percentage of what it is today. Also, the process reduces the half life of the remaining stockpile. That is the only good I see in it. For as good and effecient they are, they still produce waste, that has to be stored for hundreds of years. Imagine us today, guarding waste from the time of the Revolutionary War. Do we want our decendents 300 years from now protecting our spent fuel? I don't.

The Slam that atomic plant promoters love to throw out against alternatives such as wind and solar is that it doesn't produce 24 hrs. a day. A little scare of un-dependabilility. I can remember times when atomic plants went down, unexpectedly, leaving people in the dark. I also remember it was never a quick fix nor one without environmental damage.

I have 20 dollars to contribute to the Brian goes to Chernoble Fund. I'll see if Regis and Rippa will do a show there, showing the on-going damage that not so 24/7 plant, is still producing.

don't try misdirection here, Brian. the alias hardly matters (and we've been round and round that topic on other threads, with no headway).

i dont think that your logic (that a viable option would guarantee construction and investors by the flock) holds up at all. it's a nice theory and philosophy, but we're dealing with human beings here...the most frightened and irrational beings on the planet. for example, War is completely and obviously self-destructive, non-sustainable, and obsolete, AND we have in our possession plenty of non-lethal ways to resolve conflicts. does that mean we stop and move in the clearly favorable direction for our survival? HELL NO! we just keep on keepin' on...doing what we know...our own future be damned.

Brian: I can't find much difinitive on solar power except I heard Art Bell say on the radio that his solar installation was extremely expensive and he wondered about it. Regarding nuclear power (see:www.JBS.org search:( nuclear power) nuclear scientists have said if nuclear power was developed properly (no government harrassment) the price of electricity would be so low that electric meters wouldn't even be needed. Home owners could all be charged the same inconsequential flat rate of something like 5 bucks a month no matter how much energy was used. The high cost of energy now can be blamed on government harrassment hamstringing the energy industries because of insane laws based on environmental hysteria. It's a shame people fall for such ("the earth is dying") drivel. Our great country and civilization is being destroyed by people pushing this kind of pseudo-intellectual false science. --Ed Nemechek-760-246-8059.

1000 megawatts (one billion watts)is the size of a modern power plant. Ok, At High noon on a cloudless day at the equator about 129 watts of theral energy will strike every square foot of earth. If all of this energy was captured and converted to electricity it would light a 125 watt bulb. However, even in the sunny deserts, which are in near-tropical latitudes, the sun doesn't shine 100 percent of the time. The minimum monthly average, even in these sunny locations, is only about 22 watts per square foot.
In the photovoltaic cell, solar energy is converted to electrical energy. When one form of energy is converted to second form of energy , some of it is always lost. Most photovoltaic cells have an efficiency of only 10 percent, so the average electrical power produced drops from the 22 watts received per square foot to only 2.2 watts generated per square foot.
This means that if we wanted to build an electrical generating station which uses solar energy, it will have to collect ten times more solar energy than the electical energy it will dispense to its customers. To build a solar powered generating station with a capacity of 1000 megawatts will require about 16 square miles of photovoltaic collectors. Space must be left between the rows of collectors so they can be kept free of dust and snow, which would decrease the efficiency of the photovoltaic cells. If we allowed only 30 percent increase in plant size maintenance roads, 21 square miles will be required for each plant. These figures are for the equator. At more northern latitudes the figure increases to 50 square miles per plant.

Brian, nuclear power is not the answer. Maybe we don't have all the answers yet, but people said we'd never make it to space, or fly in airplanes, or transmit pictures through the air, or have tiny little computers in our homes.

The reason why nuclear power won't work is because number one it's too expensive. WE are still paying the bills in CA for Diablo Canyon, Rancho Seco, and San Onofre. They told us all the same lies back then about the $5.00 electric bills and we never saw that. In fact, our rates went up and we're still paying those bills today.

The money is the least of our worries. The biggest problem is the catastrophic disaster that would befall all of us if an accident occurred. Ojai is downwind of Diablo Canyon and we are in the evacuation zone. Look at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl for a picture of what our beautiful lives might look like if we had an accident. Do you sleep well at night knowing that human beings stand between the paradise we have today and the hell we'd have tomorrow with one "small" accident?

