Green Austria on warpath against nuclear power in Europe

Stefan Zach of Austrian energy supplier EVN Group gives a guided tour of the unused nuclear power plant in Zwentendorf, west of
Stefan Zach of Austrian energy supplier EVN Group gives a guided tour of the unused nuclear power plant in Zwentendorf, west of Vienna, on June 23, 2015

Austria's announcement Monday that it would challenge state aid for a new nuclear plant in Britain marks the latest step in the country's solo campaign to roll back atomic energy in Europe.

Since the late 1970s, Austria has been fiercely anti-nuclear, starting with an unprecedented vote by its population that prevented the country's only plant from providing a watt of power.

With the exception of Italy, Austria is surrounded by countries with nuclear power, although Germany, to the north, has vowed to phase out its plants by 2022.

"It's an energy source from the last century," Environment Minister Andrae Rupprechter told AFP in a recent interview.

"It is outdated because it's a non-sustainable, high-risk source that is only competitive with an unjustified subsidy," he added, referring to the Hinkley Point C contract in western England.

Austria filed its complaint at the European Court of Justice after Britain proposed 17 billion pounds (24 billion euros, $26.5 billion) in state funds to help build two reactors, projected to cost 24.5 billion pounds.

Rupprechter is contesting a determination by the European Union's executive Commission last October, which found that the deal was compatible with EU state aid rules.

For the minister, the aid is "illegitimate".

"If we establish high subsidies for nuclear energy, we will never have an even competition situation," he said.

"The future lies in renewable resources and we have to create a level playing field to give these resources the fairness to compete in the market."

More than three-quarters of Austrian electricity comes from renewable sources, which also make up 34 percent of its total energy production.

It is already far beyond the EU target, which calls on renewables to meet 20 percent of energy needs by 2020.

Home to plenty of sun, wind and water, the nation hopes to increase that amount to 50 percent by 2030.

A nuclear power plant was built in Zwentendorf, Austria, but was never used and sits in a sea of green fields and wild flowers b
A nuclear power plant was built in Zwentendorf, Austria, but was never used and sits in a sea of green fields and wild flowers by the Danube

Since January, all imports of nuclear power have also been banned.

As the EU moves toward a single energy market, and with a UN climate conference looming in Paris in December, "we want to use the discussion to establish a protocol to support renewable energies", said Rupprechter.

Ghost plant

Four decades ago, Austria looked set to join the nuclear power club with the construction of a plant in Zwentendorf, near Vienna.

Today, the concrete giant sits in a sea of green fields and wild flowers by the Danube.

An eerie silence hangs over its control room, whose walls are covered in what are now old-fashioned switches designed in a long-gone era.

No safety uniforms are needed to wander around the huge reactor vessel: there is not a becquerel of radioactivity here.

Zwentendorf was meant to be the first of several planned nuclear plants destined to supply electricity for six million households—nearly the country's entire population at the time.

But after a knife-edge referendum in November 1978, the one-billion-euro ($1.1-billion) project stayed offline and Austria's nuclear age was over before it had even begun.

Within a month of the vote, the government passed a bill prohibiting nuclear energy to produce of electricity.

Zwentendorf lay idle for several decade before it was bought in 2005 and then restored by Austrian energy company EVN.

An unused nuclear power plant in Zwentendorf, west of Vienna
An unused nuclear power plant in Zwentendorf, west of Vienna

The building now serves as a training facility for international nuclear engineers and occasionally as a film set. From autumn onwards, it will also offer courses on how to dismantle nuclear plants.

"We think this is the perfect place, a lifesized model where you can learn how to deconstruct a reactor bit by bit in a safe environment," said Stefan Zach of EVN.

Demand should be great, he says, with big European nuclear producers such as Germany phasing out atomic power.

Nuclear fear?

However, most of Austria's other neighbours—including Hungary, Slovakia and the Czech Republic—want to expand their nuclear facilities.

Zwentendorf was meant to be the first of several planned nuclear plants destined to supply electricity for six million household
Zwentendorf was meant to be the first of several planned nuclear plants destined to supply electricity for six million households in Austria

Austria has already warned it will veto any nation attempting to obtain EU subsidies for nuclear programmes.

The government has repeatedly highlighted what it stresses are 's greatest problems: the disposal of radioactive waste and the danger of accidents such as Chernobyl or Fukushima.

But for some, abandoning is based on misguided fear, and deals a blow to efforts to curb climate-altering emissions from fossil fuels.

A view of the reactor core at the unused nuclear power plant in Zwentendorf, west of Vienna
A view of the reactor core at the unused nuclear power plant in Zwentendorf, west of Vienna

Nuclear should be supported, said Austrian physicist Walter Kutschera.

"The important thing is to know how to control it."


Explore further

Germany's oldest remaining nuclear plant shuts down

© 2015 AFP

Citation: Green Austria on warpath against nuclear power in Europe (2015, July 7) retrieved 25 June 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2015-07-green-austria-warpath-nuclear-power.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
25 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Jul 07, 2015
Irrational hate against nuclear; prejudiced, intolerant and ignorant.
Nuclear has killed much less than renewables per terawatt-hour.

Jul 07, 2015
No, Willie, you are the one ignorant of the technology. I have worked with it, and was a power professional, and can tell you nuclear power has always been a promise, a threat, but not an adequate response to our needs.

How many folk in the next 200,000 years will die from finding our nuclear wastes?

Jul 07, 2015
Irrational hate against nuclear;

Accidents that have made it necessary to cordon off large areas have happened - are you denying that?
And saying that something like this can never, ever happen again is just delusional.

You have to look at this from the perspective of a country like Austria: If a plant goes boom in China, Russia or the US then they'll just abandon the land and build another one elswhere. If a plant goes boom in (or near) Austria then Austria is gone.

You can only play the odds if you can rebuy (i.e. if you have land to throw away). But, if at any point it's 'game over' - no matter how small the odds - then it's not worth it as a long term energy solution.

Jul 07, 2015
I have worked with it, and was a power professional, and can tell you nuclear power has always been a promise, a threat, but not an adequate response to our needs.
The statistics per terawatt-hour say otherwise, nuclear is ecologically better and kill fewer humans than renewables.

Jul 07, 2015
..just delusional.
delusional is a world powered by unicorn fart energy producing more environmental impacts and fatalities rather than providing reliable energy for baseload.
..the perspective of a country like Austria..
Irrational fear and opportunistic politics.

Jul 07, 2015
Irrational fear? What is your experience in the field? Ever even been in one? How about ANY kind of powerplant?

How about education? Do you understand the nature of BWR, PWR, and other technologies? Do you know the fuel cycle of light water nuclear operations?

Do you have a confirmed place to safely store the waste for the required 240,000 years?

Jul 07, 2015
antialias_physorg

All reliable sources of energy have risk. Neither solar nor wind power is reliable since storage is either non-scalable or simply too expensive. Nuclear power is estimated to have caused far fewer deaths and environmental damage than other sources of reliable energy such as fossil fuels.

Green power enjoys no economies, cannot be stored, suffers from very low capacity utilization (hence it is expensive and the feed-in tarifs reflect that), and is poorly match with demand. For example, like most countries, German electricity demand peaks in the winter. In fact, the summer is the low point with average daily demand nearly 20% below its December counterpart. This reflects not only weather, but the fact that GDP is itself highly seasonal. So it idiotic to building solar power farms to feed energy into a grid already suffering from surplus energy in the summer months. And Germany produces virtually no solar power during the winter when electricity demand peaks.

Jul 07, 2015
Gosh, Roderick, how have they been living, since we shut down nukes, and are shutting down coal? Campfires?

Do you really think you have discovered what others do not know? Do you think they did not plan for such circumstances when they built the systems?

The professionals understand the great need for changing our power systems, even if you do not.

Jul 07, 2015
All reliable sources of energy have risk.

Sort of. But you have to look at it realistically:

Let's take wind buffered by batteries as one energy source (as a stand-in for renewables) and nuclear as a stand-in for conventional power sources.

You can survive accidents from wind energy (or the buffer batteries) forever. You can clean them up build a new one and you're good to go again. You may even have a higher mortality from them - but that doesn't matter: Such a source will be available indefinitely.

Nuclear (even if we postulate the most minute risk of failure) doesn't work that way. The fallout (or in the case of oil/coal/gas the climate change consequences) add up with each accident/use. These consequences NEVER go away. They only mount up ever higher.

It's simple math from there. Even the most likely - but constant - effect will be better than the most unlikely - but additive - effect in the long run.

Jul 07, 2015
gkam and his fellows abhor truths backed by peer-reviewed data, facts, and statistics; they prefer to stay believing in their own fantasy, a world powered by unicorn fart energy.

Jul 07, 2015
Willie is just screaming across the playground. He wouldn't know Krypton from krytron.

Jul 07, 2015
backed by peer-reviewed data, facts, and statistics;

Well, you have shown amply that you aren't able to read statistics. And in the above case that you are drawing conclusions which aren't warranted.
Statistics have a context. If you apply them outside their context then you're just being disingenuous.

It's like playing the stock market - are stocks that give you 8% on average better than those that give you 1% on average? Not necessarily if the 8% stocks have a chance that at any one time you lose it all (i.e. "game over")... while the 1% stocks are guaranteed a return (even if it is only 0.1% at some time). In the long run such a 1% stock WILL outperform the 8% stock (by an infinite margin)...and THAT is the game we are playing with conventional vs renewables.

Jul 07, 2015
..know Krypton from krytron.
"The Chernobyl accident released about 35 PBq, and the Fukushima Daiichi accident released an estimated 44-84 PBq."
"The average atmospheric concentration of krypton-85 was approximately 0.6 Bq/m3 in 1976"
Even so, much less than natural radioactivity.
https://en.wikipe...ypton-85
https://en.wikipe.../Krytron
http://www.physic...ural.htm
http://umich.edu/...ural.htm

Jul 07, 2015
Willie, you just admitted Fukushima produced twice the contamination than even Chernobyl!!

