Precourt's anti-nuclear activism - the all or nothing fallacy...

I am not opposed to any technology, I do however have serious doubts about the scale of things. Low energy density energy sources require vast amounts of materials and land. And that's one of the reasons why I am an advocate of providence regarding technology. We need all these technologies albeit in a well weighed / well thought-out / well implemented fashion. This means no All-in scenario's for Solar & Wind versus Nuclear, or overextending natural resources for biomass and biofuels, etc. We need a healthy mix of all energy sources, but have to be diligent in their implementation.

As of late the discussion between pro-nuclear and anti-nuclear activists is flaring up. People like Naomi Oreskes, Mark Jacobson, Joe Romm, Helen Caldicott are dogmatically attacking nuclear energy and proposing their own renewable energy visions, while on the other side rational individuals like James Hansen, and my dear friends Alex Cannara and George Erickson and Robert Hargraves are telling the world that we need all energy sources and in particular nuclear if we want to punch out coal, gas and oil. Consider the fact that the first named individuals have an influence on the general public and as such I consider them dangerous.

The funny thing is that the first group of people fashion themselves "environmentalists", whereas I am confident that the latter has a better grasp of the moral implications of our choices regarding energy and nature. "What will the heritage be that we will leave our kids?" Is the main question we tend to ask, and answer. The what-if we do and what-if we don't questions, the meticulously weighing of arguments and facts, the deriving of conclusions through careful investigation and free inquiry and rational thought...

Why is it immoral to discredit nuclear energy and to try to shut down the entire nuclear industry?

1. It destroys 3.500 TWh worth of non-carbon emitting energy generation
2. It hinders possible technological breakthroughs through innovation
3. The no-lessons-learned issue
4. It limits the effectivity by which we can curb carbon emitting energy generation
5. We limit the potential for carbon sequestration in Basalt
6. We limit the potential for massive desalination through decay-heat removal processes.

By looking at these six points we can derive a simple conclusion : People who are opposed to nuclear energy do not have their priorities set right. Instead of thinking about how to mitigate Anthropogenic emissions, they focus on limiting our capabilities to do so. And as such I will not regard these people as environmentalists.

Also consider these simple facts, that erode the base of their "environmentalism"

1. They advocate mass scale RE and thus :
2. Endorse a slow growth curve due to mining / material limitations
3. Mass scale mining and purification
4. Mass scale denudation of the Earth
5. Mass scale deaths from impacts, use of pesticides, changes in the hydrological cycle
6. Endorse more Bautau - Rare-Earth dystopias

Stanford University seems to be a hotspot for anti-nuclear activism. Mark Z Jacobson and the Precourt Institute seem to be the focal points of these activities. Mark Z Jacobson is a Professor at Stanford University. He is the man behind "The Solutions Project", a website that proposes a 100% WWS future. Jacobson thinks that Wind Turbines and Solar Panels are the panacea required to save the earth, or does he?

The Precourt Institute is the funding Jacobson's research and the contents of their website shows a set of biases in favour of renewable energy matters and clearly drives home an anti-nuclear agenda. Let's explore :

Leads to This : http://www.globalresearch.ca/nuclear-power-is-not-the-answer-2/5502496

 

 

Which eventually get's a copyright stamp... As if that protects this article from being shredded under fair use.

What do we have here, which parties are involved?

• Stanford University (Since Ken Caldeira is at Stanford's Carnegie Department...)
• Precourt Institute for Energy (The major investor of Jacobson's work)
• Global Research - Centre for research on Globalization (whatever this might be? )
• And an anonymous blogger called "Washington" who has a blog which seems to be tailored to discrediting nuclear energy as much as possible

Note : a very astute observation from a friend : http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Globalresearch
Stanford / Precourt using articles from this source is rather shifty and untrustworthy to say the least. Consider this completely unbecoming for an institute of intellectual mentation and higher learning...

First of all, why do Stanford and the Precourt Institute for energy endorse this "Washington" clown? We're talking science right? Just because there are a lot of links (to one's own non-reviewed articles) doesn't mean that there's any weight to the argument nor does it justify an academic stronghold such as Stanford to endorse this kind of crap. What's next? Citing my blog in academic articles? Come on...

Secondly : Why is the Precourt institute so pre-occupied with pointing out negative aspects of nuclear energy? Is there an anti-nuclear culture @Stanford?

 

 

Opened three SU related webpages and each of them contains at least one article that questions nuclear activities. It starting to slant toward an anti-nuclear bias, doesn't it?

 

 

Also consider the fact that Stanford Professors are working on feasibility studies of 100% WWS scenarios. Is there any place for certainty in institutes of intellectual mentation? I find this whole attitude and sense of hostility against nuclear utterly distasteful, especially from a much lauded University such as Stanford, no less...

 

That one is critical about nuclear is justified, we need people who think critically about nuclear energy. But just as Stanford is in the business of making a lot of positive headway for renewables and storage and "smart grids" so can they also provide a positive contribution to the nuclear industry. But they don't, and this is something that bothers me. The aura emanating from Stanford Precourt is particularly anti-nuclear, with Jacobson as the tip of the spear...

 

There is also a small light shining in the darkness : The Hoover Institution at Stanford is occupied with policy research on Small Modular Reactors. And Ken Caldeira is also occupied at Stanford at the Carnegie Institution. Caldeira is a prominent that has enunciated the necessity for nuclear, together with climatologists James Hansen, Kerry Emanuel, and Tom Wrigley. These facts have forced me to re-evaluate my stance on Stanford University, and as such this article remains a criticism based on Precourt's decision to give credibility to "Washington's blog".

The difference between "their" (the anti-nuke agenda and mine are the stakes. I have no monetary stakes in this quest, I want to leave this world a better place than I found it. I don't earn any money from this blog, it is ad-free (in contrast to the website of Global Research - Centre for research on Globalization). The few bucks I earn are from book sales so if you want to keep this boat floating amidst the storms of denialism and financial agenda's : http://amzn.com/1516899369 - don't forget to rate or leave a review!!!         

End of blatant and unshameful sales-moment.

Let's return to the issue at hand, The Precourt Institute chose to give legitimacy to a "Washington Blog" by presenting an "article" shared by Globalresearch.ca

Consider this first quote from an article that "Washington" immediately references :

Nuclear energy is not the “clean” energy its backers proclaim. For more than 50 years, nuclear energy has been quietly polluting our air, land, water and bodies—while also contributing to Global Warming through the CO2 emissions from its construction, mining, and manufacturing operations. Every aspect of the nuclear fuel cycle—mining, milling, shipping, processing, power generation, waste disposal and storage—releases greenhouse gases, radioactive particles and toxic materials that poison the air, water and land. Nuclear power plants routinely expel low-level radionuclides into the air in the course of daily operations. While exposure to high levels of radiation can kill within a matter of days or weeks, exposure to low levels on a prolonged basis can damage bones and tissue and result in genetic damage, crippling long-term injuries, disease and death.