The last problem and really the worst for the planet is the waste. We would not be watching over waste for 300 years, we would be watching over it for hundreds of thousands of years. Look at the shelf life of nuclear waste. Someone talked about Yucca Mountain. Don't you realize that whatever site they picked it would have to be transported through our own neighborhoods and cities? Carried on trains (remember our very own train derailments with toxic spills?), ships and in trucks. Until you can find a way to dispose of the nuclear waste, you can forget about nuclear power ever coming back into the energy game.

And finally, let's not forget why we developed nuclear power in the first place. Plutonium! The single ingredient needed to make nuclear weapons. Get rid of nuclear power plants and you rid the planet of nuclear weapons (well maybe in a few hundred years after they use up all the plutonium they already have stockpiled). Wishful thinking!

Nuclear power has never been about energy for our homes.

Coleen, you are using 4 hours of nuclear power everyday! I understand that you are afraid, people were afraid of planes too, because they crashed sometimes, but did we stop building planes? The only reason your bills are so high is because we don't have nuclear power plants and we are being forced to use fossil fuels from the middle east. Your concept of a disaster of a nuclear power plant melt-down is only based on what the media has feed you for the past 30 years. And probably from the Chernobyl disaster.

For the first 30 years that nuclear power plants were in existence there was not a single accident. So since no experiance of an accident was known many people speculated on the effect of a meltdown. Here is a quote by Ralph Nader:

"I don't think that a society can endure the disaster of one major melt down....I really don't think our country can tolerate the trama of a couple of hundred thousand people dying all at once in one place, and many more dying over a period of time from cancer, leukemia, mutations and what have you."

More horror stories after 3 mile island were predicted , babies with small heads, etc. so finally on April 26 1986 a melt down occured at Chernobyl. Because of its design and lack of saftey measures, Chernobyl was a disaster waiting to happen. Unlike Western-built reactors, Chernobyl was built to serve a dual purpose: As it generated electricity, it was producing plutonium for nuclear weapons. Because the plutonium must be removed frequently, a heavy concrete containment would be in the way so therefore it was never built. If there had been a containment vessel no radioactive material would have escaped. Reactors of the Chernobyl type are so dangerous that they could never be licensed to generate electricity in the US or in and Western country. Since the Russian Chernobyl type reactor used graphite as a moderator instead of water , like ours the nuclear power plant operator's worst nightmare quickly developed. The graphite, which, like coal is flammable carbon,caught fire, and a five-story-high fire followed. Then, the exposions and raging fire carried two tons of radioactive graphite and uranuim into the air in its most dangerous form- a fine, breathable dust. And, it took the Russians over 10 days to extinguish the fires and prevent the further discharge of the dangerous radioactive dust being carried aloft with the rising smoke. Twenty-nine of the hundreds of workers and firefighters who fought the fire subsequently died of burns and radiation. Two hundred and thirtyseven others were hospitalized with burns, radiation sickness, smoke inhalation, and other injuries, but all recovered. No people outside the plant were injured, but they were exposed to significant radiation. The actual death toll at Chernobyl was 31 deaths. Naders prediction was 6,451 times too high. The estimated death toll due to cancer during the comming years is estimated to be around 16,000. This would be over a 50 year time frame.

Reactors of the Chernobyl type are so dangerous that they could never be licensed to generate electricity in the US or in and Western country.

Reactors of the Chernobyl type are so dangerous that they could never be licensed to generate electricity in the US or in and Western country.

No, we'd never cut corners or endanger workers and/or the populace in this country.

Tell me all about 3 Mile Island.

Tell me all about the Hanford reactor in Washington, too.

The California Solar Initative has set the goal of producing 3,000 MW of solar power on 1 million roofs. There are over 30 million people living in California. I wonder how many roofs there are. Do you think there's more than a million?
Nuclear power has not been, is not and will not be a viable source of energy for the US. Free market? Are you kidding? Nuclear power wouldn't last one minute if not for government subsidies - not one MINUTE. The argument for nuclear power is weak, very weak.

Three mile island was a success story. No one was hurt, killed or even exposed to a siginficant amount of radiation. There was a loss of coolant. This could not happen in our current plants.
In the United States the average person is exposed to about 250 millirems of radiation per year. About 130 of the 250 millirems we absord yearly comes from cosmic rays, the earth and stone building materials. If you live in a stone or brick building you receive around 30 millirems per year from the small quantity of radioactive substances in the minerals in the stone. The total dose of radiation received by the average person from nature is aabout 155 millirems. An additional 95 millirems is from man made sources like X rays and color TV sets. The people near by Three Mile Island were exposed to about 1.4 millirems.