If you can stomach it, look up chernobyl and children.

Jul 07, 2015
All deaths and injuries are mercilessly attributed, and even over accounted, to Chernobyl and Fukushima, while some deaths and injuries are not properly put into account of renewables, missed for lack of emotional appeals as happen with industry/construction workers' fatalities, do not resonate so much in worldwide media. But even so, with accounting biases/inaccuracies in favor of renewables, the statistics are favorable to nuclear, renewables kill much more per terawatt-hour.

Jul 07, 2015
Look at the pictures, Willie.

Chernobyl children.

Jul 07, 2015
Human violence, ignorance, stupidness kill far more children and in a more systematic way, all time, with no comparison. On the other side, nuclear provides cheap energy to Russian families and children to keep them warmed during the winter, a thing that renewable would not provide at affordable prices without subsidies.

Jul 07, 2015
LOL @ unicorn fart energy.

I know several people who have cottages powered entirely by "unicorn fart energy"

That's some potent stuff. Perhaps not as potent as dinosaur farts, but at least there are still unicorns making more fart energy. The dinosaurs died off long ago.

As soon as I collect $40K I'll be living off of unicorn fart energy myself, stored in a Tesla wall. I can't wait to call the hydro company and tell them I don't want their lousy nuclear/natural gas(dinosaur fart) energy. I'll be in the city but off the grid.

Jul 08, 2015
green, they will NEVER accede to your challenge. Never.

They can't. If they looked it up, it would be the end of their arguments.

Jul 08, 2015
Look at the pictures..
gkam's argumentations are based on counterfeit hopes and irrational fears with intention of creating fright (terror) with an ideological goal of having a whole world powered by unicorn fart energy disregarding the environmental impact on wildlife's habitats, a Taliban environmentalist in fact.

Jul 08, 2015
Willie, you keep on babbling the same nonsense like an autoresponder.

Are you paid for it? Energy was my business, and it is laughable to see the sideliners tell me how the systems work.

I took you off ignore for fun. Now, you go back, like otto and goricle.

Jul 08, 2015
"Of the $12.2 trillion that will be invested in the energy sector over the next 25 years, two-thirds will go into renewables. That money will make renewables 60% of all new generation, according to a Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF) forecast.

With the cost of solar expected to fall 48% and the cost of wind to drop 32%, "economics – rather than policy – will increasingly drive the uptake of renewable technologies," BNEF anticipates.

The shift is already happening. Wind is now the most cost-effective source of new electricity generation in Europe, Australia and Brazil. By 2026, it will be lead almost everywhere, BNEF forecasts. Around 2030, utility-scale solar will replace wind as the best buy for new generation."
-------------------------------------

This is from a site for utilities.
http://www.utilit.../401806/

Jul 08, 2015
..keep on babbling the same..
..backed by verified/peer-reviewed data and statistics, not in irrational fears and beliefs like yours.
Many of the bad reputation of nuclear is due to sensationalist mass media and pathological fibbers like you that not even presents evidentiary data.
When put in numbers, nuclear is far the best.
Energy was my business, and it is laughable..
maniac liar

Jul 08, 2015
"Of the $12.2 trillion that will be invested in the energy sector over the next 25 years, two-thirds will go into renewables. That money will make renewables 60% of all new generation, according to a Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF) forecast.
Poor taxpayers. Luckless mother-earth.


Jul 08, 2015
No, Willie, you are the one ignorant of the technology. I have worked with it, and was a power professional
No you were a temp job shopper who couldnt keep a job. You did validation on a discrete apparatus, offsite. You stood in a few power plants and actually visited a nuke control room.

And then you furthered your 'experience and education' by visiting various crank websites where you falsely claimed to be an engineer, as you do now.

Thats it.

How does this qualify you as an expert?

Jul 08, 2015
..4 cents Kwh..
It is not the average over the time, not statistics. Is it sustainable without governmental subsidies?

Jul 08, 2015
..the cost of decommissioning about 20 nuclear plants in the U.K.
They should not be decommissioned; they have been causing fewer fatalities and less environmental impact per gigawatt generated than renewables. Their environmental cost is minimum when comparing to renewables(millions birds and bats toasted by solar arrays or slaughtered by wind blades).

Jul 08, 2015
Cost of new noooks??

Why will Hinkley Point C cost £16bn?
http://millicentm...st-16bn/

Hinkley C Nuclear Power Plant To Get Twice The Rate As Solar PV From UK Government
http://cleantechn...ernment/

Hinkley C - a nuclear subsidy too far
http://www.theeco...far.html

These were written before they found out about the metallurgy problems with the reactor vessel top and bottom caps of the EPR in Europe.

Next, we will look at Votgle.

Jul 08, 2015
In Europe, it is TWICE what they pay for PV!

In the "midwest", the power companies want their customers to subsidize their nukes, because they are not economic to operate, but they cost too much to build to shut down.

Yup, that's real thinking.

Jul 08, 2015
Answer - Yes.
"annually nuclear provides $10 billion in federal revenues, and $2.2 billion in state tax revenues"
"Over the last fifty years, nuclear energy has proven to be the safest and most efficient of all energy sources, from both the human health and environmental perspectives. In total, to produce a trillion kWh of electricity, nuclear takes less land, uses less steel and concrete, has less emissions, kills fewer people, and has lower life-cycle costs than any other energy source."
"Nuclear is also the energy source that is most immune to climatic changes and severe weather events."
http://www.forbes...nt-good/

Jul 08, 2015
Nuclear plants make ideal terrorist targets

Jul 09, 2015
Nuclear plants make ideal terrorist targets
irrational fear perpetuated by Taliban environmentalists.

Jul 09, 2015
And also receivces billions in subsidies..
Subsidy for nuclear power is limited while for renewable is limitless. Environmental impact of nuclear is strictly mitigated/pondered while renewable is hypocritically ignored/neglected as it can occupy large lands and offshore areas in wildlife's habitats, disturbing and killing millions birds and bats, and no problem, two sets of standards.

Subsidies (dollars/megawatt-hour)
Solar: 775.64
Wind: 56.29
Nuclear: 3.14
http://www.wsj.co...73673300
http://www.world-...l-Costs/
http://www.eia.go...subsidy/

Jul 09, 2015
- did I say 4 cents a Kwh? Sorry I must have slept since then - it is now down to 3.87 cents - and falling.
http://www.greent...et-again
From your article: "Warren Buffett's Nevada utility has lined up what may be the cheapest electricity in the U.S., and it's from a solar farm."

"Warren Buffet's Sweet Solar Energy Deal - Funded by U.S. Taxpayers"
http://oilprice.c...ers.html

"Warren Buffet's company collects solar wind subsidies"
http://rare.us/st...bsidies/

"For example, on wind energy, we get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms. That's the only reason to build them. They don't make sense without the tax credit." - Warren Buffet
http://dailycalle...e-taxes/


Jul 09, 2015
Willie, you do not get correct information on alternative energy from oilprice.com. They are TERRIFIED of alternative energy, because it is eating their lunch. And going back for dinner.

BTW how much are we taxpayers putting into those turkeys at Votgle? Look it up. If we had that for alternative energy we would all get clean power at 5 cents/kWh.

Jul 09, 2015
My Ignore is intermittent, and I occasionally get Willie's stuff. Is anybody else seeing this?

Jul 09, 2015
Willie, there is a good reason why insurance on renewables is limitless, it is because the damage they can cause is very limited. And visa-versa the insurance on nuclear power is limit because the damage they can and already have caused is LIMITLESS.

Jul 09, 2015
..insurance on renewables is limitless, it is because the damage they can cause is very limited.
Renewables produce much more fatalities and environmental impacts per terawatt-hour than nuclear, because it is required large land and offshore areas, producing megawatts per acre while nuclear in terawatts.
..the insurance on nuclear power is limit because the damage they can and already have caused is LIMITLESS.
No damage, no one died from Fukushima Radiation.
Renewable kill much more per terawatt-hour, more people have died from solar and wind energy than nuclear, and that includes Chernobyl and Fukushima.
http://www.theene...r-causes
http://nextbigfut...rce.html
http://www.forbes...-humans/

Renewables employ politics/ideology of bogus hopes and senseless fears.

Jul 09, 2015
"Let's stop subsidizing environmentally and economically costly green energy pipedreams. The birds, bats, and tortoises will thank us."
http://blog.heart...-claims/

Jul 09, 2015
My Ignore is intermittent, and I occasionally..
Long Live Environmental Hypocrisy

Jul 09, 2015
Sorry, Willie, all the cutting and pasting will not change the economic and health advantages of alternative and renewable energy.

If we can get 3.87 cents/kWh from a system which needs no fuel, requires minimal maintenance, and produces no waste, why would we want the high cost and the liabilities of nukes?

Jul 09, 2015
Willie, you claim renewables have cost more lives than nuclear power. Personally, I have not heard of one fatality. Care to give us the source of you information?

As for nuclear not causing a single fatality, that is something nearly impossible to prove one way or the other. The workers that clean up after a nuclear disaster may die years or decades latter.