These are the arguments against nuclear energy? First of all, we have to put them into context and contrast them with either A. Fossil Fuels and B. Renewables. We're going to cut this text into pieces.

Nuclear energy is not the “clean” energy its backers proclaim. For more than 50 years, nuclear energy has been quietly polluting our air, land, water and bodies

With what? Water vapour from it's cooling towers? From mining tailings? From processing tailings? Construction and transportation tailings? Let me tell you something : There is not a single energy source that is free from these. In fact nuclear energy - given it's supreme high energy density - is the least polluter of all. Since the processes concerned are dwarfed by those needed to sustain any other form of energy generation / capture.

while also contributing to Global Warming through the CO2 emissions from its construction, mining, and manufacturing operations. Every aspect of the nuclear fuel cycle—mining, milling, shipping, processing, power generation, waste disposal and storage—releases greenhouse gases, radioactive particles and toxic materials that poison the air, water and land.

Okay this word-soup needs to be dissected with a scalpel.

Nuclear power plants routinely expel low-level radionuclides into the air in the course of daily operations.

Even the banana's in my fruit basket routinely expel radioactive particles into the air, just by lying there. My granite kitchen top is radioactive, my smoke-detector is radioactive, the air I breathe is radioactive, heck even the seas we swim in are radio-active.

Radio-activity by itself is harmless. We can use the aspirin analogy : If you take an aspirin a day, nothing bad will happen, eat an entire box and your stomach will cry and you can die.

We have years of empirical evidence that support the idea that radioactive particles are in fact good for you. A. We use them in a medical sense, without them we wouldn't have targeted cancer-treatments, organ function scans, mri's, x-rays, etc. B. Studies have shown that certain levels of radiation actually are beneficial to life in general : Radiation Hormesis: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly Or consider this article : Radiation : The No-Safe-Level Myth

An entire medical world has been built up on the notion that small doses of radiation can help humans recover from certain ailments. This flies directly in the face of the claims made by "Washington's Blog" which is in one of the links on the page. But I suppose that this "Washington" grudgingly accepts his oncologists advice once he has been diagnosed with a certain form of cancer that can only be cured using nuclear medicine, the one thing he has been attacking. Don't take this for a non-sequitur... There is no nuclear medicine, without nuclear reactors. And to make matters worse, IF we take into account the need for medical isotopes like Bismuth213, nothing beats the MSR, of which there are now a dozen start-ups working on realizing them (thank you Kirk Sorensen for educating me on this).

While exposure to high levels of radiation can kill within a matter of days or weeks, exposure to low levels on a prolonged basis can damage bones and tissue and result in genetic damage, crippling long-term injuries, disease and death.

This is the most specious argument of all, in fact it is no argument against nuclear energy at all. It is an argument against not living in a lead casket. If you want a radiation free life, you should extract yourself from nature, even worse you should kill yourself. A human body is radioactive...

Acknowledge the fact that there is no epidemiological evidence to suggest that there are heightened levels of cancers in the direct vicinity of ANY nuclear plant, not even those that went wrong.

This piece of fear mongering is nothing but unsubstantiated hoopla.

Also consider this erroneous statement : 

Nuclear plants are so slow and costly to build that they reduce and retard climate protection.

They reduce and retard climate protection? What the hell does this even mean? Do you mean to say that money spent on nuclear is money not spent on renewable energy? If it does, this is a retarded statement that shows an absolute lack of aptitude to understand basic and fundamental economic processes. Also note that renewable energy only manages to grow if the incentives are there. As soon as the incentives are gone, renewable growth stagnates. You want to know why this happens? Because of its technological inferiority and additional technological countermeasures to offset the shortcomings of renewable technologies.

Shall we continue dissecting this article?

Mark Jacobson – the head of Stanford University’s Atmosphere and Energy Program –  who has written numerous books and hundreds of scientific papers on climate and energy, and testified before Congress numerous times on those issues – notes that nuclear puts out much more pollution (including much more CO2) than windpower, and 1.5% of all the nuclear plants built have melted down.

We've addressed Jacobson's junk science before. He is wrong. Since Wind and Solar required 22 to 36 times more materials to get built and bring to bear significant cumulative issues, we can call this claim : Baloney.

Jacobson also points out that it takes at least 11 years to permit and build a nuclear plant, whereas it takes less than half that time to fire up a wind or solar farm. Between the application for a nuclear plant and flipping the switch, power is provided by conventional energy sources … currently 55-65% coal.

Which is yet again a non-issue : where does it take at least 11 years to permit and build a nuclear plant? How many wind turbines need to be built to offset ONE nuclear power plant? Why can't we build both? Wind where it is beneficial, and nuclear where solid base load grid power is required? But that's the all-or-nothing frame of mind that these people have, isn't it?

Nuclear power cannot be globally scaled to supply the world’s energy needs for numerous reasons. The results suggest that we’re likely better off investing in other energy solutions that are truly scalable.

This is the pot calling the kettle black, I submit to you that wind power cannot be globally scaled up to supply the world's energy needs. See what I did there? And you know what? I have the evidence to back that claim up.

Now we get a row of bullet points that are supposed to be arguments against nuclear energy :

Land and location: finding 15,000 locations on Earth that fulfill these requirements is extremely challenging.

Is it now? Are we still living in the Generation II era, or are we pushing for the implementation of Generation III and Generation IV reactors? We're not living by renewable standards in which small iterations edge technologies towards sub-par efficiencies and capacity factors. In fact Nuclear Energy is set to become dozens of times more safe and efficient than it has been last decades. Also the area requirement is laughable at best. Presenting an arbitrary 15.000 locations metric is a total non-issue. "Washington" Likes to make it seem as if the entire earth is one big disaster zone. If this is the case, then in his optimal world we would see thousands of wind-turbines destroyed due to fires and excessive winds.

Lifetime: one station would need to be built and another decommissioned somewhere in the world every day.

And how many solar panels and wind turbines should be replaced annually with a lifespan of 15 to 20 years? How much chemical doping activities would be required to build these hundreds of billions of PV panels? How much toxic sludge and waste water would be created? How much steel would we have to make to keep erecting these tens of thousands wind turbines each year? Any idea how much coal is required to create this steel? Or the amount of energy required to repurpose all these materials? I guess not, you like to make a problem of decommissioning and building old-school nuclear reactors, but clearly are blind for the shortcomings of the alternatives. The problems haunting these technologies are also manifold and certainly not negligible.