Michael, I have read your posts numerous times on solar energy, but I have always refrained from commenting because I know you are in the business and I did not want to dis Solar energy or discourage people who are interested in it. If you can afford to power your house with Solar people should do it especially since it is so heavily SUBSIDISED ! Most people can't afford the 25 thousand dollars it costs to power your home with Solar. You know as well as I do that Nuclear power is the cheapest form of electricity there is, I don't view Solar as competing against other forms of energy. Solar is unique. It is a passive type of energy source that is very useful, especially in remote places. The only factor that makes Nuclear power expensive is the lawsuits filed endlessly which has made it impossible in this country to proceed with building plants.

Three mile island was a success story.

Only to a spin artist. Nothing to say about Hanford?

The only factor that makes Nuclear power expensive is the lawsuits filed endlessly which has made it impossible in this country to proceed with building plants.

I'll bet some of those lawsuits were filed on behalf of the fossil fuels cartels. Nonetheless, the lawsuits will continue.

The Hanford reactor was built during WWII to make material to make the atomic bombs that we dropped on Hiroshima and Nagaski, and ended the war agaisnt Japan. That was when Nuclear energy was in it's infancy.

Spaz Zapper, What is your real name? why hide behind an alias? It's easy to thow out accusations when you don't have to back them up

You say 'accusation' I say observation. Here's another observation. Brian has been zapped by Spaz Zapper.

Brian, do you consider yourself a nuclear fanatic?

1. Fanatic: marked by excessive enthusiasm for and intense devotion to a cause or idea; "rabid isolationist"

"Brian continues to display fanatical allegiance to nuclear power despite the overwhelming evidence pointing to its devastaing effect on the environment." Spaz Zapper

"Brian's nuclear power fanaticism blinds him to the enormous downside of this extrememly shortsighted energy source." Spaz Zapper

"Phalarope contiues to think circles around Brian and Ed. It's like George Carlin vs. the 2 Stooges. I am greatly entertained. Phalarope: thanks for sharing your wit and wisdom." Spaz Zapper

"As Brian flounders around in the digital ocean, he panics and makes reactionary knee jerk comments to draw others into his own internal battle. The concept of nuclear power is his life preserver - without it he may sink or he may learn to swim. Brian you are a better swimmer than you've been led to believe." Spaz Zapper

The Hanford reactor was built during WWII to make material to make the atomic bombs that we dropped on Hiroshima and Nagaski, and ended the war agaisnt Japan. That was when Nuclear energy was in it's infancy.

What will 'nuclear energy' destroy when it is all grown up?

Not so lucky were lots of other cities. Check it out Brian.

Sorry, the link didn't print. Here it is.

http://archive.greenpeace.org/comms/nukes/chernob/rep02.html

Hanford is still in use today, Brian, and it's one of the biggest environmental messes in America.

At the Boeing Santa Susanna Field Lab, a 1959 meltdown of their sodium-cooled reactor spewed radioactive material as far away as Canoga Park. The cleanup has still not been completed, and parts of the facility will continue to be lethally radioactive for the next 250,000 years.

Diablo Canyon reactor was put online even though a construction error caused the containment facility buttressing to be built backwards, meaning that earthquake energy would be transmitted into the structure instead of away from it.

This is just some of the stuff we know about. If the people responsible for these mistakes could have hidden them from the public forever, they would have. Nothing has changed in this respect.

Here's what I know about nuclear power: every single reactor that might go online in America will have been built by the lowest bidder. That doesn't make me feel safe.

Thanks, Spaz Zapper.

Carry on the good fight, or sleep well. I need to pick the latter.

'Night, all.

Great link, Colleen -- thanks. It makes the point.

Good night for real.