Jul 09, 2015
..you claim renewables have cost more lives than nuclear power. Personally, I have not heard of one fatality. Care to give us the source of you information?
"Two engineers hug before they died atop a fiery wind turbine."
http://i.imgur.com/YHoiqz7.jpg
http://www.smithv...hazards/
http://www.bebivi...41o.dpbs
http://www.livele...83772851
http://i.imgur.com/xHyOoc9.jpg

Jul 09, 2015
"For years, Germany has been trying to force more wind and solar energy onto its electrical grid, but what started as a well-intended effort to fight global warming devolved into an expensive labyrinth of subsidies and special interest politics."
"Report: Germany's 'Green' Revolution Is Running Out Of Money"
http://dailycalle...f-money/

Jul 09, 2015
As for nuclear not causing a single fatality, that is something nearly impossible to prove one way or the other. The workers that clean up after a nuclear disaster may die years or decades latter.
All people die and have died from diseases like cancer since early times, and now they blame nuclear.

Jul 09, 2015
Renewables slaughter millions birds and bats, and kill more workers than nuclear per terawatt-hour; it is a proven fact with peer-reviewed data and statistics.
http://www.epaw.o...icle=a19
http://www.forbes...-humans/
Cancer is in most of the cases and inherent fail in mitosis processes, and it can have nothing to do with radiation; on the contrary, radiotherapy is widely employed as the cure.
"Sometimes mitosis can go wrong and cause cancer cells to develop."
http://www.abpisc...ndex.cfm

Jul 09, 2015
..you claim renewables have cost more lives than nuclear power. Personally, I have not heard of one fatality. Care to give us the source of you information?
"Two engineers hug before they died atop a fiery wind turbine."
http://i.imgur.com/YHoiqz7.jpg
http://www.smithv...hazards/
http://i.imgur.com/xHyOoc9.jpg

As sad as it is deaths caused during maintenance happen in all industries including nuclear. Nothing new there.

Jul 09, 2015
Willie, do you think birds and other animals have not died in the Russian and Japanese nuclear disaster? While you are counting, don't forget to count the generations that animals affected years after a nuclear accident. Or the square miles of land ruined for thousands of years. Land is a finite resource you should know. Oh, I almost forgot mention the following generations of people used to clean up those nuclear messes.

Jul 09, 2015
Willie, don't count Germany out yet, look what Denmark has already accomplished.

Denmark Aims for 100 Percent Renewable Energy - The ...
www.nytimes.com/....perce...
The New York Times
Nov 10, 2014 - Denmark, with a pioneering wind-power program, is above 40 percent renewable power on its electric grid. It wants to be off fossil fuels by 2050 ...

Jul 09, 2015
As for nuclear not causing a single fatality, that is something nearly impossible to prove one way or the other. The workers that clean up after a nuclear disaster may die years or decades latter.
All people die and have died from diseases like cancer since early times, and now they blame nuclear.

Great, as well they should.

Jul 09, 2015
..do you think birds and other animals have not died in the Russian and Japanese nuclear..
"'A lot of birds are nesting inside the sarcophagus,' he adds, referring to the steel and concrete shield erected over the reactor that exploded in 1986."
"Starlings, pigeons, swallows, redstart - I saw nests, and I found eggs."
"Existing populations multiplied and species not seen for decades, such as the lynx and eagle owl, ..."
http://pripyat.co...ion.html
"In Dead Zone of Chernobyl, Animal Kingdom Thrives"
http://www.nytime...iew.html

"For today's Germany, which has 39 Gigawatts, this would add up to 2,340,000 – 3,900,000 dead birds a year."
"Spain's 18,000 wind turbines kill on average 6 – 18 million birds and bats a year."
http://canadafree...le/72044

Jul 09, 2015

http://www.nytime...iew.html
The paradox of Chernobyl is that it became a haven for unsuspecting wildlife by virtue of its being poisoned. Tests of animal bones, where radioactivity gathers, reveal levels so high that the carcasses shouldn't be touched with bare hands.

http://canadafree...le/72044
Look at it bright side, at least we can still farm the land below windmills that is being fertilized with bird and bat carcasses.


Jul 09, 2015
Continued

http://pripyat.co...ion.html
"Inedible The picture was not quite so rosy in the first weeks and months after of the disaster, when radiation levels were much, much higher.
Four square kilometres of pine forest in the immediate vicinity of the reactor went ginger brown and died, earning the name of the Red Forest.

Some animals in the worst-hit areas also died or stopped reproducing. Mice embryos simply dissolved, while horses left on an island 6km from the power plant died when their thyroid glands disintegrated."

Yes, it is worst than I thought, thanks for the links.

Jul 09, 2015
Willie, this is a soft ball question, where would you rather have your kids play, around the dead birds in a windmill farm or among the dead wolves around Chernobyl?

http://www.nytime...iew.html
"The paradox of Chernobyl is that it became a haven for unsuspecting wildlife by virtue of its being poisoned. Tests of animal bones, where radioactivity gathers, reveal levels so high that the carcasses shouldn't be touched with bare hands".


Jul 09, 2015
Look at it bright side, at least we can still farm the land below windmills that is being fertilized with bird and bat carcasses.
Eco-friendly fertilizers.

Jul 09, 2015
"The paradox of Chernobyl is that it became a haven for unsuspecting wildlife by virtue of its being poisoned. Tests of animal bones, where radioactivity gathers, reveal levels so high that the carcasses shouldn't be touched with bare hands".
levels so high, but how much?
5 mSv at City of Pripyat (near Chernobyl) while some places on Earth the natural radioactivity reaches up 800 mSv.

5 mSv City of Pripyat (near Chernobyl)
20 mSv Fukushima
35 mSv Kerala Beach, India
700 mSv Ramsar, Iran
800 mSv Guarapari Beach, Brazil
http://resources....ces.html
http://webecoist....-places/
http://en.wikiped...adiation

Jul 09, 2015
I keep waiting for that number..
..wind and solar is currently at about 4 cents Kwh..
If it is so cheap why people are not running for installing wind blades and solar panels on their yards and roofs? Yeah, governments should subside it too with money/tax from the same people.

"A 2008 study by former utility staffperson Craig A. Severance based on historical outcomes in the U.S. said costs for nuclear power can be expected to run $0.25-0.30 per kWh."
"In 2014, the US Energy Information Administration estimated the levelized cost of electricity from new nuclear power plants going online in 2019 to be $0.096/kWh before government subsidies, comparable to the cost of electricity from a new coal-fired power plant without carbon capture, but higher than the cost from natural gas-fired plants."
http://en.wikiped..._per_kWh
http://www.world-...r-Power/

fay
Jul 09, 2015
Still no number Willie - wonder why that might be!!!!

per EIA the levelized cost of electricity from new plants: advanced nuclear is 95$/mwh, offshore wind is 197, onshore wind 73 and 125 for solar PV. So if the wind is quite competitive and so cheap as you claim why the hell does it need subsidies? If it is so superb why dont all the utilities spam the turbines like mad wherever they can even without subsidies?
Our debate would be pointless if there were no subsidies in either direction and free market would decide the best solution

Jul 09, 2015
There is no "free market". That fiction was put to rest long ago.

It is owned and/or operated by a few.

Jul 09, 2015
" If it is so superb why dont all the utilities spam the turbines like mad wherever they can even without subsidies?"
----------------------------------

I was in the utility business for seven years and never heard the term "spam the turbines like mad ". Where did you work?

Jul 09, 2015
" If it is so superb why dont all the utilities spam the turbines like mad wherever they can even without subsidies?"
----------------------------------

I was in the utility business for seven years and never heard the term "spam the turbines like mad ". Where did you work?
Maybe its because you were actually a temp job shop technician?

Jul 09, 2015
I can see clearly now - at least I know from which direction the crystal clear winds are blowing from.
It's only a matter of time - -

Solar and Wind Energy Start to Win on Price vs ...
www.nytimes.com/....er...The New York TimesNov 23, 2014 - According to a study by the investment banking firm Lazard, the cost of utility-scale solar energy is as low as 5.6 cents a kilowatt-hour, and wind is as low as1.4 cents. In comparison, natural gas comes at 6.1 cents a kilowatt-hour on the low end and coal at 6.6 cents.

The cost of wind and solar power keeps dropping all over ...
www.vox.com/2015/...llingFeb 5, 2015 - Since 2010, the cost of renewable energy has been plummeting all over the world. David Roberts highlights a new study from the International ...

Jul 09, 2015
"Maybe its because you were actually a temp job shop technician?"
---------------------------

I want to discuss these issues, yet you fixate on character assassination. Maybe because you have never done anything and are jealous of those who have? Maybe because you are hung up on me?

Do you dream of me at night? Do you get excited?

Jul 09, 2015
Willie, where have you been? It is happening right now. I have a sister in Arizona who leases her solar panels which includes all her electrical needs for $110 month. Wow what a bargain!

http://www.consum...ndex.htm

As the cost of solar technology drops, more and more homeowners are considering buying or leasing rooftop solar panels. In fact, the U.S. Department of Energy projects that 900,000 homes will feature solar installations by the year 2020. Properly sized, a solar photovoltaic system can reduce your energy costs by 50 percent or more, and a recent study conducted for the DOE found that some home buyers are willing to pay a premium for a house with a solar system.

Jul 10, 2015
Hi Willie. :)

Medical radiation/isotopes to treat cancers are carefully controlled/targeted. Nuclear waste/radiation dosages/targets are no such thing.

Subsidies are always needed for any new mass-implementation effort where time/need is of the essence. Just as Nuclear/Coal was given massive tax breaks, land grants and back-up guarantees when things go wrong. The REAL TOTAL cost of centuries/decades of subsidies/damage would be many times that given/promised to wind/wave/solar.

Mining costs to lives/environment/local agriculture/livelihood enormous. Mining/Tailings/Accident disasters have claimed many lives. You lie, Willie.

