tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post8937073989746854685..comments2024-02-16T17:52:44.944-06:00Comments on The Nuclear Green Revolution: Storm van LeeuwenCharles Bartonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01125297013064527425noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-88561924020916851442008-03-24T16:50:00.000-05:002008-03-24T16:50:00.000-05:00You, my anonymous friend appear unacquainted with ...You, my anonymous friend appear unacquainted with Sir Karl Popper theory of science. Scientific knowledge is established by showing that the null hypothesis is false. "Storm-Smith" in effect offered the null hypothesis, and by refuting it, we are as close as anyone is likely to get to the truth of the matter. Dones recodes a number of peer reviewed papers, and if you are interested, you ought to look them up. You appear to be mistaken about who I am. I have no connection to the Nuclear Industry. In fact, online organs of the Nuclear Industry don't even link to my blog. <BR/><BR/>I do not suspend judgement about people who continue to believe that mistaken beliefs are true after they have been shown to be false. Such people loose my regard.Charles Bartonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01125297013064527425noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-78722669223045702872008-03-24T15:53:00.000-05:002008-03-24T15:53:00.000-05:00Well, if you have so many references about SvL mis...Well, if you have so many references about SvL mistakes, you surely would have other references where an energy balance analysis of a nuclear power installation is computed correctly, and where they would also produce a comprehensive whole life-cycle analysis of CO2 emissions.<BR/><BR/>Unfortunately, as Done says, the paper you refer to "is no such a complete comparative study, which would require substantial resources and time". Perhaps your friends at the nuclear industry would be kind enough to provide the resources needed to undertake such a study and show the world how wrong SvL is, not only "pointing out the major flaws" of his work, but also pointing out how to do it correctly.<BR/><BR/>By pointing out someone's errors you do not prove that holding the contrary view is correct. You should simply consider the judgement suspended.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-23472529718459845142008-03-24T10:25:00.000-05:002008-03-24T10:25:00.000-05:00anonymous, The misuse of analysis for ideological ...anonymous, The misuse of analysis for ideological purposes, does not mean that we should abandon analysis. The point of identifying errors, is to make sure that they not be repeated. <BR/><BR/>dv8 2xl, People who continue to argue on the basis of Storm van Leeuwen and Smith's authority have my contempt.Charles Bartonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01125297013064527425noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-56514206729069608442008-03-24T10:09:00.000-05:002008-03-24T10:09:00.000-05:00This study has been critiqued over and over van Le...This study has been critiqued over and over van Leeuwen has had his ass handed to him in debate on more than one occasion, and still the antinuclear people hold it up as definitive. <BR/><BR/>Does it even matter any more what the facts are that science tells us, if a lie once spoken can never be refuted and put to rest?DV8 2XLhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14595060432772287143noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-76645032076327293732008-03-24T09:54:00.000-05:002008-03-24T09:54:00.000-05:00I think this is a good example of how LCA and EROE...I think this is a good example of how LCA and EROEI analysis are methods too arbitrary to be really useful in institutional decision making. The results depend in great part on the political credo of the people making the analysis. I have seen too many different results for different technologies (also renewables).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com