Nuclear waste: no universally agreed mode of disposal.

We have plenty of opportunities to do something useful with spent fuel and other fission products, in fact these are unused golden opportunities - more on this later on. Let's just say : another non-argument. Also note that even though it might seem as if we are having problems with keeping nuclear waste, it is being done effortlessly all around the world. Most of it spends its time packed in containers submerged in spent-fuel ponds... The volume on a world-scale is laughable...

Accident rate: 11 nuclear accidents at the level of a full or partial core-melt. Considering that these 11 accidents occurred during a cumulated total of 14,000 reactor-years of nuclear operations, scaling up to 15,000 reactors would mean we would have a major accident somewhere in the world every month.

Really, how did you arrive at this conclusion? Is this a statistical study? Do you have a credible peer-reviewed paper showing that you are right? Since there isn't one, I will call this argument baloney. Not only is it baloney, it also completely disregards modern / contemporary designs that have probably addressed the issues that led to these nuclear accidents. The nuclear industry isn't stagnant you know. They aren't in the business of covering up mishaps. In fact the nuclear industry is the most meticulous industry on earth. It is highly self-critical and aware of the mishaps and failures of the past, and works tirelessly to learn and improve.

Proliferation: maintaining accountability for 15,000 reactor sites worldwide would be nearly impossible 

Provide evidence... Substantiation? Citation? Any idea how hard it is to get weapons grade isotopes from commercial nuclear reactors? Do you have a processing plant ready to extract and refine the required isotopes? What about MSR's? What about regulations? What about building a substantial  network of observers? Mind you, this is creating an entire new workforce, a meaningful and enjoyable technological job that would employ tens of thousands world-wide.

Do you see how trivially easy it is to refute these arguments?

Uranium abundance: The viable uranium supply will last for less than 5 years.

Considering a 3% burn efficiency, yes. Considering a breeder cycle? no... We have enough spent fuel to last for seven decades (if we would power the entire globe with it...). Add thorium reserves and it will span into thousands of years. We don't even have to extract Uranium from sea-water. What a preposterous idea.

Exotic metals

Another chance to deflect / bounce. And PV and Wind do not use exotic metals? What about Gallium, Indium, Tellurium, Cadmium, Titanium (for the beloved Perovskite) Silver... And yes a kilo of copper per panel... per 300 watt of capacity... Neodymium is in high demand as well, and it severely limits wind energy growth. I would be immensely surprised if Wind would manage to add more than 500 TWh of capacity each year, and also would be very keen to see where cumulative upkeep curbs the growth of wind power. Also consider doping chemicals and their respective final destinations... these are the new coal-ash ponds...

Another ridiculous statement that reaches across the board while failing to see one's own shortcomings.

 Finally "Washington" rambles on about subsidies, cancer, reactor facilities that are falling apart, japan, fukushima, bribe-money and whatnot. As if these arguments bear any weight around, and are irrefutable. "Washington" you are wrong, and I think you have lost your marbles.

Why the future for Nuclear Energy shines very bright

First of all : It's science... It is irrefutable and incontrovertible that freeing the energy encapsulated within the nucleus of the atom is the highest energy density possible. This happens in both Nuclear Fusion and Nuclear Fission. There is no question, as far as we have unravelled the natural world around us, this is as good as it gets. The big pay off from using nuclear energy is that contrasted with low-energy-density forms of energy you need far less materials to create the device that captures the energy and transforms it into electricity.

I am not strictly against generation II or generation III reactors, I think that the current fleet of nuclear reactors are a great force for good. In fact, since they have offset many billions of tons of fossil fuels, they have saved the lives of countless of beings on Earth. Also consider the impeccable service and safety record, with only a handful notable accidents, without any major impacts on human health. The only problems that loom overhead are the questions about proliferation, waste and economics. All of these are solvable, and solutions loom on the horizon.

And these solutions are real and nigh tangible, the designs are there, the science is solid, the proof concept has been there for decades. Therefore it I safe to assert that nuclear energy is set to grow, rather than shrink.

I am talking first and foremost about the MSR, the Molten Salt Reactor. In short MSR's are a vast improvement over conventional solid fuel reactors in terms of fuel efficiency, passive safety measures, inherent safety, costs, deployment speed, proliferation resistance and feedstock.`

First contender is Thorcon Power

Thorcon basically wants to build a natural iteration of the original MSRE that ran successfully in the 60's. The proposition is such that they envision a ship-building yard that builds reactor units and ancillary machinery. Through this process they will be able to produce a reactor every three days. All the elements of these reactors can be shipped and transported through regular road-traffic.

The photo on the right is a shot of the Hyundai shipyard in Ulsan, Korea. This single yard can turn 3 million tons of steel plate into over 100 large and complex ships in a year. On average, these ships require about the same amount of steel as a 1 GWe ThorCon. The ThorCon structure is far simpler and much more repetitive. In short, a single ThorCon yard the size of Hyundai minus the massive building docks could turn out one hundred 1 GW ThorCons annually.

One of the knocks against nuclear is the plants cannot be deployed in time to make any real dent in coal nor CO2 emissions. For ThorCon, this is not the case. The combination of lower resource requirements and shipyard productivity means that ThorCons can be deployed more rapidly than coal plants. It’s simply a matter of our deciding to take advantage of this capability.

The MSR does not need a large containment building, since the reactor is a containment vessel itself. Also it built into a concrete pit. The nature of the fuel is such that once it manages to leak somewhere it cools down and basically becomes inert, it solidifies and doesn't do anything. Thus meltdowns are impossible. We could call it a cool-down?

As you can see from the diagram, the Thorcon design is incredibly simple, yet robust. It is orders of magnitude simpler than contemporary nuclear reactors. Also this design is incredibly cheap to build and maintain.

A second serious contender is Terrestrial Energy

 

Terrestrial also proposes a modular reactor design I.E. reactors that can easily be swapped with new ones, while the "old reactor" rests in a special repository next to the existing reactor. It does so effortlessly. These designs are so simple and robust, and uniform that these will be built at a fraction of the time of contemporary designs. And I would also like to remind you about the fact that these are natural iterations of technology that already existed decades ago.