Your spammed 'propaganda points' are just drivel from Lobby Groups, mate. You're obviously paid to spread disinformation, partial-picture biased stats etc. You've already failed. Get a real job that doesn't demand such loss of your integrity/humanity. Thirty Pieces of Silver is obviously your aim. Not humanity. Not good. Rethink it all, Willie. :)

Jul 10, 2015
Mining costs to lives/environment/local agriculture/livelihood enormous..
"Rare-earth mining in China comes at a heavy cost for local villages"
"The concentration of rare earths in the ore is very low, so they must be separated and purified, using hydro-metallurgical techniques and acid baths."
"The foul waters of the tailings pond contain all sorts of toxic chemicals, but also radioactive elements such as thorium which, if ingested, cause cancers of the pancreas and lungs, and leukaemia."
"Before .. there were just fields here as far as the eye can see. In the place of this radioactive sludge, there were watermelons, aubergines and tomatoes,"
http://www.thegua...ollution
"..the true cost .. green wind power experiment: Pollution on a disastrous scale"
http://www.dailym...ale.html

Jul 10, 2015
Hi Willie. :)

Compare the numbers/extents of mines/disasters associated with Coal/Uranium with the numbers/extents of mines/disasters associated with Lithium. Where are your 'stats' for that, mate?

As for your birds/animals 'living' in nuclear accident contaminated sites like Chernobyl etc, think about the migratory birds/animals which ingest/accumulate radioactive isotopes and radioactivity per se within their flesh/feathers/fur. They transport the isotopes and radioactivity to people and places far afield. Where they may die and contaminate soil; may be eaten and contaminate people's/other animals internal organs; or may molt/shed feathers/fur and contaminate soil and people's lungs., etc.

Your one-dimensional mercenary approach to propaganda is obvious with every post spamming your 'propaganda points' and misinformation 'stats'. Too obvious, mate. The Thirty Pieces of Silver you are paid by Lobbyists is not worth the loss of all that makes you human/honest. Rethink it. :)

Jul 10, 2015
"Fact: After more than a half-century of commercial nuclear energy production in the United States, including more than 3,900 reactor years of operation, there have been no radiation-related health effects linked to their operation."
http://www.nei.or...t-Safety

"Fact: Nuclear plants are efficient
Nuclear reactors produce huge volumes of electricity from a very small amount of fuel."
http://www.enec.g...d-facts/

"Fact: Radiation occurs naturally in our environment."
http://nuclear.du...-energy/

"FACT: The nuclear industry solved the nuclear waste problem decades ago."
http://www.herita...r-energy

Jul 10, 2015
And an inconvenient FACT: renewables slaughter millions birds and bats, and kill more workers per terawatt-hour than nuclear, it is already proven by peer-reviewed data and statistics.
http://nextbigfut...rce.html

Jul 11, 2015
Hi Willie. :)

Still at it. mate? You omit the even more inconvenient (to your propaganda spiel) hidden, upstream and downstream and opportunity costs of fossil/nuclear mining, processing, transport and use/waste. And don't forget the massive subsidies and disruption costs to society that have become obvious to all now. Your 'Nuclear is Safe' mantra doesn't stack up at all with what we do know now. Never mind that the damage it has done is pernicious and delayed in most cases, where people have died or becomne ill, or had their other illnesses complicated/exacerbated/made fatal by the addition of unknown radioactive isotopes/radiation doses above 'background' levels. Give it up, mate; you lost already. the world is moving on from dangerous and unsustainable and costly dirty coal/nuclear as fast as they can manage it. For plain economic and sustainability/security reasons if not cost/health reasons. Why do you keep making a silly ass of yourself by taking Lobbyist blood money?

Jul 11, 2015
Never mind that the damage it has done is pernicious and delayed in most cases, where people have died or becomne ill, or had their other illnesses complicated/exacerbated/made fatal by the addition of unknown radioactive isotopes/radiation doses above 'background' levels. Give it up, mate; you lost already.
Your argumentations are based more on myths than verified data. Renewable also carries some radioactivity through rare-earth metals that contain traces of uranium and thorium. Renewable is an environmentally hypocritical means of energy production that kills more than nuclear per terawatt-hour.

"Bird Nests and Kit Foxes vs. Renewable Energy"
http://www.wsj.co...00416560

Wildlife should be exiled from their natural habitats to make room for pastures and then renewables. With Eco-friends like renewable, who needs enemies.

Jul 11, 2015
What's happening at Fukushima today, Willie? How much has it cost so far?

How much more will it cost in the next 40 years or so? Do you know some experts are saying it will take many, many more years, decades, than that? How cheap was that power?

Want to go help? Remember, radiation is no threat, . . you said so yourself.

Jul 11, 2015
What about solar and wind farms occupying acres and more acres, land and offshore areas, disturbing wildlife's habitats?

Fukushima is not a nuclear disaster, no fatalities. But pathological fibbers want fearful ignorant public more and more misinformed in order to force through their throats the Eco-hypocritical renewables.

What's happening at Fukushima today
Updates: http://www.hirosh...tes.html

"...The Fukushima accident's radiation will not harm anyone."
"...Low-level radiation is not dangerous, in fact it might be necessary to human health."
http://hiroshimasyndrome.com/
"All naturally-occurring energy comes from nuclear reactions in the Sun."
"The universe is naturally radioactive."
http://hiroshimasyndrome.com/the-nuclear-isn-t-natural-myth.html

Jul 11, 2015
Oh, Willie is here to down-vote me, but not to answer my questions.

Scared? Of radiation? Of me? What?

"...Low-level radiation is not dangerous, in fact it might be necessary to human health."

Then, GO, Willie, GO! They need you and others to soak up that radiation. They are running out of bodies to take it.

It's GOOD for you, remember??

Jul 11, 2015
Then, GO, Willie, GO! They need you and others to soak up that radiation. They are running out of bodies to take it.
It's GOOD for you, remember??
It's kinda Pathetic when an impotent intellect is losing, or already lost, the reason before an incontestable fact: renewable is proven, by data and statistics, more impacting per terawatt-hour than nuclear, even including into account Fukushima and Chernobyl.

"To March 2013 Tepco has employed some 25,837 workers at the site since the accident, keeping records of their radiation exposure as clean-up and remediation proceeded. Of these, over 95% received less than 50 mSv during the 25 month period; 4% received 50-100 mSv and fewer than 1% received over 100 mSv." That is much less than Earth's natural radioactivity in some places.
http://www.world-...xposure/

Jul 11, 2015
Then, GO, Willie! They pay well, don't they, for you to do such dangerous work?

It's GOOD for you, Willie, you said it yourself.

GO! Prove us wrong!

Here's your chance.

Jul 11, 2015
"Scientists from Japan's National Institute of Radiological Sciences, Hirosaki University, and Peking University (pdf), May 2015: Pu Distribution in Seawater in the Near Coastal Area off Fukushima… the amount of Pu isotopes directly released into the marine environment remains unknown. In the high level radioactive accumulated water collected at the FDNPP after the accident, high level radioactivities of Pu isotopes (ca. 10-3 Bq/mL) were detected.

These values were 6 to 7 orders of magnitudes [1,000,000 – 10,000,000 times] higher than that of the seawater in the western North Pacific. "

Jul 11, 2015
These values were 6 to 7 orders of magnitudes [1,000,000 – 10,000,000 times] higher than that of the seawater in the western North Pacific.
Spectacular, it is being produced billions tonnes of plutonium in seawater by magic, and just some exceptional experts/scientists(that believe in unicorns, mermaids, and Godzilla) can detect it.
http://enenews.co...-pacific


Jul 11, 2015
enenews is a news aggregator, and gets its material from the original sources, in this case, Japan's National Institute of Radiological Sciences, Hirosaki University, and Peking University (pdf), May 2015: "Pu Distribution in Seawater in the Near Coastal Area off Fukushima".

Jul 11, 2015
enenews is a news aggregator..
corretion: enenews is a "SCAREMONGER" news aggregator (not a reliable source) that crackpots, including some academics, love to stay tuned to get in a collective orgasmic hysteria; those utmost pathological maniac fibbers like you.
http://henrymakow...fear.jpg
Moreover "Japan's Press is 94% antinuclear and calls the Fukushima accident the Fukushima nuclear disaster."

"28 Signs That The West Coast Is Being Absolutely Fried With Nuclear Radiation From Fukushima"
http://skeptoid.c...ebunked/

"Fukushima Fear Mongering Debunked"
http://henrymakow...ked.html

http://educate-yo...12.shtml
http://fauxcapita...-page-1/

Reliable/unbiased Fukushima news aggregator: http://www.hirosh...tes.html

Jul 11, 2015
Hi Willie. :)
Never mind that the damage it has done is pernicious and delayed in most cases, where people have died or becomne ill, or had their other illnesses complicated/exacerbated/made fatal by the addition of unknown radioactive isotopes/radiation doses above 'background' levels. Give it up, mate; you lost already.
Your argumentations are based more on myths than verified data. Renewable also carries some radioactivity through rare-earth metals that contain traces of uranium and thorium...
The pay must be enough to compensate for your biased mercenary dishonor to your intellect. The things you complain about re green alternatives are many orders of magnitude worse/persistent/intractable for the fossil/nuclear energy mining/processing/transportation/generating/waste damages and total costs. Why keep complaining of molehills associated with green alternatives when you have mountains in front of you with fossil/nuclear? Your propaganda is so ridiculous. Sad.

