Sign up | Login with →

Comments by Rod Adams Subscribe

On The 100% Renewable Energy Nuclear Option, Part 1

Nathan:

Interesting. Does Darius Bentvels = Bas Gresnigt?

They sure have similar styles and arguments.

March 26, 2015    View Comment    

On The 100% Renewable Energy Nuclear Option, Part 1

Bruce:

I love to engage antinuclear activists on the "sustainable" battle ground. My trump card is to challenge them to find a single wind turbine factory or solar panel manufacturing facility that is powered by wind or solar energy without a massive input from the electrical power grid.

Wind and solar are only sustainable in the same sense that most "non-profit" organizations are sustainable. They can only exist as long as there are external donations provided. They cannot sustain themselves through retained earnings.

March 25, 2015    View Comment    

On The 100% Renewable Energy Nuclear Option, Part 1

David:

Everytime someone makes the logical suggestion of classifying nuclear energy as part of the brand known as "renewables" I am reminded of this rant by Michael Eckhart, the head of the American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE).

According to Michael, a former marketing guy for General Electric, ACORE and its associates have worked too hard to establish "renewable" as a brand and nuclear energy is not invited to participate in the associated goodwill and financial bounties associated with that brand.

http://atomicinsights.com/is-nuclear-renewable-michael-eckhart-president-of-american-council-on-renewable-energy-says-no/

March 23, 2015    View Comment    

On The 100% Renewable Energy Nuclear Option, Part 1

David goofed up the link. Here is the one that works:

 

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

March 23, 2015    View Comment    

On Power Can Be Both Clean and Reliable

@Doug Vine

Your article is another example of messages from those who support weather dependent systems that end up confusing me.

Many people tout wind and solar as distributed resources that reduce dependence on "the grid" and can even result in the nirvana -- for some -- of living "off the grid."

However, any assertion that sources of power like the wind and sun can be forced to part of a reliable electricity supply presupposes extensive levels of action and support from the grid operator to ensure that the natural variations in wind velocity and solar energy delivery do not stop the power from flowing.

It is not possible to truthfully assert that weather dependent sources of power are anything but "unreliable" if they are operating without support from the grid. Even in the case of some moderate, on site storage, there will be numerous periods during any given year in which there is no way to maintain charged batteries without an external charging source or a complete shutdown of all electrical devices.

Curtailment is often included as an option in studies asserting the viability of a grid with a high portion of wind and solar energy sources. That is not an option that most customers want to hear about so it is buried deep within the studies and never mentioned in the executive summaries.

Rod Adams, Publisher, Atomic Insights

March 22, 2015    View Comment    

On How Do Fast Reactors Respond to Rapid Reactivity Insertion Events?

@Bob Meinetz

There was a time when I innocently would have agreed with the perspective that you provide in the below statement.

Though I try to keep an open mind on conspiracy theories about it (and about TMI), the idea that someone would tank a nuclear reactor to attempt to further some goal, committing suicide in the process, is a stretch compared to it being the result of lax oversight, lax training, and indifference.

That was before a lot of life experiences that taught me that suicide is not rare, that people will commit all kinds of horrible acts for the love of money, and that a string of dependent coincidences is a better indication of malice than accident.

It is virtually impossible to design an energy production system that is completely fool proof, but the physical consequences of the event at Chernobyl were far less than what has been portrayed by many sources. A substantial portion of the first responder casualities could have been avoided by simple application of time, distance and shielding if it were not for the fact that decision makers have been taught that radiation is so dangerous that it is worth sacrificing some lives to halt a fire that is spreading diluted contamination over a large area.

The evacuation was a reasonable response, the permanent relocation was not. Have you read stories of the stubborn babushkas that either refused to leave their homes or violated the law in order to return to live where they were born? 

http://thebabushkasofchernobyl.com/

The first responder deaths, the repetitive images broadcast by commercial media, and the continued portrayal of the areas of forced reloaction as uninhabitable are more attributable to propaganda than to real hazard from even complete disregard of operating procedures and violation of basic rules about not overriding safety systems.

Just because 9-11 showed that it is possible to use commercial aircraft as weapons of mass destruction, does that mean we should halt commercial aviation?

Rod Adams, Publisher, Atomic Insights


February 24, 2015    View Comment    

On How Do Fast Reactors Respond to Rapid Reactivity Insertion Events?

@Bob Meinetz

The RBMK has been unfairly demonized by western competitors and others with political motives.

There was nothing inherently wrong with the basic technology. Russia continues to operate 11 RBMKs today. Lithuania was forced to shut down two valuable RBMK reactors as part of the admission price to the EU. Its economy has not fully recovered and its energy independence was never restored.

The US government owned and operated the N-reactor at Hanford, WA. That facility was quite similar in overall design and mission. Like the RBMKs, it was a water-cooled, graphite-moderated reactor that was used for a dual purpose of producing both plutonium for weapons and electricity for beneficial use. President Kennedy attended the inauguration ceremony for the project and gave a rousing speech about the benefits it would provide.

