No. of Recommendations: 3
Well, now the common folk in France (with their lovely yellow vests) have heard the government of Mssr. Macron loud and clear... VIOLENT MOBS CAN SUCCESSFULLY EXTORT MONEY FROM THE GOVERNMENT.

This is better even than the hassle of having to vote one's self a raise at the polling booth, and much more efficient than the long, drawn out process of budgeting and political debate. All that's necessary to loosen the purse is a few riots in the streets and burning a critical mass of energy-efficient European automobiles.

Last week, we first heard that the government responded to the mass protests by immediately suspending the carbon reduction fuel taxes intended to cure the planet of global warming. Since throwing the Earth under the bus didn't seem to be enough to placate the angry hordes of Frenchmen and Frenchwomen...

As Bloomberg reports:

President Emmanuel Macron admitted he’d lacked sensitivity to the concerns of regular people and promised a raft of new spending as he sought to draw a line under the monthlong Yellow Vests crisis roiling France.

In a statement aired Monday night on French television and radio networks, he urged companies to pay their workers a year-end bonus that won’t be taxed, ended levies on overtime, indicated the government would fund a 100-euro a month ($114) increase in the minimum wage, and abolished a controversial tax on pensions below 2000 euros a month...

Macron didn’t say how much the measures would cost in total, though the extra money for workers making minimum wage will reach 1.6 million people. That and the lack of a tax on overtime will be implemented in the beginning of the year, not necessarily on Jan. 1.

“This is going to cost a lot of money, we know that...” a lawmaker... said on BFM TV. “But today that is no longer the question.”
[Emphasis added.]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-12-10/macron-ur...

Stirring up chaos really pays, doesn't it? In France, apparently it does. The French have cleverly figured out that a little well-placed and highly photogenic violence can achieve a quicker buyoff than the usual slow, methodical voting method of electing big-spenders. It's a wonder how effective those yellow vests can be at achieving a quick and generous payout.

Bloomberg has a companion opinion piece by Lionel Laurent at the following link, explaining why the working-class in France have taken to the streets with the same pent-up lower-middle-class anger which fueled the presidential election in the US, and which stirred anti-immigrant sentiment producing the Brexit vote:

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-12-10/what-c...

Interestingly, Mr. Laurent's essay comes to the same conclusion that the French politicians already have reached - namely, that the way to satisfy the angry voters is to buy them off by means of fiscal profligacy - i.e., more deficit spending.

Episodes such as the French extortionary riots bring to mind recurrent themes which seem to come up more often in recent decades, recalling the following quotation variously attributed to Lord A.F. Tytler, or to Alexis de Tocqueville:

A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship. [Emphasis added.]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Fraser_Tytler,_Lord_...

In my own humble opinion, public demands for loose fiscal policy are the flip side of a coin which could be labeled as "moral hazard," logically flowing from the same sort of impulse which, just 10 years ago, inspired politicians the world over to bail out irresponsible bankers, privatizing bank and bondholder profits, while socializing losses and saddling the taxpayer with debts run up by the very rich.

It seems the worm has turned.

-Notehound
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
It seems the worm has turned.

-Notehound


If only... Hopefully, we can pray that the turned worm will succeed in drilling far and wide into the absurdity of the global warming crowd...

Nothing is assured, but we can hope that driving a stake into the nonsense of man made global warming would go a long way in the restoration of international sanity.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
taxes intended to cure the planet of global warming.

The globe is NOT warming! That tax was THEFT! Down with TAXES!

The Captain
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 15
...government responded to the mass protests by immediately suspending the carbon reduction fuel taxes intended to cure the planet of global warming.
------------------------------------------

If Macron was truly concerned about the buildup of CO2 in the atmosphere, he wouldn't be shutting down 14 nuclear power reactors for no good reason.

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Macron-clarifies-...

