David Walters Returns to Nuclear Blogging

David Walters has resumed blogging after an absence of several months. This is indeed good news for those of us who appreciate Davids work. David' Daily Kos blog descrives him as

(a) power plant worker, union member and socialist.

This says a lot about David, but is by no means the whole story.

David has two blogs, in addition to his Daily Kos Blog, David has a second blog, Left Atomic. Left Atomic has a banner slogan:

A LEFT-WING PRO-NUCLEAR ENERGY PERSPECTIVE, FIGHTING FOR A SAFE, CLEAN AND SUSTAINABLE ENERGY FUTURE WHERE GENERATION IS FOR HUMAN NEEDS AND NOT FOR PROFIT.

In case you are still wondering, David us not a Tea Party activist.

It is a myth that the political left has rejected nuclear power en mass. As it turns out most American pro-nuclear bloggers situate ourselves somewhere to left of the American political center. Often we find that our anti-nuclear opponents while posing as Liberals and leftist, are in fact left wing posers, who reject many of the ideas that traditional liberals and leftists regard as important. Indeed one of the reasons why we accept nuclear power, is that we believe that it is an acceptable tool for the creation of a society in which human freedom is important, and common people have access to the material prosperity that is a potential in material high energy societies. Our pseudo leftist anti-nuclear opponents, would limit the production of energy, make energy expensive, and otherwise place artificial limitations on access to energy and to the goods produced by industrialized, high energy societies. A second difference between pro-nuclear bloggers and our anti-nuclear opponents, is the high regard in which we hold science and our respect for facts, and our attempt to hold ourselves to a standard of honesty in debate. David Walters exemplifies all of these virtue.

Not only is David Walters a notable blogger, but he has been active internte commenter who frequently participates in online debates with anti-nuclear types. In order to appreciate David in action I will refer to a debate he participated in last Fall on a pro-renewables Internet site called El Phoenix Sun. David's debate opponent in this instance was Osha Gray Davidson, who reviewed a study titled "Energy Trends" by the public opinion research Neilson Company. The report demonstrated that renewable energy receives wide spread public support, but dis not look at how much the public knows about the down sides of renewable energy such as its reliability issue and cost. In his review, Osha Gray Davidson stated,

The study grouped a variety of energy sources under the heading, “Renewable and Carbon Neutral Sources.”

I don’t know why the phrase “carbon neutral” was included, but it appears to give nuclear power a chance to be included in the pie. Nuclear fuel isn’t renewable, but it also isn’t carbon neutral — unless you ignore carbon emissions that come from mining, transporting, and processing the uranium fuel, and disposing of the radioactive waste (for which there is currently no viable plan — but that’s another story).

Davidson then displayed a pie chart derived from the study which demonstrated public acceptance for various forms of "carbon neutral" energy sources including nuclear. Davidson remarked,

I really don’t think nuclear belongs in this pie under a reasonable definition of “carbon neutral.” Here’s what our pie would look like with the radioactive ingredient removed.

David responded to Davidson's El Pheonix Sun peice

Oh please, of course nuclear is as carbon neutral as any renewable. Especially if you include life time usage including the huge 10x material costs per MW for wind vs nuclear.

It is considered “non/low carbon” by everyone in the energy business and arguing it is not makes you look foolish.

And of course these pie charts based on nonsense questions are…useless. “What people prefer” is irrelevant to how you build a grid, address baseload power issues, etc.

Davidson who had not substantiated his claim about nuclear not being carbon-neutral responded by challenging David to substantiate his claims. In addition Davidson added a gratuitous comment intended as a slur against David.

I know your blog is subtitled “A Left-Wing, Pro-Nuclear Energy Perspective,” but please – don’t give Glenn Beck and his ilk encouragement!

David responded,

First, the Dr. Steven Chu, our Energy Sec’ty has stated repeatedly: “Nuclear provides 70% of our carbon FREE generation…”. He uses the word ‘free’ only because most renewable advocates missue the term as well.