Terrestrial has an excellent explanation about it's own waste :

Fission products waste are the true waste of nuclear fission as CO2 is to fossil fuel combustion. On the one hand this waste is extremely radioactive, while on the other hand, the radiotoxicity of this waste decays quickly, to insignificant levels after hundreds of years. Safe sequestration over a three-century time-frame does not present a technological or social challenge. With liquid fuel processing, fission products can be separated and safely stored. While solid fuel reactor waste from Conventional Nuclear reactors can be partially recycled into new fuel for Conventional Nuclear reactors, it is a partial, highly complex and commercially tenuous process. 

Here you can see the buzzwords for anti-nukes : "See! There's waste and it remains such for hundreds of years." The true question is this : what is its volume? How much of it is fission products, how much of it is "spent fuel" / Uranium, how much of it is (scary) Plutonium? One thing is certain, it is not a lot. Decades of nuclear energy have produced a quarter million tons of "nuclear waste" (stuff that still can be used). That is absolutely nothing on the world-scale. Coal waste alone is more than a million times more each year... That's what you get when you talk nuclear : millions and billions from near nothing, the power of the strong force...

What about this waste?

Enter a great solution... The Waste Annihilating Molten Salt Reactor envisioned by Transatomic Power

Transatomic Power is looking for highly motivated engineers who want to use nuclear power and their scientific ingenuity to help save the world.  

As you can see, young millennials are looking to save the world using nuclear power.

Transatomic Power’s overarching goal is to raise global standards of living by bringing the world clean, low-cost electricity. We believe that nuclear power is the clear way to achieve this goal. Transatomic’s advanced molten salt reactors dramatically reduce the cost of nuclear power with a streamlined, passively safe, and proliferation-resistant design. Our reactors have the flexibility to consume both the used nuclear fuel generated by commercial light water reactors and low-enriched freshly mined uranium.

These statements alone should give one pause, what are we trying to do by ushering in this nuclear renaissance? We are trying to save the world...

Transatomic power has designed a reactor that can run on "spent fuel". They estimate that there's enough spent fuel in the world to generate enough power to sustain a growing world population for at least seven decades. Consider this, and also acknowledge that Uranium in a breeder-cycle will last much longer than the aforementioned 5 years, and consider the fact that we have enough thorium reserves to last for thousands of years. In the meanwhile we will have cracked the code of getting these resources elsewhere in this solar system, and we would have probably reached practical ways of using nuclear fusion by then. We look much farther ahead than any renewable advocate would dare do...

We also may consider the successful test of the PBR in China, the push of Bill Gates's Terrapower and can only conclude that the fight against nuclear energy not only is lost, but also is being fought on false premises... Your arguments are old and irrelevant.


The people that write about nuclear energy as if it is ripe with unsolvable issues live in a bubble. They either live in a world of confirmation bias, or are unable to acknowledge what is going on in the industry.

Ignoring "new" developments is the nail in the coffin for people like Jacobson and "Washington" it shows that they cannot get out of their own confirmatory bubble. This is a massive discredit to their arguments and as such deserve push back from marauders like me.

Not only is it immoral to stop nuclear energy, it is even detestable to ignore the possibilities of innovation and improvement, especially if these address exactly the issues you are concerned about. If you are one, consider yourself a hypocrite.

Nuclear energy IS the answer...

So let's grow up, stop this childish all-or-nothing nonsense. You aren't going to save the Earth using Renewables/WWS, Nuclear will become one of the sturdy pillars upon which we will build a new and prosperous and sustainable future.

 

The Baloney Detection Kit used on 100% WWS schemes

I have always been fascinated by science, it gives us the opportunity to shed some light on the questions nature imposes on us. By nature we mean the whole spectrum of Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics, Geology, Biology, Cosmology, and so forth.

One of the videos anyone interested in science needs to see is the one about "Baloney Detection Kit" by Michael Shermer.

Essential is the acknowledgement that if any one of these tens points gets assessed in a negative way about the claimant, we can basically call it baloney. And it doesn't matter if the claimant is a regular bloke off the street, or a Nobel Laureate. Academic pedigree, or acclaim does not matter. If there is a truth claim, you can use the baloney detection kit.

What about the 100% WWS schemes that are being presented such as the "solutionsproject" by Mark Z. Jacobson et.al.

Note that the 100%WWS scheme not only tries to prove the feasibility of the 100%WWS future, it also tries to prove that there is a necessity to stop all nuclear energy activities.

1. How reliable is the source of the claim?

The first strike : All the evidence presented concerning nuclear energy, slant to one direction. Jacobson only provides negative evidence, he doesn't acknowledge the positive evidence that has been provided by decades of operation, and therefore negates the argument that nuclear has no role to play in a non-carbon-emitting energy landscape. Each time Jacobson is pressed on this issue, he falls back on the strategy of rhetoric and solely relies on negative issues.

He does this in order to reinforce the necessity of a rampant growth model for WWS (a new name for Renewable Energy).

Secondly he doesn't look at resource limitations, and doesn't acknowledge what needs to be done in order to ramp up production figures.

Suppose we would make a matrix showing positive arguments versus negative arguments.

My arguments in favour of Nuclear Energy

• High energy density
• Low material requirements 
• Low [high value] waste production
• provides base load
• Ensures isotopic production for space exploration
• Ensures isotopic production for medicine
• Boon for chemists
• Good safety record
• Well regulated
• Long Lifespan
• Great step forward in terms of energy addition per new unit

My arguments against Nuclear Energy

• Proliferation risk
• Non-transparent costs
• Delays in construction due to regulations
• What if - angst for catastrophic events
• Requires Uranium and/or Thorium mining
• High security requirements

Do you see what I do here? I don't cherry pick arguments, I present both positive and negative arguments regarding nuclear energy. Also acknowledge that the arguments against nuclear energy are all fixable. However - Jacobson's argumentation looks like this :

Jacobson's Arguments against Nuclear Energy

• Proliferation risk
• Non-transparent costs
• Delays in construction due to regulations
• Requires a grid
• What if - angst for catastrophic events
• Fear of radiation
• Requires Uranium and/or Thorium mining
• High security requirements
• Loss of land due to waste storage
• Long lived waste products

If we take each bullet and give it one point and put in a matrix our respective matrices would look like this :

Which one of these is more honest? The one that weighs positives and negatives, or the one that only shows negatives? What do we learn from this? Not only is Jacobson NOT trying to prove himself wrong, he's also trying to discredit other technologies by just providing negative arguments, and this strengthens his position, his argument, but does so on false premises. This is a fundamental treachery to his academic credibility.

Note that these are arbitrary, there are many more arguments to make regarding these technologies.

Also note that evidence in this respect is rather subjective, especially in matters where the jury is still out, and no certainty can be claimed and furthermore fear is a factor, which is an appeal to credulity and irrationality.