A total of 14 power reactors will be shut down in order to reduce the share of nuclear in France's electricity generation mix from the current 75% to 50% by 2035, President Emmanuel Macron announced today.
------------------------------------------

Individual small countries like France putting a tax on petrol or diesel fuel isn't going to change the global CO2 concentration in the least. If CO2 is such a big problem, then it is going to take a global effort to do something really meaningful. This means getting China on board in a serious way. The effort will also need India. Here in the US, total yearly CO2 emissions are today about the same as they were in the early 1990s, so we actually have been doing a fairly good job. This wasn't an intentional effort. It was mostly just replacing a big chunk of coal-fired electricity with natural gas as the fuel. Obviously, more needs to be done. Nuclear power needs to be a big part of the solution.

But the first thing the environmentalists want to do is shut down all of the nuclear plants. As long as this is their policy, nothing meaningful will ever happen. See Germany for its Energiewende failure. Shutting down nuclear was priority #1. Now, Macron wants to imitate (or placate) Angela Merkel.

- Pete
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 9
The protest in France was predicted in the spring of 2017:”The French, Coming Apart”.
https://www.city-journal.org/html/french-coming-apart-15125....
Christophe Guilluy illustrated how France has devolved into it’s current state. A nation propelled by globalization & immigration into divisive segments of income inequality. A nation of 16 dynamic urban islands populated with entrepreneurs and engineers and CEOs, the fashion designers and models, the film directors and chefs and other “symbolic analysts,” as Robert Reich once called them—who shape the country’s tastes, form its opinions, and renew its prestige. Cheap labor, tariff-free consumer goods, and new markets of billions of people have made globalization a windfall for such prosperous places.

Yet economic opportunities for those unable to prosper in Paris are lacking elsewhere in France.


Yes it is likely the French people have been bought off. Though we won’t know until tomorrow to see if the protesters disperse. If so, the French people have sold themselves cheaply as none of what Macron is a solution for those negatively affected by globalization & immigration.

https://www.apnews.com/e3788b2dc7b14229be0eaadc7cc8b450
He responded to several of the protesters’ demands, promising measures that included:

-a government-funded 100-euro increase in the minimum wage starting at the beginning of the new year

-the abolition of taxes on overtime pay in 2019

-asking profit-making companies to give workers tax-free year-end bonuses

-slashing a tax hike on small pensions, acknowledging it was “unjust.”


The professional class will continue to enjoy globalization cheap consumer goods. Meanwhile the working are competing with immigrants and are in fact exiled outside the 16 urban centers as the private housing stock is bought up by the professional class & the public housing stock has been taken over by immigrants.
As Paris has become not just the richest city in France but the richest city in the history of France, its residents have come to describe their politics as “on the left...Most often, Parisians mean what Guilluy calls la gauche hashtag, or what we might call the “glass-ceiling Left,” preoccupied with redistribution among, not from, elites: we may have done nothing for the poor, but we did appoint the first disabled lesbian parking commissioner.

Looking into the future. I predicted the nations that will do best are those that control their borders allowing only skilled workers that speak the accepting nation language. Those that will do poorly are those with porous border with unselective immigration policies allow large numbers of unskilled workers into a developed nation that has little need for them as those unskilled jobs have either been automated or off shored to countries with low wages or worker protection for those foreign workers.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
It was mostly just replacing a big chunk of coal-fired electricity with natural gas as the fuel. Obviously, more needs to be done. Nuclear power needs to be a big part of the solution.

But the first thing the environmentalists want to do is shut down all of the nuclear plants. As long as this is their policy, nothing meaningful will ever happen. See Germany for its Energiewende failure. Shutting down nuclear was priority #1. Now, Macron wants to imitate (or placate) Angela Merkel.

- Pete


Alas! The secret of nuclear power is that it DOES output CO2, LOTS of it. So far, advocates have been able to obscure that fact, but the lid is bound to be blown off sooner or later. </sarcasm>

Idiots of the raging mobs need to be called out, and properly labeling them as idiots. Since the movement has been building for multiple decades now, it will take time. But it needs to be done.