The EIA of the DofE has a list of the carbon out put of all sources of energy, based on lifetime front end to back end cycle. The European energy agency has produced similar results. For one of *many* studies see:

“Life-Cycle Assessment of Electricity Generation Systems and Applications for Climate Change Policy Analysis,” Paul J. Meier, University of Wisconsin-Madison, August 2002.

Also, The British Energy listing of carbon life cycle output:

http://www.british-energy.co.uk/opendocument.php?did=340

And I could go on…

This, as the majority of recent studies show, CO2 output equals that of wind, based on life cycle analysis. If your readers do *any* good search for this, they will find dozens of studies all of which put nuclear at or near that of wind.

What NONE of the studies show is the massive required backup in terms of fossil fuel, most notably gas fired gas turbines but also coal because of the unreliability of renewables. If you added this, that is, in stead of simply comparing the lifecycle CO2 output of a single, say, wind turbine name plate capacity, to it’s availability, you’d have to raise that number to at least 4 or 5 given that one has to overbuild wind by this factor to get true faceplate capacity.

There simply is no one in the industry: grid operations, manufacturing, environmental regulatory or climate change scientists who would back up YOUR unsubstantiated claim that nuclear is not low-carbon. I believe the burden of proof is on you. . . .

The EIA also has data on the material usage for building wind turbines vs that of nuclear. All the numbers I’ve seen *bar none* show that in terms of aluminum, steel and concrete wind uses from 4 to 10 times the amount than nuclear. Wind advocates don’t like to point this out, of course.

Then David added a response to Davidson's Glen Beck slur,

The problem is that your writing actually backs up the Glen Beck Know-Nothings because you fail to provide any evidence of your claims thus giving, on a silver platter to idiots like Beck, that renewable energy advocates don’t know what they are talking about with regards to energy. (I doubt HE could actually articulate this in any event but others of his ilk can).

Davidson responded,

Thanks for providing your sources. They’re helpful in some respects, but they don’t do anything to bolster your original claim that “everyone” agrees that nuclear power is a low carbon source of energy. Clearly, the authors you cite share your view. They don’t speak for everyone, however. Even more important are the nuances and caveats they contain.

First, I’ll just point to a couple of sources that disagree with the ones you site.

“Nuclear Power – The Energy Balance,” by Jan Williem van Leeuwen and Philip Smith.

“ Nuclear Power and Climate Change,” Amory Lovins.

Both of the complete citations you provided (Meier and the British Energy study) exclude a critical factor: the GHG emissions associated with spent fuel disposal. I didn’t see any reference to this omission in Meier (although I may have missed it). And the BE study refers to it obliquely, saying only “The final route of disposal for high level radioactive waste in the UK is currently under consideration.” Translation: “Since we haven’t solved the disposal issue, let’s just assume that whatever is done won’t emit GHGs.”

Zero information does not equal zero emissions.

In the US, the solution – burial at Yucca Mountain – was a massive project that emitted an unknown quantity of GHGs. Now that the Obama administration has rejected the Yucca Mountain solution, a new plan will have to be devised, and estimates for CO2 emissions are, of course, not factored into either of the studies cited.

I don’t believe an objective source would claim carbon neutrality based on partial data. Then again, I’m not so sure the British Energy study you cite is objective.

British Energy is one of the largest nuclear power companies in the UK, if not the largest, operating eight plants with a 9,000 MW capacity. They commissioned the study by AEA Technology, a private research company whose links to the nuclear industry has been a source of controversy in the UK.

As well informed energy writers should know, Jan Williem Storm van Leeuwen and Philip Smith claims have been the subject of numerous critiques, most notably by Martin Sevior, an Associate Professor, School of Physics, University of Melbourne. Amory Lovins fallacious claims about nuclear power, were throughly examined by David Bradisn. Bradish's summery of his 6 part critique together with links to the previous 5 parts can be found here. Lovins began an attempt to respond to Bradish on Gristmill (Bradish provides links), but failed to respond to comments on the second of 4 promised posts, and failed to offer the final two responses, as well as a promised response to Robert Bryce. A year after the Bradish-Lovins controversy, I reviewed it and concluded,

There can, however, be no doubt that Lovins, by his refusal to respond to numerous critics, and his failure to provide promised responses, has damaged his credibility.