2.Does the source make similar claims?

I question whether Jacobson is susceptible to positive claims / evidence in favour of nuclear energy, because it flies in the face of what he has been telling everyone for so long. In fact he is one of those people who tries to pit the public influence against nuclear technology. This is called the sunk-cost fallacy. And it shows because he tries to present his own hypothesis based on overly optimistic possibility biases, while he does the reverse for nuclear energy, he makes them diametrically opposed to each-other. While it is not necessarily so, we need both technology on the peak of their ability, but at some point WWS/RE needs to be tuned down because when its cumulative requirements kick in, we're in for sunk-costs ourselves.

What if the MSR revival get's into the practical testing stage and proves that nuclear energy can be done for the same or lesser price than renewables, is almost completely proliferation resistant, meltdown proof, walk-away safe, works at atmospheric pressure rather than High-pressure, would he then change his mind?

I am sceptical about Jacobson and his motives, and wonder if he would change his mind if ITER or the Wendelstein 7-X would prove technically viable. Or what would happen if MSRs proved their worth.

3. Have the claims been verified by somebody else?

The feasibility study has been reviewed by peers, so the answer to this question is : Yes.
The question is who has done the review? To what extend have they tried to disprove the 100% WWS Hypothesis, AND disprove the part of this hypothesis in which nuclear energy gets addressed. What if the claims made about nuclear energy are not substantiated well enough, what does this do to this feasibility study? Does it then take away grounds for this study in the first place? What about vital omissions such as cumulative upkeep and replacements?

I question validity of this peer review and base my stance of the numerous facts that have been omitted.

Secondly also note that peer-review by no means is perfect as can be read here :

Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals which has been published in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine.

Since Jacobson grounds his articles in subjects that are heavily influenced by biases, I question the validity of his findings.

Also consider the findings of this article :

"and up to one third admitted a variety of other questionable research practices including “dropping data points based on a gut feeling”, and “changing the design, methodology or results of a study in response to pressures from a funding source"

There are many academics that like to point out that Jacobson's studies are suspect because of questionable sources of funding and double agenda's. I'm not inclined to dismiss nor to accept these off hand, but they give one pause. Especially when confronted with a very defensive and dismissive Jacobson.

4. Does this fit with the way the world works?

The answer is no, Jacobson blatantly disregards resource limitations, even though he has done a study on resources, it's fallacious, just as this one is. In order to reach his goals current [world] production levels of wind and solar have to be increased by at least fifteen times. This requires equal increases in mining, transportation, purification processes. Not to mention the amount of denudation required to get these resources, IF we can get them, which is highly questionable.

Also consider the fact that he wants to shut down the entire nuclear industry. This means that we will shut down all flux-reactors required to create medical isotopes, research isotopes, isotopes required for space exploration, etc. Has Jacobson ever been to the radiology department in a hospital? Has he ever had a dental X-ray? No... It's time he get's educated on the ancillary benefits of the nuclear industry, which are certainly not negligible.

Our activities and effects on the planet have forced us to show our hand. How will we solve the most dire threats of ocean acidification and increased fresh water demand?

The reality is that we cannot discount any non-carbon-emitting energy source. We will see an increase in energy demand because of a growing world population. We will need more energy than ever to capture carbon and sequester it in Basalt, and we will need more energy than ever to build a sustainable water network that brings water to drought stricken areas, that helps with recharging aquifers and defends against the effects of desertification.

ERGO

The slow and gradual and eventually stagnating pace of the 100% WWS scheme proposed by Mark Z Jacobson will not satiate the growing demand of energy.

To make matters worse, Jacobson fully omits cumulative upkeep and replacement requirements for Wind and Solar which range between ten and twenty-five years, which will require annual additions to grow exponentially, and eventually make sure that the growth curve bends downwards again. Also consider that even though many renewable proponents claim that renewable energy is "growing fast" on the larger scheme of things this is absolutely meaningless. Renewables (without maxed out hydro) is less than a percent of the total energy consumption in the world thus totally negating the proportional "large push" of renewable energy sources. 50% of 1% is still 0.5%. Even it would grow by 100% in the first few years, it wouldn't amount to much. In fact a growth ratio of 1500% is required, which makes the task at hand a rather steep one - and, dare I say it, insurmountable.

Also consider the fact that each 100% WWS / RE scenario depends on an increase in the size of grids, an increase of the complexity of grids, and a vast array of energy storage devices, which compounds the problem even more.

5. Has anyone tried to disprove the claim?

Countless people have disproven his claim. The fact that James Hansen claims that is not possible to save the world, using only renewables/WWS is a testament to the fact that Jacobson's findings are invalid. Also note that when confronted with claims such as "Nuclear energy is also required to fight anthropogenic carbon emissions", he and his colleagues resort to name-calling and attempt at character assassination.

Let's consider this article regarding the 100% WWS / RE claim :

http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/busting-the-100-percent-renewable-myth/

Also take note of some simple calculations done on this blog :

My response to Jacobson's dismissal and a brief look on his 100% WWS article
Are renewables capable of defeating fossil fuels?
Response to Bill Nye's 100% RE claim

There are many others like it...

6. Where does the preponderance of evidence point?

The first acknowledgement we need to make here is that he doesn't set out to disprove the 100%WWS. He is looking if it CAN be done. And as such he sets out to prove the 100% WWS hypothesis, without looking at true limitations. Current production rates of wind-turbines support the view that it is hard to increase production significantly, at least not by the rates required to be meaningful and confirmatory of Jacobson's claims. Again he presents a too-optimistic scenario that slants away from what is really happening and possible.

7. Is the claimant playing by the rules of science?

The funny thing is that I wanted a 100% WSS world to become a reality, which meant that I went out to figure out if this was possible. Basically I wanted to do the same as Jacobson has done. Ask yourself this question : how is it possible that Jacobson thinks it is feasible, and this guy doesn't. In fact after I did the legwork in order to be able to derive some conclusions I changed my mind. Jacobson doesn't, and that's unscientific. In fact he attacks nuclear energy almost dogmatically, totally disregarding ANY positive arguments in favour of the nuclear industry. He has all the hallmarks of a demagogue, a man that has rigid beliefs and is inflexible once invested and doesn't accept criticism.

8. Is the claimant providing positive evidence?

On first glance it looks like he is providing positive evidence for his claims, yet upon further investigation his claims are too optimistic, as proven in the aforementioned articles. I suspect that Jacobson therefore needs to present a laden subject like Nuclear Energy to fix the bias of the person reading his article.