Jul 12, 2015
..your biased..
impartial, backed by facts, peer-reviewed data and statistics.
..mining/processing/transportation/generating/waste damages..
Your propaganda is so ridiculous.
In fact, 'green' propaganda is so ridiculous, renewable is causing more deaths and more impacts on environment than nuclear.
"A major reason why wind and solar PV are considered clean is because it is hard to measure their true pollution costs.."
"Both wind turbines and solar PV use rare earth minerals, mostly from China, in their manufacture. Mining and processing these rare earths generates a tremendous amount of "hazardous and radioactive byproducts." In the part of China where rare earth minerals are mined, soil and water are saturated with toxic substances, making farming impossible."
http://ourfinitew...problem/

Jul 12, 2015
"Green technologies such as .. wind turbines, solar panels .. rely on rare-earth metals."
"The ore tends to carry uranium and thorium, the most radioactive element on the planet, and extracting the metal is typically a long, multistage process involving toxic chemicals."
"Wind is known for its noise pollution issues and for killing birds. Solar panels on the desert floor interfere with the local ecosystem."
"..gallium arsenide, copper-indium-gallium-diselenide, and cadmium-telluride, used in making thin-film photovoltaics."
"Radioactive Mountain is Key in US Rare-Earth Woes"
http://www.livesc...ica.html
gkam and his mates hate the truth; they love to stay believing in their own fantasy, a world powered by unicorn fart energy.

Jul 12, 2015
"gkam and his mates hate the truth; they love to stay believing in their own fantasy, a world powered by unicorn fart energy."
-------------------------------------

Yes, Willie, we have heard your only response to science.

Isn't it time for your nap?

Jul 12, 2015
..I will take unicorn farts.
It will replace completely fossil fuels. Soon all cars, planes, ships, trains, and other engines will be powered by unicorn fart energy. People are so excited for installing solar panels and wind blades on the roofs of their vehicles to sense its power. And also it can Eco-friendly annihilate pigeon and other bird infestations in cities and agricultural areas.

Jul 12, 2015
Hi Willie. :)

Nuclear/Fossil radioactive materials output is HUGE compared to traces *locked* into any green industry materials.

All their mining/processing/transportation/consumption/emission/waste is orders of magnitude MORE than for green industry.

Eg, Uranium is concentrated to nuclear fuel rod/weapons grade, while any radioactive trace *rare earth's* in green industry is kept to low levels of concentrations and capable of re-dispersing back to original source sites to background distribution levels from whence they came.

All valuable/useful green energy industry materials can also be recycled safely and economically, not like the nightmare that is now with us from fossil particulates and nuclear waste/radiation!

Not to mention productive animals killed, lands/waters contaminated, by Fossil/nuclear mining, transportation, tailings, usage and waste dumps.

Not to mention the humongous subsidies and opportunity costs of fossil/nuclear industries over decades.

Duh.

Jul 12, 2015
Hi Willie. :)
Soon all cars, planes, ships, trains, and other engines will be powered by [green alternatives] unicorn fart energy.
Anything's better than the stinking/radioactive BS Lobbyist Propaganda issuing from your nether regions/typing fingers. :)

More countries/people don't like what's coming out of smelly Lobbyist arses whose Thirty Pieces of Silver is apparently enough to buy you off as their propaganda minion. Here are some examples of clean, affordable, secure renewables being chosen ahead of fossil/nuclear...

http://phys.org/n...ear.html

http://phys.org/n...ery.html

http://phys.org/n...olf.html

Your Lobbyist Agency has more example on file which are kept from you to keep you biased and on their mindless mercenary propagandist arseholes payroll. You're betraying yourself/family/humanity. Not good. Re-think it all, Willie. :)

Jul 12, 2015
Accidental double post deleted. Thanks.

Jul 12, 2015
Not to mention productive animals killed, lands/waters contaminated, by Fossil/nuclear mining, transportation, tailings, usage and waste dumps.
green' energy as cleanest/eco-friend option is now more to beliefs than to reality.
Renewable kill much more per unit of energy produced, more workers have died from solar and wind energy than nuclear, and that comprises Chernobyl and Fukushima.
http://nextbigfut...rce.html

But 'green' lobbyists and propagandists are always on duty for masking the reality, to argue for more subsidies, tax credits, mandates and government supports. So sad. Luckless Nature.
Costa Rica is running on 100% electricity generation from renewables..
Third world/Underdeveloped country, with no heavy/meaningful industrial parks, no severe winters.
Planes can be run on bio fuels.
More land areas in wildlife's habitats for bio fuels. Lamentable.

Jul 12, 2015
Nuclear/Fossil radioactive materials output is HUGE compared to traces *locked* into any green industry materials.
All their mining/processing/transportation/consumption/emission/waste is orders of magnitude MORE than for green industry.
"A major reason why wind and solar PV are considered clean is because it is hard to measure their true pollution costs.."
http://strategicd...rticles/

"For perspective, America's nuclear industry produces between 4.4 million and 5 million pounds of spent nuclear fuel each year. That means the U.S. wind industry may well have created more radioactive waste last year than our entire nuclear industry produced in spent fuel."
http://canadafree...ve-waste
http://www.thecut...le=21777


Jul 12, 2015
Hi Willie. :)

The fossil/nuclear energy fumes/radioactivity, and the Thirty Pieces of Silver blood money paid you by GOP, Coal and Nuclear lobbies, is making you blind, mate. Read where your claims have been shown to be propaganda nonsense. The lives lost from fossil/nuclear is not just from generation plant operation, but also from mining, processing, transportation, waste/dumping/accidents etc etc. So your stats are meaningless and worse, misleading lies from stinking/lying arse lobbyist organization exploiting mindless and opportunistic criminal elements in society for their own profit/interests against all that is science, reason and humanity in the world. We can remediate and reuse lands/water/materials once their use-by-date have expired. Not so with Nuclear contaminated lands/water/materials and the waste itself. The pollution/costs of fossil/nuclear fuels/industries extends over decades, regions, political subsidies, damage and hidden/opportunity costs/benefits. Duh. :)

Jul 12, 2015
Taliban environmentalists call the nonsense what is already proven, substantiated by photos and statistics, that renewables butcher millions birds and bats, cause mining pollution associated with radioactive elements, disturb large lands and offshore areas, kill more workers per terawatt-hour than nuclear. Renewables = misleading lies.

Jul 12, 2015
Willie has nothing to say, will never admit he is wrong, and you are just giving him what he wants - attention.

Jul 13, 2015
..has nothing to say..
Renewables need large areas in wildlife's habitats, polluting sonorously and visually natural landscapes even in deserts, mountains and oceans.
..is wrong..
Renewable is an environmentally wrong option, it is based on lies; it kills much more than nuclear, statistics tell us the truth.

Jul 13, 2015
greeno: Ignore his pleas for attention.

Jul 13, 2015
..mining the tar sands does not affect the ecosystem..
Nuclear is a form of carbon-free energy that is a million times more energy dense than any other energy source. Nuclear energy has the least climate impact on the biodiversity within most of the ecosystems that have already been altered by other energy sources, like fossil and renewable.
Per unit of electricity, nuclear power is the safest of all energy sources.
Nuclear power does produce some waste, like all energy sources, but compared to other energy sources, the volumes are minimal — and any waste that is produced is tightly controlled. But there is a proven way of recycling most nuclear "waste" into clean energy.

"Nuclear wastes are neither particularly hazardous nor hard to manage relative to other toxic industrial wastes."
http://www.world-...agement/


Jul 13, 2015
Environmentalists are biased and hypocritical liars.
"Greenpeace has always fought - and will continue to fight - vigorously against nuclear power because it is an unacceptable risk to the environment and to humanity." - an irrational hate based on beliefs and equivocated ideologies.
But they do not and will not admit the truth that renewables are causing more fatalities and impact on environment than nuclear.
http://www.greenp...nuclear/
http://www.greenp...nuclear/

Jul 13, 2015
HI Willie. :)
Environmentalists are biased and hypocritical liars.
"Greenpeace has always fought - and will continue to fight - vigorously against nuclear power because it is an unacceptable risk to the environment and to humanity." - an irrational hate based on beliefs and equivocated ideologies.
But they do not and will not admit the truth that renewables are causing more fatalities and impact on environment than nuclear.
http://www.greenp...nuclear/
Still at it with the shilling for blood money from lying lobbyist agency for GOP/fossil/nuclear political/mercenary interests? Shame on you, Willie. And it's ironically sad that you don't see the sad irony in a lying shill for lying hateful GOP/fossil/nuclear interests call information to the public 'lies' and those that would inform that public called 'irrational haters'. Mate, it's way past time for you to rethink what you are on this planet for: the blood money, or the science & humanity.

Jul 14, 2015
Disturbances in large areas
"Humming wind turbines in the seas have stirred debate on whether the noises of their construction and operation affect animals."
"Noise made by humans can be bad news for animals"
https://www.scien...-animals

Jul 14, 2015
"Molten salt reactors are all-liquid fuel, or 'pre-melted,' which offers great potential for reactor safety and cost innovation,"
"They do not need to keep coolant flowing to the reactor because the fuel itself is the coolant."
http://www.forbes...-energy/

Jul 14, 2015
Hi Willie. :)

Still lying by omission, mate? You are a shill for stinking lying GOP/Fossil/Nuclear Lobbyists and no mistake. Here is the REST of that paragraph, which clearly shows you are LYING and DISTORTING the facts found by the study...
...Yet 11 harbor seals wearing tracking devices routinely foraged among drilling platforms and wind farms in the North Sea, Deborah Russell of the University of St. Andrews in Scotland and her colleagues reported last July in Current Biology (SN Online: 7/21/14). Three of the seals swam from turbine to turbine, presumably feasting on fish living around the brand new reefs that the utility infrastructure created.
See? The wind turbines did not affect them adversely. :)

And your nuclear propaganda also leaves out inconvenient truth re land/water/air damage, radioactive waste, subsidies and opportunity costs, accident insurance costs, etc.