The Nuclear power industry is the most regulated of any industry. That list of nuclear news items only goes to prove the point that it is not the danger you make it out to be. The real danger is from those, like yourself, who have forced the world to burn coal. The number of deaths from our dependance on coal is staggering. Aside from the mining deaths, the real killer is from the poisoniious elements put into the air we breath. High levels of Mercury, lead asenic, asbestos and many other poisonous substances. And Coal burning power plants release several hundred times more radioactivity per day than than a nuclear power plant. Coal is thought to be responsible for most of the 50,000 air pollutiion related deaths which occur yearly, on average, in the US. Google that why don't you!
In addition to the gaseous wastes, there's the problem of the ashes and sludges which result from the burning of coal. These wastes weigh hundreds of milliions of tons, and these wastes drain into undergound water supplies and rivers and lakes.

If you beleive in things that you don't understand then you suffer.........superstition ain't the way. (stevie)

Superstition can be defined as an unreasoning belief born out of fear which persists due to ignorance.

Brian --

Unsupported and undocumented assertions combined with personal slaps at the people you're talking to will get you nowhere, but that never seem to stop you.

Once upon a time, your Rovian/Cheneyesque band of rhetoric might have swayed the masses, or even a few bloggers, but not anymore. We've become immune. Get it?

BTW, we don't burn coal here in CA - we burn natural gas.

Solar power generation will continue to get better as more people adopt it. Investment always spurs improvements and competition. Cars used to only do about 7 miles an hour, but they got better over time as more people wanted them, and they continue to get better.

None of your arguments ever hold water -- they're just arguments. Try to do better, OK? (Not that you'll convince me or anyone else, but at least you'll be more thought-provoking and interesting to listen to.)

P.S:

At least we agree on one thing, if that makes you happy -- coal, as mined and as used, is bad for us.

No kidding! Who on this page ever suggested that coal was a good option? Certainly not me.

Nuclear power is the most regulated industry because it is the most deadly! 50,000 deaths is nothing compared to what would happen if Diablo has a major melt down, or worse yet, a terrorist attack.

Have you not heard the results of the last training exercise where mock terrorists tried to infiltrate nuclear power plant sites? They WERE successful at most of the sites! Our Department of Homeland (IN) Security has done little to respond to this information and continue to leave us all vulnerable every single day.

You may call it fear. I call it awareness and a desire to protect my own nest and the nests of others!

Coleen said:

"Nuclear power is the most regulated industry because it is the most deadly! 50,000 deaths is nothing compared to what would happen if Diablo has a major melt down, or worse yet, a terrorist attack"

This is the type of ignorance I'm talking about. It is people like you who are forcing our country to burn coal. Of course we don't burn coal here in California, we let other states do our dirty work, stay tuned for coal power coming from Montana and Wyoming, 20 new Coal plant will be coming on line in the nest few years .....Thank you Coleen

It is people like you who are forcing our country to burn coal.

Brian, you've repeated this line over and over. Speaking only for myself, it makes it seem as though you are a simpleton. There is no truth in this statement. We call this type of spin a red herring. You do yourself and your cause a great disservice every time you slip into this ridiculous line of irrational thought. Who'd you steal it from?

"Brian's nuclear fanaticism leads him to make many erroneous and inflamatory statements." Spaz Zapper

At Eschaton, Brian would be recognized for what he is; a troll. Brian is not here to debate in a reasonable fashion. Brian is not here to thoughtfully present an opposing viewpoint. Brian is not here to be an earnest and intelligent conservative spokesperson. Brian likes to present opinion as gospel, and if Brian's life depended on having to base his comments on proven scientific fact, Brian wouldn't be able to comment here, or anywhere else, ever again.

This is a moderated blog, Brian, so we will probably never be able to tell you what's really, really on our minds, or at least I won't. You know that. Nonetheless, you think that you're a real soldier for the Good Cause because you dare to come here and poke at the liberals.
Well, BFD, Brian; I'm not impressed.

Head off to Eschaton at http://atrios.blogspot.com and try your schtick there. (The only way you can get banned from Eschaton is to make a terrorist threat, or to namesteal while Atrios or Echidne or Thers is online.) See what your routine nets you at that location. See how long you last. See how long you can stand the heat when you're someplace where it really gets hot.

Do you really want to be an intelligent conservative, Brian? Do you really want to learn how to debate with liberals? Do you actually want to win a few rounds, fair and square without straw men and ad hominem attacks and spin and disingenousness? Read a little William F. Buckley Jr. Stay away until you have. As it stands, you're just embarrassing yourself, and if Buckley were here you'd be embarrassing him, too.

Brian, I do believe you have been zapped!

Brilliant analysis on Brian's fanatical diiatribes.