There are thus clear grounds for challenging Lovins claim to be an energy expert.

Thus Davidson rests his response to David Walters on the shoulders of two discredited sources. And David, who is no ones fool pounced.

Osha (I assume this is your name?) as Bill Woods pointed out, Storm van Leeuwen was wildly discredited and if you notice, few, if any, cite him and his team anymore.

My sources, including British energy which is a state surface, the DofE etca are all widely regarded as objective sources. The two you cited are *professional* anti-nuclear activists.

If you look at any set of objective studies, from universities, primarily, but other sources as well, no one seriously doesn’t consider nuclear to be low-carbon and in fact the worlds governments are generally in agreement about that. Just about at every level, ‘fossil’ use can be replaced with nuclear energy, from mining to lighting the guard shack at a spent fuel depository. Certainly reprocessing can be totally nuclearized so there is essentially zero-carbon from nuclear.

Since the mining and transport of materials for wind is way higher than nuclear, would we consider this a net increase in carbon out put? of course. But this is statistically irrelevant as it is for carbon output of nuclear. What is not, as I noted previously, included is the amount of fossil fuel back up needed for wind and solar. Is this included in *any* of the studies you site? No.

But I will take wind as it’s presented: low carbon at the point of production and minimal at the manufacturing level. Same as nuclear, essentially.

Not that I want to give advice to anti-nuclear writers, but clearly the issues with nuclear are not over ‘carbon output’. I should recommend you continue along these lines, the people are far smarter than that. The real issues with nuclear as economic (financing it) and spent nuclear fuel (recycling, etc). You could have a serious discussion here if you focused on what is, not what is fantasy.

Davidson not willing to invest more in a loosing cause, bowed out without admitting the defeat he had suffered.

David, It’s time for me to move on, so rather than respond to the arguments you make above, I’ll be a gracious web-host and let you have the last word.

Thanks for writing and taking part in the exchange. It’s been interesting, and I appreciate your efforts to fight global warming, even if we disagree on the means.

Best,
Osha

Kudos to David Walters, and mazel tov upon his return to nuclear blogging.

Is opposition to nuclear power progressive?

I cross posted my discussion of Federal subsidies to the nuclear industry on Daily Kos . One of the first responces I received was from "shann" who argued

Facts aside, Nuclear Power generation is not a Progressive cause, it is political poison on this forum. End of story, lets get back to windmills and solar power, they are substantially more popular here.

Note that "shann" tells us that facts do not counts for progressives. What progressive want, shann claims, is windmills and solar power. Progressives, according to shann are identical to Daily Kos readers, who believe such energy forms to be progressive.

There is no substantial case against nuclear power on the political left. The so called liberal or left wing opponents of nuclear power back up their opposition with bumper sticker slogans, misinformation, and out right ignorance.

As a liberal I value truth and reject misinformation and lies. A major purpose of my blogging is to develop fact based and tightly reasoned analyses of issues relating to nuclear power. My review of the charges brought against the use of nuclear reactors has led me to demonstrate that the opposition to nuclear power is largely myth based.

Nuclear opponents charge that nuclear generation of electricity in inherently unsafe. The facts are these, nuclear power in facts represents the safest form of electrical generation. This is true whether safety is measured by the human toll, that is by loss of life and human injury, or by property damage. A new generation of reactors slated to be built during the next decade are far safer than the the currently operating nuclear plants. These reactors rely on the automatic functioning of the laws of nature, rather than the judgement of human operators for safety. Finally Generation IV reactors, currently being researched, represent an even higher level of nuclear safety. The charge that reactors are inherently unsafe is a myth.