(En otro mano, who knows? Maybe another blissful impact from a large hurtling heavenly body ala 65 millions of years ago will answer the question for us. In a flash, so to speak.)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 12
Nothing is assured, but we can hope that driving a stake into the nonsense of man made global warming would go a long way in the restoration of international sanity.

BrerBear,

Without getting into an argument over whether climate change is the result of man's industrialization, automobiles, volcanoes, cow flatulence, or solar flares, it is obvious that the world is undergoing either a cyclical or an evolutionary phase of extreme temperatures and violent air currents. It is incumbent upon all of us to do what we can to adapt and, to the extent possible, limit our own pollution of the planet.

I personally would rather see environmentally-related taxes used for massive re-forestation, de-salination, and hardening the electrical grid against vulnerability to terrorists. If we don't fix the electrical infrastructure, it will be difficult to ensure that alternative energy generation sources can transmit that clean energy to where it is needed.

Perhaps the French would be less revolting if their tax monies to support clean energy were spent closer to home, rather than used for transfer payments to remote dictators who rarely distribute largesse to their underprivileged countrymen.

Denying the reality of climate change doesn't solve any more problems than does denying the fact that global warming cannot be reversed at this point. It is both too late and too far advanced to undo whatever forces are causing it.

However, that doesn't mean we shouldn't make every reasonable attempt to mitigate rather than exacerbate the problem, including re-foresting, implementing alternative energy products where feasible, and protecting ourselves from adverse effects by strengthening the energy infrastructure.

I'm pretty sure most people wouldn't object to being taxed to help themselves and their communities, if there is a direct and obvious connection between the money collected and an improvement of the lives of those paying it.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
VIOLENT MOBS CAN SUCCESSFULLY EXTORT MONEY FROM THE GOVERNMENT.

While in the US, CEOs can fly to DC in their private jets and threaten economic Armageddon if the government doesn't throw money at them.

Steve
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Pete writes:

Here in the US, total yearly CO2 emissions are today about the same as they were in the early 1990s, so we actually have been doing a fairly good job. This wasn't an intentional effort. It was mostly just replacing a big chunk of coal-fired electricity with natural gas as the fuel. Obviously, more needs to be done. Nuclear power needs to be a big part of the solution.

===========================================

The U.S., which had been steadily decreasing its carbon pollution, showed a significant rise in emissions — up 2.5 percent — for the first time since 2013.

https://www.foxnews.com/science/carbon-dioxide-emissions-ris...

---------------------------------

Pete keeps promoting nuclear power, but here are the facts about the lousy nuclear power performance over the last few years:

1. Several operating plants were closed permanently and several more will close in the next few years. At least a dozen new nuclear plants were proposed and subsequently canceled because of cost and schedule.

2. The nuclear power plants designer Westinghouse went bankrupt because of cost overruns at Summer and Vogtle nuclear plant construction projects.

3. The Summer 2&3 nuclear plant that was in construction for years in South Carolina was canceled after Westinghouse bankruptcy resulting in big losses for the people of South Carolina, the construction workers and the share holders.

4. The only remaining new nuclear plant in USA is Vogtle 3&4 - but this nuclear plant is still having more and more cost increases and schedule delays. Vogtle 3&4 construction is only 60% complete and is forecast by oversight experts to miss its new completion dates of 2021 and 2022. The original completion dates were 2016 and 2017.

https://www.powermag.com/plagued-by-grim-challenges-vogtle-n...

---------------------------------

So based on the above facts, I do not understand how Pete can claim that nuclear needs to be part of the solution for carbon emissions. New nuclear power plants are too expensive and take too long to build. Old operating nuclear plants are losing money.