Thanks for the atrios link.

Interesting thread. I have to say after reading and re-reading these comments I still have no better idea on whether nuclear energy is a viable solution. I think a combination of all types of new (and not so new) energy sources seems like a happy medium, but that said I'm just not educated enough in that arena to make an informed decision, though I do consider myself open minded to all possibilities.

What I did take from reading this thread is that Brian presented his information in a clear, thoughtful, and relatively concise manner (with the obvious exceptions of some personal jabs). I would like to have seen some supporting material, as I think that would help substantiate the case for nuclear energy.

On the other side, however, with the exception of some helpful supporting information to their argument, I read nothing but personal slams against Brian's arguments.

Phalarope and Spaz Zapper remind me of environmentalists I knew in Northern California in the early 90's when there was much disdain over the timber industry's logging tactics. Countless debates were held at city council meetings (especially in Humboldt county) and time and time again the logging industry presented clear and concise arguments to their cause while the environmentalists came completely unprepared, armed only with the ability to point fingers, hurl insults and write off the logging industry's presentation as "fanatical". Sound familiar?

Again, I don't have any answers and I certainly don't know enough about energy sources to thoughtfully and accurately comment on them. What I do know is that Brian presented his case well (in my opinion). Name calling and passing someone else's opinion off as fanatical seems pretty counter-productive.

I suggest you re-read this thread. You will discover that Brian was the first to use the term fanatic. His use of this word simply did not apply to anyone except himself. I'd suggest that your self evaluation of being open is not true. The logging companies have destroyed 95% of old growth forest in California. This is a crime. The redwoods deserved more respect. Comparing us to the folks in the 90's gives you the ability to marginalize our perspective and suggests that in this instance your thinking is lazy.

Again, I have re-read this thread. I found no references to Brian using the term fanatic. Perhaps somewhere else in another post? Either way, it doesn't make it right.

You can suggest that my self evaluation is untrue all you like. I disagree. You don't know me, and I don't know you. I'm merely reporting my observations on this particular thread. Perhaps I should visit other topics on this board where similar discussions may have taken place to get a broader picture of the debate at hand.

In regards to deforestation of Redwoods (a topic off point I know), I'm with you -- it is a crime and I'm saddened to see such a beautiful area destroyed.

The comparison I presented is merely an apt observation through my own travels and experiences and nothing more. It does not, however, suggest my thinking is lazy. Indeed I'm not trying to marginalize your perspective. Your views and ideas are valid, important and needed. But respectfully I think civil discussion is a better way to debate rather than discounting someone's opinions by claiming such things as "The future has passed you by and the present does not exist." Would you not agree?

Anonymous --

Read everything Brian has written here, and you'll discover that Brian has been excoriating environmentalists and more than a few of the locals since the beginning.

You don't know me well enough to compare me, in toto, to anyone else you have ever known in your life, but had I been in Humboldt County in the '90's, I'm sure I would have been one of the people you didn't like. I can live with that. Can you live with me or anyone else here vehemently disagreeing with you or someone you like? Maybe not.

As far as claiming that Brian presented clear and factual evidence, I don't see it. I see opinions and heresay. I see spin. I see rhetoric. I see right-wing talking points. I don't see any credible cited sources -- do you?

I will accept anything that you can prove to be true, but if you sound like a snarky conservative pundit while you're trying to prove it, I might not want to make it all the way through to the end of your presentation anymore than you, as a likely conservative, would want to wade all the way through anything I've written.

Liberals have places where they hang out, and conservatives have places where they hang out. When one strays into the other's comfortable territory, they do so at their own peril. If you voted for Bush and you wanted to hang out here and taunt and ridicule everyone who didn't, you'd have no right to expect to be treated with great respect and kindness. Neither you nor I are entitled to anything other than basic human respect, and Brian has gotten that, as will you. If you don't like the people here and you continue to come here anyway and make it clear that you don't like the locals or what they're saying, then considering that none of this is being paid for with tax dollars and that no one is aking threats against you or anyone else, then no crimes have been committed, anymore than than they are each week on Face the Nation , where it frequently gets a lot hotter than it ever gets here.

Phalarope,

Yes, I will examine some of the other topics on this board to see how debate has shaken out in the past. I try not to be uninformed, but it does happen -- perhaps more often than I'd like. Thanks for the heads up.