Nuclear opponents charge that the problem of nuclear waste cannot be solved. In fact, the same opponents block any attempt to solve the nuclear waste problem. There are several approaches to resolving the issues involved with used reactor fuel. In terms of energy reactor fuel is not spent. Indeed current reactor technology uses less than 1% of energy potential of nuclear fuel. This failure to efficiently use nuclear fuel is the true source of the Nuclear waste problem. Tested technologies exist that will enable a new generation of reactors to extract 100% of the energy from nuclear fuel. These technologies, coupled with efficient recycling of reactor fission products into many existing, industrial, agricultural, medical and sanitary uses, would not only end the problem of nuclear waste, but turn what has previously regarded as "nuclear waste", into a major economic resource.

The energy of so called "spent fuel" can be extracted by processing that fuel in Generation IV reactors. The end of that process would be the production of valuable resources. The progressive attitude thus should be not to reject nuclear power, but to implement it in a form that would produce the maximum social benefit. Thus the Idea that there is any real waste in the nuclear process, and that this waste creates a problem which cannot be solved is thus a myth.

A third myth created by nuclear opponents is that nuclear power is more expensive that renewable sources of energy, and that renewable sources of energy will bring society greater benefits. I have tried to demonstrate this is a myth by identifying the cost of generating facilities, and the relative amount of time they can be expected to produce electricity. From published reports, the cost of new solar electrical generating facilities, are comparable to the cost of nuclear reactors. Further more, the expectation is the cost of both solar and nuclear generating facilities is expected to rise dramatically during the next few years, with the cost of solar facilities rising, if anything, faster than the cost of nuclear. The solar facilities typically produce power 30 to 33% of the time, while nuclear produces power over 90% of the time. Thus a new nuclear plant will produce from three to four and a half times as much electricity during a 24 hour day, as a solar facility for a similar investment.

Windmills currently cost about 1/2 as much per rated unit of output as nuclear plants. However, windmills typically produce between 20% to 40% of their rated output. Thus wind and nuclear facilities that can produce an equivalent amount of electricity over time will carry similar costs. However, windmills requires fossil fuel plant backup, while nuclear plants do not. The fossil fuel backups emit CO2. CO2 emissions can be eliminated by massive energy storage, but any energy storage system would increase the cost of renewables relative to nuclear power. Thus the myth that nuclear is more expensive than renewable energy generating facilities is demonstrably false.

Finally while many of the factors that create cost problems for the renewable energy business are out of its control, significant cost savings would be available to the Civilian nuclear power industry through the adoption of such Generation IV technologies as the Pebble Bed Reactor, and the Liquid Fluiride Thorium Reactor. The LFTR would particularly be able to combine inherent reactor safety, with a high level of fuel efficiency that eliminates the problem of nuclear waste.

A further myth of nuclear opponents is that the civilian nuclear power industry receives heavy government subsidies. In fact it is not as I demonstrated in posts earlier this week. Indeed while the nuclear industry pays 100% of its taxes, the renewable power industry receives massive tax breaks from Federal and state governments.

Nuclear opponents argue incorrectly that we are running out of nuclear fuel. In fact enough nuclear fuel lies in the ground at Lemhi Pass in Idaho, to provide the United States with all of its energy needs for 400 years. A further probable reserve at the same location would provide the country with well over 1000 year more energy. World fuel resources, if well managed, far exceed foreseeable energy uses of nuclear power.

Once the myths of the anti-nuclear movement is exposed, its illiberality is obvious. Far from embracing progress, many anti-nuclear advocates are neo-luddlites. Some actually advocate an abandonment of cities and a return to a pre-industrial way of life. Such an approach is far from being progressive. It is in fact reactionary. Other nuclear critics. while offering less radical schemes still advocate measures that will drastically reduce the energy demands of society. This can be describes as the method of sacrifice, and it does not bring with it the increase in individual and collective human power that progressives seek. Since the end of the middle ages progress in society has been closely linked to an energy based increase in human wealth. That increase has improved the material lot of an increasing number of human beings, and ought to be brought as an opportunity to the all peoples. Benefits have included improvements in the material standards of life, improvements in human health and the human life span, increasing educational levels, increasing human comfort.