Renewables and natural gas are the cheapest and fastest new power generation to build and operate based on levelized cost of energy.

https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-...

jaagu
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Here in the US, total yearly CO2 emissions are today about the same as they were in the early 1990s, so we actually have been doing a fairly good job. This wasn't an intentional effort. It was mostly just replacing a big chunk of coal-fired electricity with natural gas as the fuel.


It absolutely was an intentional effort. The Obama administration made clean energy/reducing CO2 an important priority from the get-go, with some truly massive investments included in the big stimulus package. The most visible result of that was a big increase in wind and solar in following years, which helped drive those down toward grid parity. The administration then kept up a steady program of regulation of existing and new coal power plants that was a very big part of the impetus for utilities retiring old plants and replacing them with natural gas (and wind).

The Obama administration also got the ball rolling on reducing emissions from transportation with aggressive increases in the CAFE mileage requirements on light vehicles, and introduction of the first mileage requirements for new heavy trucks.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
[i]Denying the reality of climate change[/i]
A parable:

One Friday, the receptionist at the local climate-research center didn't show up. As it happens, she normally doesn't work Fridays, but for some reason her absence disquieted some of the researchers.

She didn't show up on Monday either. Or Tuesday.

"She's been kidnapped!" a researcher cried out.

Immediately they began searching the building for any evidence of how she had been kidnapped. They found nothing unusual except a stack of papers in her in-box waiting for someone to file them.

"There! That's proof she was kidnapped! If she wasn't, she would have filed those papers!"

"Are we sure there isn't a normal explanation?" asked a janitor.

"You insensitive clod, denying that she's missing!" the researchers cried out, and got the janitor fired.

They called the police, who searched her house. The police said it looked like she had packed for a vacation, but nothing looked bad to them.

"The police don't know how to look for signs of kidnapping, or they would have found something!"

A private detective was hired. He also searched the receptionist's house, and reached the same conclusion.

"There's a conspiracy to cover up her kidnapping! You're in on it!" and the researchers refused to pay the private detective's fee.

One of the researchers decided that she must have been killed and buried in a certain farmer's field. "Okay," said all the researchers, "we know where she is!" And they were content.

Until a researcher from a different research center went and looked in the farmer's field, and found no evidence of a grave or body.

Another researcher concluded that her body was in a certain closet in an adjacent building. "That's where she is, for sure!" the researchers agreed.

A graduate student working in the institute went and looked. "Ah, guys, that closet is actually a public men's room, and she's not there." He lost his position at the institute, for this denial that the receptionist was missing, and became a clerk at the local Walmart.

After nearly two weeks, the institute's token physicist said "I had an idea. I looked at our vacation schedule. She scheduled this absence four months ago - she's in Tahiti, and will be back Tuesday."

The token physicist was blackballed, and spent the rest of his career flipping burgers. Can't have a denier on the staff of any respectable institute.

On Tuesday, the receptionist was back. She was told to clear her desk of any other work and put all her time into investigating her kidnapping.

She denied that she had been kidnapped, so she was fired too. Fortunately, receptionists have an easier time finding suitable work.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
<<Last week, we first heard that the government responded to the mass protests by immediately suspending the carbon reduction fuel taxes intended to cure the planet of global warming. Since throwing the Earth under the bus didn't seem to be enough to placate the angry hordes of Frenchmen and Frenchwomen...>>



Oh, boo hoo!

I thought you guys didn't like regressive taxes


Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Ben wrote:
It absolutely was an intentional effort. The Obama administration made clean energy/reducing CO2 an important priority from the get-go, with some truly massive investments included in the big stimulus package. The most visible result of that was a big increase in wind and solar in following years...
--------------------------------

There was a lot of wind and solar built up during the Obama administration, but the subsidies that were given to those industries existed during the G W Bush years. Bush signed the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

Looking at the numbers, the biggest change has been an increase in natural gas for power generation, and a decrease in coal use. The following numbers are from the full year of 2009 (first year of the Obama administration), and the first 9 months of 2018. These numbers are in percentages, so it all evens out. For the total generation, I included utility-scale production plus small-scale solar PV (rooftop) production.