9. Does the new theory account for as many phenomena as the old theory?

There is no previous 100% WWS hypothesis, we're now talking about a 100%WWS / 0% Nuclear dichotomy, which is now being fuelled by the question about Jacobson's credibility as an academic.

10. Are personal beliefs driving the claim?

First question : Why does Jacobson try to do a feasibility study on 100% WWS scenarios? Subsequently, why does he need to demonize nuclear energy in order to push his 100% WWS scenario? What sticks behind it? If he is a true academic he wouldn't be as adamant to go into extremes : the 100%WWS/0%Nuclear dichotomy.

Also ask this question : Why is nuclear even mentioned in his feasibility study?

Because if this is a feasibility study to prove the possibility of a 100% WSS future, why is it necessary to say that nuclear energy is not a credible option? Here's why : Jacobson has to wipe all other sources of energy from the table, even the well regulated, safe and robust nuclear industry that provides a sturdy 3.500 / 4.000 TWh per year and has new reactors being build every year.


I'll re-iterate this ad nauseam if need be :

1. Ocean Acidification
2. Arctic Methane release
3. Growing water troubles

These three issues will drive energy demand upward, apart from the already exploding population. The 100%WWS scheme does not foresee these three major impacts we have precipitated on the Earth. Without acknowledging these, Jacobson discredits himself even further.

Also consider this fact : Renewable Energy looks good, it is the feel-good technology that kindles hope in the hearts of those who are afraid of the effects of Anthropogenic Climate Change. And as such nuclear energy easily can be brushed aside. There are a plethora of 100% WWS / RE schemes out there, since it caters to the feelings of people. Nuclear on the other side only spells doom and gloom in the mind of many, but the question is this : Would we rather not build the most effective technologies to fight anthropogenic climate change, before it is too late? Or are we going to rely on what-if-scenario's that depend on very optimistic models, while discarding an entire non-carbon-emitting industry that can power a significant (note significant, not 100%) portion of our civilization?



 This is the final nail in the coffin. Consider James Hansen for instance : James Hansen has always tried to explain what is happening to our planet and which processes are having adverse effects. He was one of the first to do it. Now he steps up to annunciate that nuclear has to be part of the solution, people like Jacobson, Romm, Oreskes and many more jump onto the barricades to call foul. The question is : What drives this [nigh pavlovian] response? Isn't it obvious?


Since there are multiple question marks I will call Jacobson's 100% WSS scheme : BALONEY

Another questionable article by a highly acclaimed expert in Climate Change : Joe Romm

ClimateProgress has an excellent writer, and his name is Joe Romm, another highly acclaimed person, set out to prove Hansen wrong and to make sure that nuclear energy get's another unsubstantiated hit, whilst trying to sprinkle fairy dust over renewable energy.

Let's have a look at this highly estimable influencer of people.

Look at that! A PHD in physics from MIT. I presume that he is able to do some simple calculations. As always I'll start off by adding this little caveat, he has actual experience in Academia, I have none, all I will bring to the table is my limited brain capacity, some common sense and high-school understanding of mathematics, physics and chemistry.

What does Joe have to tell us?

"Why James Hansen is wrong about Nuclear Power"

Exciting! This is an interesting title, let's find out what James Hansen has to say about nuclear power?

""Climatologist James Hansen argued last month, “Nuclear power paves the only viable path forward on climate change.” He is wrong."

"They ignore the core issues: The nuclear power industry has essentially priced itself out of the market for new power plants because of its 1) negative learning curve and 2) inability to avoid massive delays and cost overruns in market economies."

The significant difference between you - Joe - and James Hansen, is that he actually cares about solving this issue and knows that it is TECHNOLOGICALLY feasible to do it using nuclear energy AND Renewable energy sources, but that each technology needs to be implemented in the smartest possible way. James Hansen understands the limitations of either technology, and since this is a technological challenge, his stance is in this is warranted. Joe, however, is going to question this technological feasibility by introducing questions about the economics of nuclear energy and the delays within nuclear energy, which are mostly caused by regulatory hurdles.

What do economics and regulations have to do with technological feasibility? Nothing.

Basically I have already refuted the entire article already, Joe is trying to build an elaborate non-sequitur to discredit James Hansen's suggestion that 115 NPP's might be required to supplant the fossil fuelled electricity generation.

Also note that this argument :

" renewable power, electricity storage, and energy efficiency — have seen steady, stunning price drops for a long time."

Is proposing solutions based on the wrong metrics, price drops are meaningless if you do not have the materials to do it. Furthermore the "energy efficiency" myth will be blown out of the water sooner rather than later. But hey, it's a nice buzzword to use, right?

Does Joe understand the necessity of decarbonization?

We do not have a minute to spare, which means that we cannot discount ANY non-GHG-emitting energy generator / capture-device. Even I accept that we should be building renewables, albeit for different reasons, and with different contexts.

Where it is true that the warming the planet has to be mitigated and as such we need to stop adding potent heat trapping gasses to the atmosphere, there is one even more dire possible outcome of our emissions and this is set to happen before 2050 : Ocean Acidification and the extinction of vital oceanic organisms that can cascade upward in the food chain, eventually hitting humanity, quite soon I might add.

I am one of those people who doesn't herald the COP21 accord as a victory over Anthropogenic Climate Change. In fact, I think the COP21 accord is yet another postponement of critical measures required to mitigate the immediate threat of Ocean Acidification, Sea Level Rise, Crop Failures, Diminishing Water Supplies and other dire effects of our activities.

So what are we doing here? Jacobson for instance loves to bash nuclear while peddling a 100% WWS dream with cherry picked facts and ignoring vital effects of our current 400PPM transgression. Oreskes follows in his wake by trying to play a nice weather woman and citing Jacobson. And now this clown has risen to the challenge.

I am inclined to start building a list of number-obfuscators, cherry pickers, climate-change populists (People who love to stand on stage, and that enjoy the attention their "cosy good news show" gives them).

I am not saying that Climate Change isn't real, but it seems to have given rise to a new sort of people that like to push an agenda while ignoring critical facts that should force them to alter their stance, particularly because they are academics. As soon as people start peddling nonsense in order to influence the public opinion against valid solutions offered against the most dire threat in our existence, I will step up to the plate... It is time this nonsense stops.

Here's the cardinal question I'm going to submit to you, Joe :

Do we want to step into the ring against a formidable prize fighter, knowing we're at full strength, or are we going to accept that we've crippled ourselves before we entered the fight - of life and death?

Here's my counter argument :

Since you are willing to cripple our ability to fight Greenhouse emissions and the effects of Anthropogenic Climate Change, I think you are an immoral human being and do not fully grasp the seriousness of the situation we're in.