Willie, change what you do for a buck, because lying/shilling is bad for you/humanity. Ok? :)

Jul 14, 2015
"Driving of piles in large numbers offshore causes concerns over plant availability and impact on marine mammals."
"Generated power from offshore wind farms is sent back to shore with submarine cables, which emit an electromagnetic field. Sharks are very capable of detecting the signals that surround these cables. If sharks use magnetic-based navigation for migration, then the signals from the submarine cables could act as a roadblock to migration."
http://www.southe...?p=18628
With Eco-friends like renewable, who needs enemies.

Jul 14, 2015
Offshore wind farms also ruin natural landscapes.
'It is too big, too close to shore and too damaging to the environment and the economy.'
http://www.dailym...ast.html


Jul 14, 2015
Give it up, Willie. You've lost. Your selective, opinionated propaganda items leave out important factors against fossil/nuclear which dwarf what you try to bring up against wind power.

Besides, site selection is always a factor for any kind of infrastructure which has to balance need against other interests. With green tech there is no lasting damage, unlike coal/nuclear.

And as for nuclear, how can we try to prevent proliferation of nuclear weapons and its dangers/pollution by IRAN and other rogue states if your lobby keeps trying to proliferate it everywhere with your propaganda crap.

Face it, Willie, you/your paymasters failing to fool people now Internet is making them informed/engaged in preventing such continuation/proliferation of such dirty dangerous crap in this day and age. You're only fooling yourself with your biased/selective quotes and propaganda spam which leaves out the most important facts trying to keep you/others in the dark and fed on Lobbyist BS. :)

Jul 14, 2015
When wind turbines are being manufactured a lot of pollution is produced. They disfigure the countryside and are generally ugly. Wind turbines are noisy. Many people feel that the countryside should be left untouched, without these large structures being built. The landscape should left in its natural form for everyone to enjoy. When a wind farm is built, the land value of surrounding homes and businesses is likely to be affected.
http://www.clean-...turbines
On the other side, environmentalists are always lying that it is good for the environment even it causing more impacts than nuclear per gigawatt generated.

Jul 14, 2015
This is why I firmly support Thorium as the future of nuclear. Uranium was the stupidest idea in the world, just because a bunch of assholes wanted nuclear weapons.

Wind power is not feasible for the energy demands of the population. Wind wouldn't even support half of the world's population.

Jul 14, 2015
HI Willie. Still at it with your Lobbyist-concocted-and-paid-for biased version of realities propaganda spamming? You really are just that mercenary a human being, aren't you. Else why keep taking that blood money for spamming such anti-science, anti-realities, crap? You omit the longlasting blight on the landscape, sea and air which coal/Uranium mines and power stations and transport/processing and waste/emissions involve. And then complain about limited green alternative 'footprints' which can be removed/mitigated after use-by date passes and more advanced alternatives finally established? Why do you do it, Willie? Is the blood money-for-lying that good from your Lobbyist employers? I just refuted your claim re the wind turbine adverse effects on sea animals with your OWN referenced article! It shows how you lie/chop quotes to mislead. Not a good look for you/your Lobbyist employers' propaganda machine/spiel if you're so easily shown up/hoist by your own petard. Rethink. :)

Jul 14, 2015
Hi JoeBlue.
This is why I firmly support Thorium as the future of nuclear. Uranium was the stupidest idea in the world, just because a bunch of assholes wanted nuclear weapons.

Wind power is not feasible for the energy demands of the population. Wind wouldn't even support half of the world's population.
It's not 'just wind power', mate. It's a reasonable mix of all sources/contributions: wind, solar, geothermal, biowaste gasification/liquefaction, ocean-wave/current and improved efficiencies in use/recovery/regeneration. And yes, some coal/natural gas plants can be included in that mix....but way less numbers/scale of plants and corresponding less need for mining//combustion of dirty/CO2 emitting fuels. A balance will be achieved when critical mass of green infrastructure, fuller integration, more experience/improvements in batteries/storage become 'the norm' for future sustainability/security of a robust, flexible, clean, safe, economical system. Cheers. :)

Jul 14, 2015
The "ad hominem argument" and personal attacks are the last refuge and tool of impotent intellects that already have lost the reason. Lamentable.

Jul 14, 2015
"A primary school in Dorset has switched off its wind turbine after seabirds kept getting killed by the blades."
http://www.bbc.co...10518796

"Headteacher Stuart McLeod has had to come in early to clear up the bloody carcasses before his young pupils spot them."
"'We've tried so hard to be eco-friendly but..."
"The turbine was bought with grants from the government..."
http://metro.co.u...-434336/

"Advocacy group: Wind turbine rules needed to protect birds"
http://phys.org/n...rds.html

Jul 14, 2015
Willie, Willie, why did you not include this part of that article in your quotes?
So alternative energy is incredibly important. But of course we want to see wind turbines placed in situations where they are going to have no impact on the environment and on wildlife."
So it's a question of best available Placement and best available balance between inescapable energy needs and the infrastructure to supply those needs in as least destructive way overall. There you go, Willie; when you factor in *wholesale* damage fossil/nuclear did/still doing around the whole world, it seems green wind/other energy, is lesser necessary evil by far.

And I note your Lobbyist propaganda hasn't mentioned that in many countries, water pumping using wind power from numerous 'corrugated iron' etc rotors have been used for many decades now. Why suddenly cry crocodile tears for wildlife over necessary infrastructure? Because they now threaten your selfish/mercenary/political interests. :)

Jul 14, 2015
Almost all it was written against nuclear is mere sensationalism, more than 90% worldwide media hate ignorantly nuclear even it producing less environmental impact and killing much less than renewables per terawatt-hour even taking into account Chernobyl, Fukushima, and all nuclear incidents. No one died from Fukushima radiation; the natural tsunami is that was the real killer. Nuclear produces millions times more energy per acre than any other.

Jul 14, 2015
Why do it, Willie?
Almost all it was written against nuclear is mere sensationalism, more than 90% worldwide media hate ignorantly nuclear even it producing less environmental impact and killing much less than renewables per terawatt-hour even taking into account Chernobyl, Fukushima, and all nuclear incidents. No one died from Fukushima radiation; the natural tsunami is that was the real killer. Nuclear produces millions times more energy per acre than any other.
You're hysterically hypocritical, in denial of FULL facts. Take account of bigger/longer picture/story, remember? When you do, the wholesale damages to health, land, water, wildlife and other past, present and future subsidies/opportunity costs from nuclear is horrendous compared to worst case you can make against green alternatives. Operation of power plant is not in isolation from Uranium mining, processing, transporting, dumping, contamination, deaths in past/present/future from Nuclear. Get real, mate. :)

Jul 15, 2015
You're hysterically hypocritical, in denial of FULL facts. Take account of bigger/longer picture/story, remember? When you do, the wholesale damages to health, land, water, wildlife and other past, present and future subsidies/opportunity costs from nuclear is horrendous compared to worst case you can make against green alternatives. Operation of power plant is not in isolation from Uranium mining, processing, transporting, dumping, contamination, deaths in past/present/future from Nuclear. Get real, mate. :)
just hateful speeches against nuclear based on myths and ignorance than verified data and statistics.

Jul 15, 2015
"It didn't take long for the media to discover that one of the casualties, in pole position when the tsunami struck, was the Fukushima nuclear power station. From that moment the story ceased to be about a natural event and became, in effect, about a man-made one. It became that chilling scenario: a nuclear disaster."
"No radiation-related deaths or acute diseases have been observed among the workers and general public exposed to radiation from the accident."
"No discernible increased incidence of radiation-related health effects are expected among exposed members of the public or their descendants."
"any increased incidence of cancer in this group is expected to be indiscernible because of the difficulty of confirming such a small incidence against the normal statistical fluctuations in cancer incidence."
http://www.gizmod...ational/
http://mosaicscie...rational

Jul 15, 2015
Willie, why keep doing this? You're not fooling anyone with this spammed biased half-truth drivel masquerading as 'information'. You and everybody else in the world with an internet connection knows by now that every nuclear plant is effectively 'an accident waiting to happen'. And that many such accidents/leaks HAVE happened for many reasons. Some have been kept secret and some have been too spectacularly disastrous to hide from the internet world. You are in denial, mate. Blood Money is not enough to compensate for the damage your denial/propaganda 'job' is doing to you and those who may have had respect for you at some stage in your life. Think of yourself, your family, your friends, your community, your nation, your planet....and say NO to that GOP/Coal/Nuclear LOBBY blood money. Get another job, mate. Do something useful, or at least not as destructive to your character and to humanity, with your intellect and your time. Blood Money is the root of all evil. Not good. :)

Jul 15, 2015
..every nuclear plant is effectively 'an accident waiting to happen'. And that many such accidents/leaks HAVE happened for many reasons.
No one died from Fukushima radiation, and renewable kills much more than nuclear even taking into account your "too spectacularly disastrous to hide from the internet world".
Some have been kept secret..
Conspiracy Theory. Godzilla.

Jul 15, 2015
Unicorn fart energy:
- Expensive
- Intermittent
- Energy Storage is Expensive
- Associated with Pollution
- Exotic Materials
- Financial Support from Government/State
- Requires Space
- Environmentally Friendly but butchers millions birds and bats
Some manufacturing processes are associated with greenhouse gas emissions. Nitrogen trifluroide and sulfur hexafluoride has been traced back to the production of solar panels. These are some of the most potent greenhouse gases and have many thousand times the impact on global warming compared to carbon dioxide. Transportation and installation of solar and wind power systems can also indirectly cause pollution.

Jul 15, 2015
Willie, it's no good whistling in the wind like that, everyone with an internet connection knows what is happening with on-going Fukushima disaster, irrespective of how it came about. Like I said, all nuclear plants are 'accidents waiting to happen' one way or another. That's the point, and the danger you can't whistle your way out of in denial.