I'm not sure where I made any mention of individuals I did or didn't like while I lived in Humboldt. I'm presuming, and I could be wrong, that you may be referring to the environmentalists in Humboldt? If so, that's definitely not the case, not that it matters.

I never said Brian presented clear and factual evidence. I simply stated he presented his information in a clear, thoughtful and concise manner. Additionally, I said that it would be nice to see some supporting material. I agree that without it, it's just opinion.

I try to treat everyone with respect and kindness. Apologies if you feel you've been disrespected.

Again, I have re-read this thread. I found no references to Brian using the term fanatic. Perhaps somewhere else in another post? Either way, it doesn't make it right.

Anonymous,
It may not be obvious to you but this conversation began months ago. Brian has used the term fanatic repeatedly to dismiss any one who questioned the accuracy of his nuclear claims. This is one of his many ways of discounting and offhandedly dismissing opposing viewpoints. During this particular thread, it occured to me that Brian has been projecting his own clearly demonstrated fanaticism on all who would dare question his self delusional authority. This is my observation after several months of reading his lectures. He has a long history of vitrolic wordspeak and is now eating his just desserts.

Brian has continually cited sources of information that have zero validity. He has dodged this particular criticism by ignoring it. You have entered a long standing discourse and have drawn convenient conclusions which clearly suit your bias. I don't need to know you to draw this conclusion, you see, your words speak for themselves and thus, your ascertations about being open do not hold any water with me.

During the course of our conversation, Phalarope has demonstrated a biting wit and other worldly wisdom. At this point he has seen enough to offer some insight into Brian's inability to broaden his perspective.

You are new to this particular game, or so it seems. It appears as though you have jumped the gun, a false start so to speak. Perhaps, your thinking is not lazy; it may be that you are a tad overeager to aid the apparent underdog.

Anonymous --

You said:

I'm not sure where I made any mention of individuals I did or didn't like while I lived in Humboldt. I'm presuming, and I could be wrong, that you may be referring to the environmentalists in Humboldt? If so, that's definitely not the case, not that it matters.

In your original comment, you said:

Phalarope and Spaz Zapper remind me of environmentalists I knew in Northern California in the early 90's when there was much disdain over the timber industry's logging tactics. Countless debates were held at city council meetings (especially in Humboldt county) and time and time again the logging industry presented clear and concise arguments to their cause while the environmentalists came completely unprepared, armed only with the ability to point fingers, hurl insults and write off the logging industry's presentation as "fanatical". Sound familiar?

You didn't exactly present those environmentalist in the best possible light, did you? We are also being asked to take your word for it that any impartial witness would have come to the same conclusion as you regarding their behavior and attachment to reality. You then compared me and Spaz Zapper to those environmentalists, did you not? Not the worst thing I've ever heard said about me, to be sure, but nothing I'd put on my resumé, either, unless I were applying for work as a shock jock or as a provocative commentator. You made your opinion of us competely clear. That's alright -- you're entitled to your opinion, as I am to mine, until Tyler says "OK, enough already." as he recently did with someone else whose name rhymes with Ned. (We'll still be entitled to our opinions after that, of course -- we just won't be expressing them here.)

By the time you ever were to owe me an apology, I probably wouldn't want it. You don't owe me one now, though.

Here's a link to many of Brian's comments. Some might belong to another mellower Brian -- Brian Holly -- but if they're attributed to Brian Cox or seem to be a bit derisive toward environmentalism or some of the folks who comment here, that's the correct Brian:
http://tinyurl.com/3chj3o

I wish we had something more fun to talk about, Spaz Zapper, but I'm sure that Tyler welcomes debate as long as it doesn't get crude. Thank you for being intelligent, and for being a good observer.

I do not agree with the majority on every single issue here, but there are an awful of intelligent and insightful folks at ojaipost.com, and it's a cool place to be. Kind of quiet right now, though.

I've been more active lately than I actually need to be, and wish that some of the people I used to enjoy reading would come back.

I need to head out, but will probably be back much later tonight.