"Why Joe Romm is wrong about Nuclear Power"

consider this graph shared by Joe :

First of all note the long lull in nuclear development, which basically runs from 1987 until 2004 after which shows a clear sign of revival, also note that Fukushima caused another drop, but soon after the nuclear industry started ramping up again.

That lull of 17 years had nothing to do with natural constraints imposed on nuclear energy. The only constraints that exist are these : Public acceptance (based on irrational fear) and economics. And you can clearly see it, because the causes are shown...

If economics are going to dictate what we do in order to ensure that the biosphere (of which we are a part, and depend on) doesn't get destroyed, we're going to lose. It is as simple as that. And there lies the true issue we need to resolve. Are we willing to let economics dictate the efficiency by which we tackle Anthropogenic Climate Change, or are we going to use science, reason and our technological fortitude to do it?

This is what the same graph looks like if you plot the averages and the baseline average.

This graph tells us that we can reasonably expect an addition of at least 14 NPP's per year, furthermore we have no reason to suspect that this technology is limited at least below the 42 NPP's per year. I therefore dare to assume to a reasonable degree of certainty that James Hansen's target of 115NPP's is not unreachable. The constraints are not by any means insurmountable.

Also note that these are not standardized concepts or designs. Many nuclear power plants in operation today had different design specifications, and it took the industry a long time to standardize designs.

Now we do have standardized designs and there are developments that ensure ship- / plane-building style construction plants for Small Modular Reactors and Molten Salt Reactors. This last technology has been proven to work in the 1960's during the Molten Salt Reactor Experiment. Currently there are four notable start-ups working on designing new MSR's. Also consider the fact that TU-Delft (a highly esteemed technical University in the Netherlands) is now also working on MSR Technology. Your own Alma Mater (MIT) has dedicated time and money to MSR technology and is the origin of one of the most promising start-ups (Transatomic Power) in MSR technology. The MSR movement is growing, the interest is growing, there are credible designs, there is investment money.

Also consider this graph which is a projection by the IEA and NEA based on a What-if scenario :

What conclusion can we derive from this chart? It shows us that we would NEED to grow from approximately 400 GW in 2012 to ~900GW of nameplate capacity in 2050, in order to keep track of the 2 degrees scenario. That's adding roughly 500 GW in 40 years, 12.5 GW each year. That's roughly ten AP1000 reactors. Hardly exiting. That's 105 short of Hansen's figure. But it is also four units below the baseline average, and 32 below the first production spike of 1976.

This is not taking into account the efforts and potentiality of the start-ups.

This gives me confidence, that nuclear energy will remain growing up until the 6600 TWh by the 2050's

Note the positive correlation between share of capacity installed and share of electricity generated.
Also note that it shows a negative curve for Europe and a positive curves for India and China.

Let's extrapolate these figures though, because context matters, as you know I always translate into annual generation figures. Let's do this for the following metrics :

Wind : Annual addition 50GW / Capacity Factor 30
Solar : Annual addition 50 GW / Capacity Factor 20
Nuclear : Annual addition 12,5 GW / Capacity Factor 90

These graphs are not stacked on top of one and other, they are placed in front of each other in order to compare the possible, yet linear, growth lines.

As you can see, even with a significant lesser number in annual added capacity, Nuclear remains ahead of the technologies until at least 2030. By then it is reasonable to suspect that Generation IV MSR's have been thoroughly tested and become commercially available.

Mark Z Jacobson suggests that we can run the world on 110.000 TWh of electricity generation.  (Omitting cumulative upkeep & replacements, emerging economies, growing population, increased water troubles and the need for carbon capture and sequestration). Let's put some additional context in this picture :

Note the discrepancy between the growth required and the additions of nuclear, wind and solar...
If the EIA is correct in it's predictions, 110.000 TWh will not cut it, at all. Which basically means that a call for increased nuclear development is warranted, since given the current scenarios we will still have massive emissions.

Current electricity consumption is around 20.000 TWh, so IF we could keep current projected growth rates, we might be able to nearly reach that mark, however all technologies are faced with replacement requirements as well. Where NPP's have a lifespan of 60 years, wind turbines and solar panels have a functional lifespan of 15 to 25 years.

Note that current growth rates are completely and utterly unable to achieve the task that Jacobson requires of his technologies. Also note that for this to happen some fairy dust needs to be sprinkled on renewable energies, making them grow exponentially. The sad thing is that there's always a limit to exponential growth, especially when placed in the domain of the real world, and not in nebulous issues like money & economics.

By this token WWS / RE is required to grow by 3.100 TWh annually. Omitting cumulative upkeep & replacements which start to occur at the 15 year mark and will grow exponentially from thereon. The current growth-rate of Renewable energy is about 220 TWh, which Is about 2.900 TWh short of Jacobson's own requirement.

Also note that it is unrealistic to presume that energy demand is going to drop, simply consider this graph from the IAEA : Link to original 

The implications of this concrete expectation is that we cannot discount any technology, regardless of the problems it faces. Especially if those problems are non-technical hurdles. There are no insurmountable technological difficulties in the Nuclear Energy Industry. So why the adamant push against it?

Projections of BP, the EIA and other organizations support the growing and not declining energy demand forecasts. They expect the energy consumption to grow to 240.000 TWh by the 2050's. Obviously converting from thermal energy to electricity provides some efficiency, it is not always as efficient, so it is safe to bet that we'll still be needing more energy than we currently consume. Even if we would introduce BEV's, Solar Heat, Electrical cooking, etc. etc.

Joe then wants to ridicule Sweden's and France's progress and dismiss it as meaningless. Here Joe again assumes something without backing it up.

"” the IEA and NEA explain what level of capacity additions would be required in the 2 degrees Celsius scenario: “In order for nuclear to reach its deployment targets under the 2D scenario, annual connection rates should increase from 5 GW in 2014 to well over 20 GW during the coming decade.” That means returning to a nuclear build rate previously achieved for only one decade — 20 gigawatts per year during the 1980s."

20 Gigawatts of annual nuclear additions equal 158 TWh of annual additions, which basically equals 50 Gigawatts of annual wind additions (which we currently have). So what's your point, Joe?

"The IEA and NEA themselves note that “such rapid growth will only be possible” if several actions take place including vendors demonstrating “the ability to build on time and to budget, and to reduce the costs of new designs.” Also, both governments and the industry need to maintain and improve safety. If such advances do occur, then new nuclear plants could provide a moderate amount of the needed new carbon-free power for the 2°C scenario."