And the problems/dangers/damages with coal/nuclear are many times more extreme, persistent, costly and irremediable than what your propaganda admits in your spam on the internet, mate. Any 'problems' with green alternatives pale into insignificance by full objective comparison.

And many nuclear accidents/leaks/costs have been kept secret due to Cold War and other reasons. Only the ones that could not be kept secret are the ones we know about now. No 'conspiracy'...except by those trying to hide the full truth via GOP/Coal/Nuclear Lobbyist propaganda such as you are still attempting to foist on internet readers. You failed. Bye. :)

Jul 15, 2015
..everyone with an internet connection knows what is happening with on-going Fukushima disaster
Most of the bad things that people believe about nuclear are myths(there was no Fukushima nuclear disaster just a tsunami disaster), and
most of the good things that people believe about renewables(that they are good for environment) are myths too (on the contrary, they kill much more than nuclear).

Jul 15, 2015
..nuclear are many times more extreme, persistent, costly and irremediable..
You failed. Bye. :)
I think I have understood; you want I go away then you can stay believing in your own lies like gkam does. Remenber that Earth is naturally radioactive, radiation is in everywhere including wind farms, thus it is better for you and gkam go away to a safer planet with your starship powered by unicorn fart energy. Good Trip!

Jul 15, 2015
Willie, the internet info availability of today beats your propaganda every time. Why not channel your time and intellect into something constructive for all humanity rather than prostituting it to the GOP/Coal/Nuclear interest Lobby groups for thirty pieces of silver blood money? Radiation at evolutionary history background levels is totally different from much increased above-background uncontrolled radiation doses/damage, Willie. You know this but keep denying that knowledge. That's not healthy for you, mate; denial always ends badly sooner or later, one way or the other. Snap out of it. Rethink what you are doing. Shilling for blood money is no way to make a living for a self-respecting human being and objective intellect. Change tack, mate. Good luck. Bye. :)

Jul 16, 2015
That's not healthy for you, mate; denial always ends badly sooner or later, one way or the other.
Scare Tactics
Radiation at evolutionary history background levels is totally different from much increased above-background uncontrolled radiation doses/damage..
Two weights, two measures. But fission fuels come from nature too and are present in wind farms too, in rare-earth metals, traces of uranium and thorium, what contradiction.

Jul 16, 2015
"Nuclear energy today is broadly recognized by scientists, scholars, and analysts as an environmentally positive technology with risks, such as they are, overwhelmingly outweighed by its environmental benefits. Such is the consensus on this question that mainstream environmental leaders no longer attempt to contest it."
http://thebreakth...meltdown


Jul 16, 2015
"One year after Fukushima, independent scientists working for the UN say bluntly that irrational fears of radiation poisoning will cause far more harm than the radiation itself. Not a single individual from the Japanese public received a dangerous dose, according to the early and informal analyses by the scientists. (Conspiracy theories cannot survive against the constant independent radiation measurements uploaded on Twitter.)"
http://thebreakth...ion_pani

Jul 16, 2015
Willie, we've been over all this before. The background levels/distribution is possible with traces of natural isotopes/radiation, it is not possible with added man-made and man-concentrated isotopes/radiation, especially when things go horribly wrong as they have done whether you deny it or not. Medical uses of isotopes are controlled both in distribution and dosage. No such thing is possible with wholesale coal/nuclear fuels, materials/waste. Add significantly to the number of nuclear plants, and you multiply significantly the "accident waiting to happen" probabilities of damage going forward. You also multiply probabilities for terrorist acquisition of then-more-ubiquitously-available nuclear materials for missile-deliverable fission-fusion explosive weapons and dirty/waste bombs. So why go that dangerous 'more nuclear' route, which couldn't be implemented in time/budget anyway, when green alternatives feasible more and more as complements to coal? Rethink it, mate. :)

Jul 16, 2015
..multiply significantly the "accident waiting to happen" probabilities of damage..
"Because of our propensity to put panels on roofs, solar is in fact, far more dangerous than many forms of power generation, three times more dangerous than wind power and more than 10 times more dangerous than nuclear power, by comparison to the amount of power produced."
"Ironically enough, however, solar power is far more dangerous than nuclear, even in a year when an accident like the disaster at Fukushima occurs."
http://asiancorre...r-panels

"While few would contend that turbines are a major threat to public safety (most deaths and injuries are suffered by those transporting, erecting and maintaining turbines), the wind industry is marked by both a reluctance to admit to accidents and a tendency to cover up the failings of the technology."
http://www.windby...ety.html

In contrast, no one died from Fukushima radiation

Jul 16, 2015
Willie, you're getting desperate now, mate. Why do you still go for 'in denial' misapplied stats like that? Those are industrial accidents/deaths per industry of/to individual workers which affect only those individuals involved in those accidents from their own actions/negligence etc. You again fail to distinguish such run-of-the-mill cases which occur in ANY industry, to nuclear/coal/oil industry accidents which affect EVERYBODY far afield and not just those workers directly involved in the accident per se.

Why do you do it? Really, for your own sake and your family's and humanity's sake, do something less destructive for a living than taking the GOP/Coal/Nuclear Lobbyists thirty pieces of silver blood money for shilling their propaganda. Blood Money is the root of all evil. Say NO to their blood money, mate. Get out of that 'job' as quick as you can manage it. You'll thank yourself for it down the line mate, when you can once more hold your head up high among humanity. :)

Jul 17, 2015
..own actions/negligence etc
Ok. Blame the valuable workers, and innocent millions birds and bats, for being negligent.
Few deaths by nuclear causes a lot of public commotion and indignation, but a lot of deaths by renewables, does not. But even so, renewables much more fatalities than nuclear per terawatt-hour.
..desperate ..'in denial'..
'green obscurantism' for stay believing in their own lies.

Jul 17, 2015
Willie, why persist misusing statistics like that; while ignoring the death/health/costs and environmental damages of coal/nuclear mining, transportation, processing, power generation, waste and remediation and future deaths/illnesses/cleanup costs into the long term after decommissioning? Not blaming the workers at all, merely pointing out the statistics you used were biased and not comparable metrics, since the cases you enumerated included run-of-the-mill everyday industrial accidents affecting mostly those involved directly in their work; unlike accidents in nuclear industry which affect not only the workers but also the wider population practically forever, and at much greater costs to ongoing health and deaths long after those nuclear accidents. And many deaths and illnesses may not be ascribed directly to the nuclear leaks and wastes, but many complications of existing conditions are not included as to cause of death because exposure/dosage too far back.

Balance. :)

Jul 17, 2015
..while ignoring the death/health/costs and environmental damages..
You are that are ignoring deaths and environmental damages of renewables, which are much higher per terawatt-hour than nuclear. Your argumentations are mostly based on scare tactics, conspiracy theories, and myths rather than verified data.

Jul 17, 2015
Hi Willie. :)
You are that are ignoring deaths and environmental damages of renewables, which are much higher per terawatt-hour than nuclear. Your argumentations are mostly based on scare tactics, conspiracy theories, and myths rather than verified data.
You keep omitting the full scope of deaths/damage/costs/cleanups and disruptions caused by the whole chain of coal/uranium mining, transportation, processing, generation, waste and dumps and present/future un-usability of land and contamination of waters/foodchain. You leave out most of the story for coal/nuclear, and bleat about 'problems' with green alternatives, when these 'problems' fade into insignificance compared to the larger SCALE and SEVERITY and PERSISTENCE of the problems/costs etc brought by coal/nuclear to date, let alone into our children's future. Mate, shilling for GOP/coal/nuclear lobby creeps is no job for honest, intelligent, enlightened human beings. Tell them where to shove their blood money. :)

Jul 17, 2015
..mining, transportation, processing, generation, waste..
Renewable has low power density and uses more land and offshore areas; its true environmental cost is hard to be accounted, even so, it has been noted that is far deadlier than nuclear.
"..toxic lake poisons Chinese farmers, their children and their land. It is what's left behind after making the magnets for Britain's latest wind turbines...investigation reveals, is merely one of a multitude of environmental sins committed in the name of our new green Jerusalem"
http://www.dailym...ale.html


Jul 17, 2015
Willie, you keep 'selecting' your propaganda to ignore the comparative SCALE and SEVERITY and PERSISTENCE of coal and nuclear activities all along the chain of mining, transportation, processing and use/waste etc. The pollution from those China rare-earth-metals mining/refining activities is nowhere near as widespread as coal/uranium mining and related downstream activities/pollution/effects. And most of the China-related pollution etc is from LAX ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROLS and not 'inherent' to rare-earth activities per se. It could be cleaned up and controlled better if the authorities wanted to, so it's a POLITICAL problem not inherent in the rare-earth activity per se. And you still fail to mention that such mines/activity is DWARFED by coal/nuclear mining/activity which is INHERENTLY polluting, more dangerous/widespread than any green-energy related industry/activity/product. Plus lands/seas for wind power is safer/re-useable. Nuclear contaminated materials/lands/seas are not.

Jul 17, 2015
Plus lands/seas for wind power is safer/re-useable.
Disturbing, or even exiling, wildlife from their natural habitats.
Nuclear contaminated materials/lands/seas
Just based on your beliefs and irrational fear.
A fact, Earth is naturally radioactive.
"Almost all the radioactivity in seawater is the result of primordial, naturally occurring radionuclides that have been transported or deposited in the oceans by natural processes like the erosion of the continental crust."
"Radioactivity that we are exposed to here every day, by being on or in the water or consuming seafood is the same as if the terrible events at Fukushima never took place."
http://www.dailyk...he-Ocean

Jul 17, 2015
Willie, why do it? Your own references showed that sea life from crustaceans to fish and seals all flourish around the bases of offshore wind power towers.

Whereas the mining tracts of land for storage/processing, transportation and generation plants and waste dumps and contaminated land/water from accidents/leaks are orders of magnitude WORSE than any stats you can muster against green energy industry 'footprint'.