The promise of science, envisioned by Francis Bacon and Rene Descartes is increasingly being realized by human society. The single most important key to that promise has been the control of ever more efficient and powerful energy sources by the application of science to energy production. The continued control of such powerful energy sources Nuclear energy offers great power coupled with control is critical to the realization of the goals of progressives.

T. Boone Pickens Wind Zombies on Daily Kos

At the suggestion of David Walters, I posted my report of British criticism of the wind industry on Daily Kos yesterday. Opposition to wind is not an ideological issue, at least not unless your are a certifiably insane Green.  Greens have shown their willingness to embrace, the right wing wind wind opportunist, T. Boone Pickens, in his quest for wind subsidies, and excuses to burn fossil fuels.   There is nothing about being either liberal or conservative that would predispose one to either support or oppose wind in the absence of facts. 

Supporters of nuclear energy have long known that the Renewables Lobby makes common cause with the anti-nuclear Greens, yet on the whole the Nuclear Industry has been reluctant to challenge renewables claims.  The Renewables Lobby is anything but left wing. The most conspicuous spokesman for the wind lobby is the old swiftboater, T. Boone Pickens. Daily Kos bloggers Plutonium Page, and Devilstower describe how the ideological green crowd loves Pickens. When he isn't hanging out with his right-wing, global warming skeptic friend like Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma, Pickens is garnering endorsements from green sell outs like John Podesta the President and Chief Executive Officer of American Progress, and Sierra Club president Carl Pope.

Pickens is not interested in global warming although he pretends to be. Money is the only thing that really counts to Pickens. When an interviewer asked Pickens:

"What happens if Congress doesn't extend the $20-per-megawatt-hour Production Tax Credit for wind -- set to expire December 31? On a project this size, that's an $80,000 deduction every hour at full capacity."

Pickens responded

"Then you've got a dead duck. It would be hard to go without a subsidy."

Pickens and his sell out green buddies are not opposed to burning fossil fuels. When asked

"What about when the wind doesn't blow?"

Pickens responded

"That's the problem with wind generation. You've got to supplement it with a gas-fired or coal-fired source so whoever buys it gets continuous 24-7 generation."

The renewables lobby is the coal and gas lobby. In case you wonder, according to Semi-Politico

T. Boone Pickens owns Clean Energy Fuels Corp, which is the sole sponsor behind Proposition 10 in California, a bill that would add state funding for a number of "clean energy" initiatives. Clean Energy Fuels Corp runs natural gas fueling stations, and the natural gas industry would be one of the main benefactors of this energy bill.

So when I posted about wind subsidies on Daily Kos yesterday, I got the T. Boone Pickens wind Zombie response.

Wind Zombie SteamPunkX, told me that he was a wind expert and how wrong I was, but did not tell me why. I suppose being a wind expert means you know how to blow a lot of hot air.

Wind Zombie kalmothannounced, "This is an Astroturf diary, boys and girl. Kalmoth excused his inability to respond rationally to my post by claiming, "It would take me half a day to describe all the ways in which you are wrong". Response would take much longer for a brain dead wind Zombies. kalmoth in true zombie fashion described me as "a double troll".

Wind Zonbie Mia Dolan, responded to my post with the words, "What a bunch of shit". She added, "since this is about Britain, what a bunch of shite".

This is about as articulate as Mia got, but what do you expect from a Zombie.

In another comment, Dolin was able to articulate, "You are in deed an assclown".

kalmoth responded in the best Zombie like fashion, "with this comparison, you will definitely offend some assclowns".

Wind Zonbie DocGonzo ranted, "Simpleminded Reactionary".

Thus despite the fact that the wind Zombies are serving the purpose of the right wind lobby, they categorized me a Republican, a simpleton and a reactionary.

Wind Zombie Eternal Hope described me as a "loser". Like all true Zombies, Hope thinks that every problem can be solved by a "winning attitude." Winning attitudes will not make the wind blow hard on hot summer nights.

There you have it, brain dead Daily Kos wind Zombies struggling to bite.  T. Boone Pickens must be smiling.  In 2004 Pickens had his swiftboaters, in 2008 it is the Daily Kos wind Zombies who do his work.