The N-reactor was quietly decommissioned soon after the Chernobyl accident. At the time of the accident, it was in a shutdown for needed maintenance and repairs; that shutdown became permanent.

The underlying cause of the accident at Chernobyl was not the weakness of the RBMK design. It was purposely putting the reactor into an unstable condition with all safety systems disabled. The assigned operators were apparently too inexperienced or too compliant in following orders to recognize the dangers, and the man in charge of the "test" was supposedly more interested in the performance of the electrical generator than the reactor.

I've read through the details of the events that took place that night. From the point of view of a former engineer officer who was in charge of all aspects of operating and maintaining a reactor for about 40 months, there were two ways to read the report. Either is was an incredible comedy of errors with a sequence of events in which people took exactly the wrong actions by mistake, or it was the result of at least one person who knew, perhaps because he had been coached, exactly which actions would cause the most harm and he ordered those actions to take place.

A great deal of wealth changed hands as a result of the Chernobyl accident; some of that money movement was entirely predictable in the event of a severe nuclear accident.

Besides, we are getting close to the 30th anniversary of the accident; don't you think it is time to move on?

Rod Adams, Publisher, Atomic Insights

 

February 24, 2015    View Comment    

On Nuclear Energy: The Sixty-Year Pitch

Please ignore above. Editing function won't let me properly edit/delete.

February 20, 2015    View Comment    

On How Do Fast Reactors Respond to Rapid Reactivity Insertion Events?

@Bob Meinetz

I have no idea what kind of damage to a rod would cause the kind of core melt that you envision.

 

February 20, 2015    View Comment    

On Nuclear Energy: The Sixty-Year Pitch

@Peter Dykstra

You wrote:

The World Health Organization estimated that Chernobyl-related cancer deaths will eventually reach 4,000, but that is hotly disputed, with some projections reaching six figures.

That is not what the WHO estimate says (http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2005/pr38/en/). 

"He explains that there have been 4000 cases of thyroid cancer, mainly in children, but that except for nine deaths, all of them have recovered. "Otherwise, the team of international experts found no evidence for any increases in the incidence of leukemia and cancer among affected residents."

The international experts have estimated that radiation could cause up to about 4000 eventual deaths among the higher-exposed Chernobyl populations, i.e., emergency workers from 1986-1987, evacuees and residents of the most contaminated areas. This number contains both the known radiation-induced cancer and leukaemia deaths and a statistical prediction, based on estimates of the radiation doses received by these populations."

There is an enormous difference between "could cause up to about 4.000 eventual deaths" and "will eventually reach 4,000." Your statement also ignores the low end of the range of estimates, which is actually less than ZERO. There are a number of well designed studies that indicate that exposure to the levels of radiation that were released by the Chernobyl accident up-regulate the immune system enough to provide some overall beneficial results.

Rod Adams, Publisher, Atomic Insights

February 20, 2015    View Comment    

On Nuclear Energy: The Sixty-Year Pitch

@Peter Dykstra

This series is funded by a grant from the Rockefeller Family Foundation.

I wonder how many others recognize how long the Rockefellers have been investing in work that casts doubt on radiation and the ability of radioactive materials to compete with their primary source of wealth and power?

My research has uncovered strategic atomic misinformation investments as early as 1927 when the Rockefeller Foundation funded Hermann Muller's efforts to prove that x-rays cause mutations in fruit flies.

I'm not saying that the Rockefellers pay people to say something they don't believe in. I'm saying that the Rockefellers -- and their hydrocarbon associates -- often give money to support people who are saying things they want the public to hear. They have also been known to use their influence with the press to make sure that stories about the people who are raising concerns about radiation and nuclear energy get more attention than they might actually deserve.

Case in point - on the day that the National Academy of Sciences issued its first report on the Biological Effects of Atomic Radiation the Rockefeller Foundation tapped a member of its board of trustees to make sure that the report was adequately covered. That man, Arthur Sulzberger, was the publisher of the New York Times.

Surprise, surprise, the story not only received an above-the-line, front page headline, but there were about 5 other articles plus a 3 page long, full text version of the Genetics Committee report. That is the report that helped to establishe the "no safe dose" of radiation mantra.

Eager to invest in nukes, utilities took their cue from the AEC Chairman.

By the way, most utilities were definitely NOT eager to invest in nuclear energy. They did not know enough about the technology and did not believe that it was well-proven enough to depend on for economical electric power generation.

Lewis Strauss, who started his working career as a traveling shoe salesman, had to put the hard sell onto them, often introducing the threat that the government would support public ownership of nuclear plants if the private utilties wouldn't invest. At the time, there were few things that investor owned utilties feared more than "public power."

Of course, once they decided to invest, they started to spend a little to promote their investments.

Rod Adams, Publisher, Atomic Insights

February 20, 2015    View Comment