Electricity share
****      2009   2018 (first 9 mo.)
Coal 44% 27%
Nat Gas 23% 35%
Wind 2% 6.4%
Solar 0 2.4%


https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.ph...

https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.ph...

I suppose you could say that the 35% natural gas in 2018 would be higher without the wind and solar buildup. But you would also need to acknowledge that the subsidies given to renewables, particularly to wind, helped to undercut the wholesale price of electricity so that some smaller nuclear power plants were forced to shut down, and more are scheduled to close in the next few years (Duane Arnold, Diablo Canyon, Pilgrim, Indian Point). The Renewable Portfolio Standards, which often reward wind and solar, while simultaneously punishing nuclear, don't help any either.

- Pete
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
<<I'm pretty sure most people wouldn't object to being taxed to help themselves and their communities, if there is a direct and obvious connection between the money collected and an improvement of the lives of those paying it.>>


That's right. ADAPT to increasing temperatures, don't try to prevent the tide from coming in.

And one way to do that is to cut down old growth forests to prevent them from burning up or dying of insect infestations. THEN reforest, with palm trees or whatever is deemed suitable.

We are way behind in cutting down old growth forests..,.


Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
<<The Obama administration also got the ball rolling on reducing emissions from transportation with aggressive increases in the CAFE mileage requirements on light vehicles, and introduction of the first mileage requirements for new heavy trucks.>>


Meanwhile, 80% of human energy consumption continues to come from fossil fuels. That's not going to change, either.

The big factor driving CO2 production is the world wide decline of poverty as peasants who formerly depended upon their own muscles for power, and animals if they were lucky, become wealthy and can afford to buy cars, modern housing and to work at industrial jobs ---lifestyles which are the fruit of fossil fuel consumption.

And I don't see many of our liberal friends giving up traveling about the world in jet planes on eco vacations or whatever, either.

But the good news is that that doesn;t matter either.

As the climate models increasingly diverge from reality, the global warming myth will eventually be shelved and liberals will go on to new fads, just as they discarded the global cooling panic of the 1970s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling



Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
<<One Friday, the receptionist at the local climate-research center didn't show up. As it happens, she normally doesn't work Fridays, but for some reason her absence disquieted some of the researchers.

She didn't show up on Monday either. Or Tuesday.

"She's been kidnapped!" a researcher cried out.
>>


Great fun, but Al Gore shoulda made an appearance somewhere! He could have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for making a slide show on the investigation.



Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I suppose you could say that the 35% natural gas in 2018 would be higher without the wind and solar buildup. But you would also need to acknowledge that the subsidies given to renewables, particularly to wind, helped to undercut the wholesale price of electricity so that some smaller nuclear power plants were forced to shut down, and more are scheduled to close in the next few years (Duane Arnold, Diablo Canyon, Pilgrim, Indian Point). The Renewable Portfolio Standards, which often reward wind and solar, while simultaneously punishing nuclear, don't help any either.

- Pete

======================================

Sour grapes Pete!

The nuclear industry was offered huge subsidies during the same time period as renewables were offered subsidies. Only Vogtle nuclear project took the $8 billion subsidies offer several years ago (which has now been increased to about $12 billion). Why didn't Summer nuclear project take the nuclear subsidies offered? Why didn't the other utilities take the nuclear power subsidies?

Pete likes to complain about renewables taking subsidies while ignoring the fact the nuclear power could have taken similar subsidies.

Utilities with brains knew that new nuclear power in USA would never meet budget and schedule requirements for subsidies. And when Fukushima happened, the utilities that were still considering nuclear power bailed out faster than a speeding bullet.

jaagu
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
There is a big difference between a Production Tax Credit and a federal loan guarantee. The PTC is obtained whenever power is produced, for the period the PTC is in effect. A loan guarantee is only paid out if the project goes into default or bankruptcy. The Vogtle project has not defaulted. Therefore the loan guarantee has not been paid out.