And natural background isotopes/radiation we evolved with is just that, 'natural background'. Whereas ADDITIONAL man-made and man-concentrated isotopes /radiation are NOT 'natural background', either in levels or type or distribution.

Willie, your Internet propaganda 'spiels' have gone down like lead balloons; from the dead weight of their own bias, stupidity and malicious intent to defraud/mislead.

Stop taking the 'blood money' Thirty Pieces of Silver for anti-science/anti-humanity garbage being dispensed by GOP/coal/nuclear lobbyist creeps. Wise up, mate. :)

Jul 18, 2015
Maybe all that photos of millions birds and bats slaughtered by wind blades or toasted by solar mirrors are just our imagination.
https://www.googl...;bih=789

Jul 18, 2015
Your anti-science against nuclear is based on myths, beliefs, theory conspiracies, sensationalist websites, and scare tactics, no verified/peer-reviewed data.
Nuclear incidents are mercilessly accounted while deaths and environmental damages by renewables are hypocritically neglected. But still putting all into account, including Fukushima and Chernobyl, nuclear is far the best.

Jul 18, 2015
Willie, anything you can say against green energy industry/effects is orders of magnitude less serious, persistent, widespread than the record against coal/nuclear when all the upstream/downstream facts re deaths, damage, costs and dangers are taken into account. Why keep doing it, mate? The GOP/coal/nuclear industries care nothing for you or your family, friends and humanity at large. You are mere numbers in their exploitative profiteering 'business models' which would kill their own grandmothers and children for another buck of blood money. You are being manipulated by Lobbyist creeps to shill for nasty GOP/coal/nuclear interests who would destroy the evolutionary trajectory of green alternatives because it threatens their blood money making business models. Tell them where to shove their blood money, mate; say NO; so you can once again hold your head up high among your family, friends and humanity at large. Go on, stop abusing your innate integrity/objective intellect. :)

Jul 18, 2015
You can stay barking forever, believing in your own lies, but an upsetting truth, backed by verified data and statistics, will chase you: renewables kill much more and produce more impacts than nuclear per terawatt-hour.
"The Japanese earthquake and nuclear reactor accidents is yet another example of the media's distorted perception. It turns out that wind power has been a bigger killer than nuclear power in the USA."
http://notrickszo...r-power/

Jul 18, 2015
Come . come, Willie, don't be like that. Face the facts, don't selectively skew/propagandize them in order to deny what the majority of Internet observers/readers now know full well, about the orders of magnitude worse situation regarding coal/nuclear when all upstream and downstream costs and impacts are factored into the comparison with green alternatives' footprint. Wise up, mate. Say NO to that blood money from GOP/coal/nuclear lobbyist shills. Get another job; one which doesn't damage yourself, your family, your friends, humanity, present and future. You'll thank yourself when you do say no to those lobbyist creeps and their blood money. You'll feel like a new man; proud to hold your head up high because you saved your integrity and stopped betraying yourself and everyone adversely affected by those GOP/coal/nuclear mercenary activities. Good luck, mate. Really. Be well in your new directions. :)

Jul 19, 2015
..regarding coal/nuclear..
..about fossil fuels..
Nuclear is carbon-free.
nuclear is losing..
Not by cost but by public irrational fears based on beliefs, myths and mainly on lies told by unscrupulous pseudo-environmentalists, sensationalist mass media, and vested political interests.

Jul 19, 2015
Face the facts..
Renewable is not as so clean and good for the environment as the green mafia wants public to believe. Nuclear is much more ecologically friendly than renewables.

Jul 19, 2015
Hi Willie. :)
Nuclear is carbon-free.
And the rest! Like upstream/downstream damages; of mining, processing, transporting, concentrating,s storing, waste/dumps etc to lands/waters/air/ecosystems via radioisotopes/radiation contamination. Such crocodile tears! Green energy problems pale into insignificance compared to coal/nuclear problems. Not to mention the humongously greater subsidies to coal/nuclear over many decades now; which green alternatives have seen hardly any part of until recently. Then there is the fact that nuclear plants cannot be built in time anyway, especially with costs much higher today due to more environmental/insurance/social restrictions/costs now. Alternatives are already on the march today! Solving local/regional energy/availability problems today! Increasingly becoming THE choice for enlightened communities, cities, regions, nations...AND industries...today! Willie, you're on the wrong side of future history on this one. Wise up. Say NO! :)

Jul 19, 2015
Then there is the fact that nuclear plants cannot be built in time anyway, especially with costs much higher today due to more environmental/insurance/social restrictions/costs now.
Levelized cost for new power plants (per kW-hour), data from IER 2015:
Nuclear 9.3¢
Wind 11.3¢
Solar 13¢
http://www.forbes...america/
death/TWh: Solar 0.44 , Wind 0.15, Nuclear 0.04
http://theenergyc...r-causes
http://nextbigfut...ces.html

Even with all myths against nuclear, it is far environmentally the best.

Jul 19, 2015
Hi Willie. :)
Then there is the fact that nuclear plants cannot be built in time anyway, especially with costs much higher today due to more environmental/insurance/social restrictions/costs now.
Levelized cost for new power plants (per kW-hour), data from IER 2015:
Nuclear 9.3¢
...
...
Come back with the true revised costs; when all upstream/downstream costs to environment/economy/society are included....including the opportunity costs of delays to green alternatives; and especially the insurance/cleanup costs in case of more likelyhood of accidents if nuclear proliferated even more than current levels; plus the long-range increasing costs to society/economy/environment of labor/land/hierarchies/bureaucracies/machines for managing and guarding radioactive waste/sites for thousands of years. Willie, it's all a fantasy, that nuclear is 'cheaper/safer' etc than green alternatives. Only GOP/coal/nuclear vested interests try to con the Internet public like that. :)

Jul 20, 2015
Come back with the true revised costs; when all upstream/downstream costs to environment/economy/society are included..
unlimited governmental 'green' subsidies from taxpayers.


Jul 20, 2015
Renewable is a million times lower in energy density than nuclear; renewable more acres, more mining pollution, more environmental impact, millions birds and bats butchered. Verified data and statistics are already telling us the truth.
The public is so afraid of nuclear thanks to irrational fear and hate induced by unscrupulous scaremongers, sensationalist mass media and vested green interests.

Jul 20, 2015
- and be the cheapest.
Nevertheless, with high environmental costs, large land and offshore areas, millions birds and bats butchered by solar mirrors and wind blades.

Jul 20, 2015
..air pollution..
Nuclear reactors emit no greenhouse gases during operation. It is carbon-free. Nuclear energy requires less land use than most other forms of energy. And most of what is believed bad are based on just myths and beliefs.
"Nuclear power plants have controlled and monitored emissions of radiation, but the amount is extremely small and poses no threat to the public or the environment"
http://www.nei.or...adiation

Jul 20, 2015
"In a survey conducted in September 2013, it was found that 82% of Americans feel nuclear energy will play an important role in meeting the country's future electricity needs.."
http://www.world-...-Policy/
http://www.anl.go...r-energy
http://www.nei.or...ext=.pdf
Americans do not rely so much on unicorn fart energy yet; renewable mafia should have told more convincing lies/fibs to Americans.

Jul 20, 2015
Give it up, Willie. :)

The Internet 'propaganda offensive' by GOP/coal/nuclear lobbyists has failed if you have to depend on outdated surveys, stats and misinformed 'respondents/conclusions' to twist/hide the full reality like you have been doing. The costs and dangers and persistent INTRACTABLE problems with coal/nuclear are now clear to all but the gullible ignorants and mercenary self-interested self-deluders. Your comparative subsidies claims are ludicrous fantasy. Wise up and say NO to that lobbyist blood money, mate. Blood Money is the root of all evil. Good luck in your new job, as long as it's not as destructive to your integrity and humanity's interests like your present shilling job for GOP/coal/nuclear lobby blood money.

Jul 20, 2015
March 1, 2015
86 percent agreed with the statement, "we should renew the license of nuclear power plants that continue to meet federal safety standards."
77 percent agree that companies should prepare now so that new nuclear power could be built in the next decade.
83 percent of respondents believe it is important for the U.S. nuclear industry to play a leading role in world markets.
"Plant Neighbors Express Strong Support for Nuclear Energy"
http://www.nei.or...-Opinion
At least real Americans are not chickens/cowards like you and gkam.


Jul 20, 2015
Willie, it's not about being cowards or not, it's about facing the more informed realities of the coal/nuclear as opposed to newer green alternatives we now have to look to. Since most of the real/full costs/damages/intractable problems associated with coal/nuclear for many decades had been hidden or not understood before by all those you allude to answering 'surveys', your attempts at irrelevant 'stats' and 'opinions' leave you without any basis for your 'propaganda spiel' trying to make green alternatives less attractive. It won't work any more, mate; the info is in, all of it. And the economic, environmental, health and future sustainability cases have been made and compared...and green alternatives win hands down. Give it up, met, it's not a job for a grown man, to be shilling misleading propaganda for GOP/coal/nuclear interest lobbyist blood money. Blood Money is the root of all evil. Say NO to it, Willie. You'll feel better for it! Good luck. :)

Jul 21, 2015
But unsubsidized solar in India ..
http://cleantechn...w-depth/
What about environmental costs? Much more biomes are being disturbed by renewables per unit of energy generated than by nuclear.
By the images, huge land areas are subtracted from wildlife's habitats; at least carbon-free, no space is left for photosynthesis of plants, not even desert life will be able to breathe out so much CO2 to environment.
http://c1cleantec...arat.png
http://www.finetu..._res.jpg
http://static.cdn...igin.jpg
Luckless mother Earth.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more