Do you suppose that the nuclear energy industry has been standing still, do you presume that they won't get over these issues? But Joe takes it one step further :

"Seriously. Apparently they don’t think it relevant to let you know that Sweden has precisely … wait for it … 10 operational nuclear reactors! Yes, the fact that Sweden connected 10 reactors to the grid over a period of 15 years is somehow evidence the world could build “115 reactors per year to 2050.”`

Have you any idea how stupid this remark is? Sweden has about 10 million inhabitants, which means that it builds 1 reactor per million inhabitants per 15 years. We're not done yet though, Joe ramps up his stupidity and also takes France into account, thank you for that...

And what about the nation best known for its reliance on nuclear power? According to the online database of the International Atomic Energy Agency, France has 58 operational reactors, which took the country more than two decades to connect to the grid! That would be a rate of under three per year.

France has 66 million inhabitants (back then there were less French, but hey, 66 million get's the message across, right?), it has 58 reactors which means that there are 0.9 million French per Reactor, given a period of 20 years they build 1 reactor per 1.1 million inhabitants per 2.9 years.

Suppose this build rate (the French one) could be achieved globally?

We would be building 6.634 reactors in 2.9 years, that would be about 2.200 reactors per year. Now sure build-speeds will vary all over the globe, but suppose that each country in the world will start building one reactor each three years from now until 2050, we would have electricity to spare. China and India start building dozens, though, so they offset the micro-countries that do not need NPP's, but would be perfectly content with some wind turbines and solar panels and some batteries.

The build-rate per capita, per unit, per year is the metric you should focus upon. Just that two countries have done it, and done it according to their standards, within a meaningful time, doesn't mean that that's the maximum build-rate of the world. Nor is it a fact to ridicule, if it did anything, it was exposing your own blatant narrow-minded vision.

What if Scotland wanted to fully decarbonize using Nuclear Power? According to this article it would require FOUR AP1000 reactors, and they would have electricity to spare... And that for a country with 5.5 million inhabitants.

Do you now recognize the stupidity of your argument, Joe?

The limitations set on RE are in the use of rare-earth materials, that have not been stockpiled, and of which production rates are constantly under pressure, whereas nuclear energy can easily continue functioning based on the amount of spent-fuel alone.

Did Mark Z Jacobson consider the cumulative upkeep and replacements for wind for instance? What would he have to say about the grey areas of these graphs provided by Actinideage ?

As we all know, Wind Turbines have a limited lifespan, it's generally between 15 and 20 years. Some people claim that they can run for 25 to 30 years but this is rather risky. Metal Fatigue, increased maintenance etc. render the functional lifespans of these energy capturing devices rather short. The same applies to Solar Panels, the problem with Photo voltaic panels is chemistry. PV panels degrade and there's no stopping it. Which means that they also need to be replaced within a fairly limited timeframe.

And these are not the only issues with WWS / RE, but I think we've reached the end of this already long and exhaustive article.

Conclusion

It is still not a matter of choosing winners and losers, it is now a matter of ramping up production capacity to such an extend that we can A. supplant Coal, Gas and Oil and B. that we have enough to increase prosperity, increase fresh water availability and perhaps even most importantly : start with Carbon Capture and permanent sequestration in Basalt.

In the long run it will be nuclear power that will come out on top and become the dominant energy source on Earth. It is not that hard to see happening. All the possible potential is there, it outstrips any form of renewable energy by light years... Even though we are currently using - touted as dangerous - Generation II reactors to create energy, we may only conclude that the track record of this industry has been excellent. There is no evidence to suggest that Chernobyl (an archaic and illegal design) and or Fukushima will have any long term lasting effects. In fact consider the wild-life refuge the Pripyat Area has become, consider for instance one of the largest herds of rare wild horses that roam there, or the countless of wild boars, wolves, owls and other wild-life that show no harm from the increased radiation levels at some point.

Even though the AP1000 design has been plagued by some delays, we may expect that once the last issues have been ironed out, the build time and costs of this design will drop, and the time it will take to construct these will drop. Why? Because it is inherent in it's standardized design and production scheme.

Also note that the nuclear industry is not stagnant, research and development - like in the RE industry - is ongoing. The revival of the MSR, the introduction of the PBR and many other designs will ensure that the curve on nuclear additions will rise. Why? Because these designs all cater to the notion that nuclear power plants have to become 1. Cheaper 2. Safer 3. More efficient 4. Proliferation resistant 5. easier to operate.


Do you, Joe, really think that the nuclear industry is blind? Or ignorant? It surely seems so, and there are some other RE acolytes out there that have the same naïve and simplistic way of thinking. The only you thing you people are doing is seeking out the most pernicious facts and try to demonize a technology that has the potential to keep us out of trouble.

Again I'll reiterate my list of upcoming and new champions for the Nuclear Renaissance :

Thorcon power
Flibe Energy
Terrestrial Energy
Transatomic Power

And Bill Gates's

Terrapower

The main thing we need to keep in mind is that wind and solar respectively require 22 to 36 times more materials to get build than contemporary Gen II reactors. And I am quite honest, if there are countries that want to build Gen II, they may pick the safest and most successful design and start building. But I am quite confident that aforementioned companies will revolutionize the Nuclear Industry within the coming decade. Don't worry, in the meanwhile at least four or five dozen reactors will have been built. But when Thorcon or Terrestrial hits the market, we'll be building them like airplanes...

The most specious argument of all is the feasibility argument, the argument that by reducing costs for RE, it will be possible to save the planet by mass implementation. This argument forgoes all the requirements that need to be met beforehand. Those are not negligible, those are true and set in stone. We're talking about resource limitations, manufacturing limitations, cumulative upkeep & replacements, recycling requirements, transportation requirements, required denudation of pristine lands, etc. etc. If we weigh these metrics, we firstly conclude that there are set limitations against RE in general and also see that the growth curve will be too limited. This strengthens James Hansen's case for 115 NPP's added annually, or at least the target thereof. Even if we only build 20 or 30 or 40 each year, it will mitigate our GHG emissions considerably. Note that the material investments of solar and wind dwarf those of nuclear (Generation II reactors).

Because Jacobsen, Oreskes, and now Romm try to push the 100% WWS scheme, I will deem it justified to strip them of their titles and ranks and no longer consider them academics. Why? Because they are people who omit vital facts that render their fantasy not only dangerous but - in the end - also catastrophic.


"Hero of the environment"? MY ASS!!!!

Not only are Joe and his ilk misinforming the general public, I submit to you that they are endangering our existence by discarding one of the most potent forces in the fight against anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide and other elements that are hazardous.