The Vogtle project has not received $8 billion in "subsidies" as the poster describes. It is possible that Southern Co. has obtained a slightly lower interest rate on the insured loan. Many renewable energy projects have also obtained those sort of loan guarantees, in accordance with the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

- Pete
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
And when Fukushima happened, the utilities that were still considering nuclear power bailed out faster than a speeding bullet.

You're correct, Jaagu.

Fukushima was and is poorly understood, as the following linked PBS article explains:

I’ve become frustrated with both sides of the nuclear power debate for embracing either overly alarmist or dismissive attitudes toward the problem. In addition, I’ve grown concerned over the lack of oversight for radioactive contamination in U.S. waters...

First, it is incorrect to say that Fukushima is under control when levels of radioactivity in the ocean indicate ongoing leaks, caused by groundwater flowing through the site and, we think, enhanced after storms. At the same time, it is also wrong to attribute to Fukushima events like recent die-offs of seal, whale, and starfish along the West Coast rather than see that they are far more complex and have been happening for far longer than we’d like to admit...


https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/fukushima-radiation-con...

The author of the linked essay points out that not a single US regulatory agency is monitoring radioactivity or contamination from any of the US plants along the coast or from Fukushima.

All of US coasts, but especially the West coast, remain vulnerable to contamination from nuclear plants, both domestic and foreign. Someone or some agency needs to be conducting regular tests, either by collecting samples directly or by testing samples provided on a regular basis by trained monitoring personnel in the US Coast Guard.

'Hound
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
All of US coasts, but especially the West coast, remain vulnerable to contamination from nuclear plants, both domestic and foreign. Someone or some agency needs to be conducting regular tests, either by collecting samples directly or by testing samples provided on a regular basis by trained monitoring personnel in the US Coast Guard.

'Hound



Bloody nonsense.

Scientists (including Canadians) began monitoring shortly after the disaster caused by the Tsunami, when some of them reported it was difficult to detect the radiation from normal background radiation (Recall the US tested nuclear weapons in the Pacific) they received death threats from those who were hoping to convince people they were all going to glow in the dark.

Please try to deal with facts!

Anymouse
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
There is a big difference between a Production Tax Credit and a federal loan guarantee. The PTC is obtained whenever power is produced, for the period the PTC is in effect.

Pete

=================================

Pete does want you people to know that Vogtle project will also earn PTC when it starts producing power. The same as renewables. I wonder why Pete wants to keep that a secret?

DOE zeroed out millions in fees for the Vogtle loan guarantee. Pete does not want people to know about those subsidies.

All new nuclear project had the same offer for PTC if they signed up for the loan guarantee.

With regard to the DOE loan guarantee program Pete thinks the government is not on the hook to pay $12 billion if Southern Company defaults. That is garbage, when Solyndra, A123, and Fisker had loan guarantees. When the defaulted the checks came from the U.S. Treasury, with no private lenders involved. The companies wrote their payments, including interest, to the Treasury, not to private lenders. That’s how it will work for Vogtle project.

For more info on loan guarantees here is what tax experts said in 2014 about the Vogtle loan guarantee:

The credit subsidy cost is an estimate of the long-term cost to the federal government of guaranteeing a loan for the entire period the loan is outstanding. It includes the costs of covering interest subsidies, loan defaults, and loan delinquencies, but not administrative costs. The size of the credit subsidy cost corresponds to the size and riskiness of the loan.

Here’s the thing: a credit subsidy cost of $0 suggests that the loans and the project they’re financing have zero risk. But if this were true, then they wouldn’t need federal loan guarantees, because private financing would be available. It’s a Catch-22.

There is risk. Independent firms have downgraded the credit rating of each of the Vogtle partners over the course of the construction project, precisely because of its riskiness. Georgia Power and Oglethorpe took the deal because borrowing at market rates that factor in the risk would’ve cost more. Georgia Power alone saved more than $200 million in financing costs.

https://www.taxpayer.net/energy-natural-resources/doe-failed...