Glad you liked the Eschaton link. I can't say that I agree with everything that goes on there, either, but it certainly is left-of-center blogging at its freewheeling and unfettered best. They link to a lot of other good blogs, too. Hope you like cats:)

Here's another link you might like; it's a good resource for energy related news:

http://www.energybulletin.net

This should answer and questions you may have.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zK4xGum544Q&mode=related&search=

To some this may be a question, to others it is the answer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=412Xl3lNuBs&mode=related&search=

Phalarope
Thanks for the kind words. I'll be checking out those links. I am sure an interesting topic of discussion will present itself sooner rather than later.

First, I would like to say to Michael Lind that I love this post you provided us. The figures boldly demonstrate just how much we are all missing the boat on the energy issue.

Spaz Zapper and Phalarope you have both done a good job of providing the facts about nuclear power and the connections between it, war, and corporate profits. Thank you!

Anono, 9:16am, I'm not sure why, with all you've read here, you are still confused about the issues. I suggest if you really want to educate yourself about nuclear power, the true costs, the true benefits, and the real dangers associated with its use, storage, and disposal you can go to this link; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#Origins.

Everything you might ever want to know about nuclear power is right there. If you're unable to believe the source, there are plenty of links to other resources right there at your finger tips. I’d appreciate you letting us all know what conclusions you arrive at.

Lastly, Brian, I'm not sure why you felt you needed to use personal attacks in your argument. I hope you did not feel personally attacked by me? I would like to ask you to provide me cites on some of the information you shared. Can you please direct me to links or sources on how, “I’m using four hours of nuclear power every day”, “nuclear power is cheap”, and “solar power is heavily subsidized”?

Ok here you go Coleen:

CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION MARCH 2006
California depends on three nuclear power plants for a sizable share of the overall electricity supply in the state. These three plants alone generate 13 percent of California’s annual electricity supply, and the two in-state nuclear plants are the second and third largest power plants in the state. (Energy Commission 2004b) Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) owns and operates the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant, a 2,160 MW two-unit plant licensed through 2021 (Unit 1) and 2025 (Unit 2). Southern California Edison (SCE) and San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) co-own the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS), a 2,200 MW power plant with three units. SONGS Units 2 and 3 are licensed through 2022; Unit 1 was shut down in 1992. SCE, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, and a consortium of Southern California municipal utilities have a combined 27 percent ownership interest in the 3,825 MW Palo Verde nuclear power plant. It is located outside of Phoenix and operated by Arizona Public Service Corporation. Palo Verde’s three units are licensed through 2024, 2025, and 2027.

Ok you got me on that one, you only use 3.12 hours of nuclear power every day, since 13 percent of a 24 hour day comes out to be 3.12 hours, I was rounding up.

This is from the Nuclear Energy Institute, If you go to the link below there is a very in depth report on Diablo Canyon, which is a pdf file.

In addition to the economic benefits provided by Diablo Canyon, the plant generated 16 billion kilo watt hours(kWh) of electricity in 2002, approximately 10 percent of California’s electricity needs. This low cost electricity helped keep energy prices in California down. During 1999-2001, Diablo Canyon had a production cost of 1.57 cents/kWh compared to an average production cost of 3.61 cents/kWh for the rest of the California market. Diablo Canyon did all of this without producing air pollution typical of some other power generation sources.

http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats/documentlibrary/reliableandaffordableenergy/economicbenefitsstudies/diablocanyon/

I’m surprised that you would ask if solar is heavily subsidized, one of Michael's current post is asking everybody to support a subsidy, but here is some infor for California anyway.

http://www.californiasolarcenter.org/incentives.html

I didn’t mean to insult you but, with so much information available on the internet there should be no excuse for not knowing some of this information.

Who insures nuclear power plants?
How many pounds of nuclear waste does Diablo Canyon produce per day?
What is the cost of nuclear waste management per kWh?
Does the cost of nuclear waste management go up every year as the amount of nuclear waste accumulates?

EPA fights Moab Nuclear Waste Dump Near [Colorado] River:
http://www.venturacountytrails.org/News/0038-MoabWaste/NewsPage.htm
"The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has told the Department of Energy that its proposal to leave 12 million tons of radioactive waste next to the Colorado River near Moab, Utah, is "environmentally unsatisfactory" and a potential prolonged risk to public health."

--Anyone suggesting the Colorado River as a place to dump nuclear waste should be put in jail. And these are the folks regulating nuclear waste. It should be obvious there is simply too much incompetence to allow something as dangerous and volatile as nuclear power to exist on this planet.