-----------------------

jaagu

P.S. - If the borrower pays off the loans, the lender gets paid in full with a profit. If the borrower defaults, the government, which guaranteed the loans, makes the lenders whole. The taxpayers assume the cost of the default but get nothing if the loan is repaid. Loan guarantees guarantee that Wall Street wins under any circumstance. Loan guarantees stink.

https://cleanenergy.org/blog/let-the-vogtle-doe-loan-guarant...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
All of US coasts, but especially the West coast, remain vulnerable to contamination from nuclear plants, both domestic and foreign. Someone or some agency needs to be conducting regular tests, either by collecting samples directly or by testing samples provided on a regular basis by trained monitoring personnel in the US Coast Guard.
'Hound


Bloody nonsense
-------------------------------------

Very true, Tim. It just goes to show how effective the anti-nuclear propaganda has been.

Of course, the oceans are routinely monitored for all sorts of possible hazards by all kinds of agencies.

Below is a website from Woods Hole, which has had a monitoring program in the Pacific for the last several years. The years are color-coded.

http://www.ourradioactiveocean.org/results.html

For radioactive species, cesium isotopes are usually of the most concern and are easily detected. The Cs-134 isotope would be an indicator of Fukushima radiation. If there is some Cs-137, then that cesium is most likely left over from the atmospheric nuclear weapons tests of the Cold War era. Cs-137 has a longer half-life than Cs-134.

The vast majority of the readings lately have had No Detectable Cs-134. However, the description from Woods Hole indicates they believe some Cs-137 have elevated readings on the West coast. Even if true, the levels are very low.

It should be noted that the World Health Organization (WHO) drinking water limit for radioactive cesium (Cs-134 and Cs-137) is 10,000 Becquerels per cubic meter (Bq/m3). The later readings of even Cs-137 are almost always below 5 Bq/m3. Though I do not recommend drinking seawater because of the high salinity, and possible other nasties that might be in there.

- Pete
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Very true, Tim. It just goes to show how effective the anti-nuclear propaganda has been.


Sort of like the anti-pipeline guys who repeat claims they are designed to attack aquifers rather than take needed products to market? Blatant lying seems to be the "In" thing since the advent of "Social Media", probably why I refuse to get on it? We have enough of that on METaR these days?

Anymouse
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Very true, Tim. It just goes to show how effective the anti-nuclear propaganda has been.

I must admit I have been propagandized since college, due to the Three Mile Island incident, then Chernobyl.

That said, I am open to safe nuclear, and I actually own a vacation cabin and land not far from a 1970s era nuclear plant on a lake owned by Duke Power. Of course, in order to be completely truthful, from time to time DW and I discuss the seemingly high coincidence of cancer among people who have lived in the vicinity for many years. We don't worry, since we're only there for days at a time, but I try to make sure and drink only bottled water, just to be safe.

Fukushima is still leaking radiation, which is not a healthy thing even if it doesn't threaten Hawaii or the US. It seems that there are many reactors built in unstable areas, but I am not an engineer with the expertise that the designers of Fukushima and the West coast US reactors must have had when they desiged them to be safe against earthquakes and tsunamis.

To be fair to all sides, I think it important to consider all sources of power generation and to make a feasibility analysis. In some areas, hydropower or geothermal makes the most sense; in other areas, natural gas, solar, or wind might be most cost-effective. I am in favor of using all the technologies, including safely designed nuclear, depending upon feasibility.

As a consumer, I am only interested in getting the cheapest form of electric service that doesn't put me at increased risk of cancer or some other illness. In my earlier life, I have taken many walks in the woods, but have rarely seen any two-headed creatures due to radiation exposure. Actually, about 10 years ago, I remember seeing a skink with a growth on the side of its neck that looked like a second head. Of course, two-headed lizards are seen from time-to-time even in areas that are nowhere near a nuclear plant.

https://www.treehugger.com/natural-sciences/two-headed-lizar...

Regardless of my feelings or my admittedly propaganda-susceptible biases, I must defer to the better judgment of those who have advanced knowledge of energy generation, physics, radiation contamination, nuclear waste disposal, plate tectonics, tsunami dynamics, heavy construction, soil geology, and hydrological seepage rates. My dear departed dad was an engineer with expertise in fluid dynamics, but he is no longer available to advise me. He passed away 3 months before the Fukushima incident.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disa...

I don't like to argue about things I am unable to change, so I must retire from this thread. I does seem to have wandered far from my original comment on the cleverness of the French protesters, who have extracted monetary promises from the politicians who are willing to buy them off using their fellow Frenchwomen's tax monies.

'Hound [confused and sometimes concerned, but not necessarily frightened]
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Thank you for recommending this post to our Best of feature.

'Hound [confused and sometimes concerned, but not necessarily frightened]


Oh there is nothing to be frightened about, none of us are going to live forever. }};-D

I'm always a bit confused that those who think they are going to a better place fight so hard to avoid it? Drum roll please.

Anymouse
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I'm always a bit confused that those who think they are going to a better place fight so hard to avoid it? Drum roll please.

Perhaps they're rather trying to avoid going to a not-so-much-better place. Rim shot.

http://instantrimshot.com/

'Hound [hedging bets]

;-)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I'm always a bit confused that those who think they are going to a better place fight so hard to avoid it? Drum roll please.

Anymouse,

“Everybody want to go to heaven, nobody is willing to die to get there.”

Lament of the recruiters looking for suicide bombers.

Cheers
Qazulight

https://youtu.be/s-_c6V0U-4k
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Fukushima is still leaking radiation, which is not a healthy thing even if it doesn't threaten Hawaii or the US. It seems that there are many reactors built in unstable areas, but I am not an engineer with the expertise that the designers of Fukushima and the West coast US reactors must have had when they desiged them to be safe against earthquakes and tsunamis.

=================================

Well take it from this engineer and manager who was involved with the design and construction of Diablo Canyon and San Onofre nuclear power plants in California. Bechtel was the designer and builder for these two projects. Bechtel performed the seismic design for these two projects for the earthquake faults known to be possible in the 1980s.

Even though these two nuclear plants were design for large earthquakes, more recent seismic studies in the last 10 years by USGS has shown that these plants have much less safety margin than was put into the designs. These new seismic studies now show that the new earthquakes would exceed the design bases of these power plants.

Thankfully the San Onofre nuclear plant is now permanently shutdown, but the spent fuel pools are still full of highly radioactive fuel assemblies that need continuous cooling for many years. They should be moved to a location further inland in a desert location away from the earthquake and tsunami issues.

The Diablo Canyon nuclear plant is going to be permanently shutdown in a few years. The Diablo Canyon spent fuel pools present the same dangers as the San Onofre spent fuel pools, and thus they also should be moved to a safer location.

As for the Fukushima nuclear plant design, we all know that they were not design properly for flooding and earthquake conditions. Putting emergency electrical power generation (diesel generators) in the basement of the building is total design blunder. Yes it is good to put diesel generators in the basement to reduce vibrations, but not when it reduces safety of the plant. Thus those Fukushima reactors were badly designed, out of date with the rest of the nuclear industry, and TEPCO was a lousy plant operator not knowing how to react to a station black condition. TEPCO has been found guilty of putting profits ahead of safety.

The NRC has stated that Fukushima nuclear plant designs were inadequate - the impact of the earthquake and tsunami was a man made disaster.

Nuclear power plants should not be built in major earthquake, tsunami and flood zones. Many plants were built in those zones in the 1970s and 1980s. Many of them are still in operation.

jaagu
Print the post Back To Top