The near vicinity of the Colorado River has been used before as a dumping ground for nuclear waste. This is the caption from a photo that was part of the article which I have linked above: "RADIOACTIVE WASTE: Layers of uranium tailings from an abandoned mine have sat for years near the Colorado River in Utah."

How many people use the Colorado River as their drinking water? 30 million is my guess.

What is the actual cost of nuclear power generation? (including waste management, environmental cost, etc)

How many radioactive waste dumps are there in America?
How many radiactive waste dumps are within the vicinities of drinking water?
What does it cost per year to cleanup poorly designed (leaking) waste dumps in America?

Brian, it appears to me that you are hiding the actual cost of nuclear power.

The site you are referring to is where they mine uranuim out of the ground. They are not putting spent fuel rods there. The Moab area is where uranuim naturally occurs, there is actually less uranuim there now than there was before because we have been using it.

You have asked many questions.

I can tell you that as far as volume is concerned, spent uranium takes up a very small volume. If you are talking about wieght, uranium is very very heavy, heaver than lead.

Right now all of the spent fuel rods, what you call "waste" are kept on site because the anti-nuke people have tied up Yucca Mountain. 30 years of spent fuel rods have been kept on site, it's really not a problem though. If we could reprocess the spent fuel rods we would be able to get more energy out of them.

Most all of the spent fuel rods are kept on site.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has told the Department of Energy that its proposal to leave 12 million tons of radioactive waste next to the Colorado River near Moab, Utah, is "environmentally unsatisfactory" and a potential prolonged risk to public health.

According to the first sentence of the previously linked article, the near vicinity of the Colorado River is currenly being used as a storage site for radioactive waste. This is a crime. What further evildance do we need that humans, at this time, are incapable of managing the complexities of this radiactive energy source?

Amount of radioactive material: 12 million tons.
Estimated cost of moving this man-made radioactive disaster: $400-500 million. [I say it will be 2 or 3 times that]

Brian, what happens if this river floods?
What will this disaster cost then?
What is the actual cost of Nuclear Power?
Who is in charge of the Department of Energy? Do they have vested interests in nuclear power?

Let's talk about depleted uranium. What a clever way to get rid of nuclear waste, no? Just make ammo out of it and shoot it at people, planes, tanks, buildings, whatever.

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

Have you factored the disperal of this toxic substance into your defense of nuclear power, Brian?

OK. Some people spell it as "dispersal", too.

Like I said they are not storing "waste" at the Moab Colorado site, how many time do I have to tell you? That is where they have mined uranium. It's a big mining area. Depleted uranium is just that, uranium from the ground that has had the useful part taken out so now it is less radioactive than it was in nature, we have improved on nature by removing radioactive elements. Isn't science wonderful ! I am in awe of young kids who are going into the field of nuclear science, there are so many oppertunities to make our world a cleaner and better place and to fulfill the dream of abundant power.

Brian --

Talking to you is like talking to an android with limited programming, or to a hologram, or to an ELIZA program. Really. It's only interesting at first.

I suppose that you'd like to walk away from this believing that you're a great representative of something, perhaps the nuclear power industry, but in reality you're just a cheering fan, and all of your comments on this thread really amount to no more than one long "Yaaaaaaaayyyyyyy!!!" for nukishness. I guess that if we want to talk to one of the heavy hitters, we'll have to wait for someone else to come along. Carry on, though -- never let it be said that I tried to shut you up.

Spaz Zapper -- the original topic here has been interesting, and so have your comments, as well as evan's and Colleen's.

I'm pretty sure that Brian is never going to change my mind, and I've lost interest in debating with him at all, because with Brian one spends too much time wincing at his style and lack of substance, and simply winds up being a cheerleader for the other team. Nothing important really gets said, and everybody winds up getting sidelined. We wind up being like a bunch of prisoners in a boxcar on its way to one of the death camps; we have become so involved in arguing about whether it was better to have built the boxcar out of wood or metal that we forget who we are, how we got to be where we are, and where we're headed.

If me leaving before you means that you win, Brian, then you win. Time will tell what that victory has actually been worth to you.

Well said, phalarope. Brian is a distraction, a ghost from the past with no actual substance. Engaging with him can be likened walking on a treadmill, you get some exercise but you never actually get anywhere. I will never support nuclear power and I shall leave it a that. Invest in solar and wind this is our future.