Fukushima disaster has convinced him to support nuclear power- George Monbiot

[jamma246]

This was exactly my reaction (I was in favour of nuclear power before anyway).

I couldn't understand Germany's reaction to this, who I usually consider to be a relatively rational country.

[DogCognition]

Monbiot fails to understand energy. The most advanced countries show us where the best rewards are - free energy that will last forever.

[telemetry9]

looks like george has had a couple of coffee mornings with the atomic energy commission.

George - you're either stupid and ignorant or deceitful and dishonest.

I lived near Hunterston Nuclear power station outside Glasgow. I KNOW the reality. So many in the area have died from cancer or suffer from auto immune disorders. Young mothers' dying early and leaving their children behind. That's the REALITY of nuclear "energy".

They hid "leaks" into the river clyde - where we played as kids.

[sailingsolar]

George Monbiot is an idiot. Only when there is meltdown in the US will people see that the risk was not worth it. Anyone here want to buy ocean side farmland in Japan?

[3314adam]

The headlines disappeared again. Maybe a bug in the user interface update. I can see them when signed in. But not as non-signed in user.

[3314adam]

How does a list of some of todays headlines for the Fukushima incident get flagged as spam? I didn't make these up. These are real headlines.

[3314adam]

Im sorry, the outcome of Fukushima was controlled? Its over?

[3314adam]

But if we invest in nuclear, then we entrench ourselves even further. Is it really more unrealistic to work into renewables then to roll the dice with nuclear? Natural disasters are bad enough when they happen, but needing to deal with a nuclear disaster simultaneously is going to seem stupid in hindsight. I just don’t understand the either its coal or nuclear point. Choosing between two bad alternatives does not seem as good as reducing our societies power consumption and using renewables.

[suction]

@3314adam It is no rolling the dice. There were multiple meltdowns in Fukushima, and look at the outcome - this technology is controllable, even in the worst case scenario of multiple meltdowns.

Before Fukushima, it was a widely accepted fact that if a meltdown happens, it's "game over" and nothing can be done. Now we have witnessed a situation were multiple meltdowns happened, and very mild contamination as the outcome. Old reactors should be shut down, and replaced with more modern ones.

[52111centrumcz]

@3314adam

So far renewables have an EROEI of less than one except biofuels, which on the other hand have a devastating ecological impact than napalm firebombing the area, especially if they use seed rape (canola) to grow biodiesel. Get back on the world stage with that once the EROEI and ecological impacts are less than the coal power generation cycle.

[3314adam]

@52111centrumcz EROEI is not the entire picture, because the energy required to produce a new technology can be massively inefficient. Biofuels have many issues, the most important being world hunger. Nuclear is still in the experimental stages, and not refined enough yet. Solar, geothermal, wind, and hydro renewable energy systems all seem good electrical outputs that will be safe to use.

[52111centrumcz]

@3314adam

Nuclear is not experimental - it is held by issues of politics and fear. In fact, high temperature LFTR reactors were built in the 1950s (!!!) and operated flawlessly for several years in experimental labs for the nuclear aircraft experiment. It was so safe that even in case of nuclear meltdown if the reactor vessel was breached, it would spread out on a metal cooling pan on the floor of the containment building.

Solar has made four valleys in china uninhabitable to to toxic waste.

[3314adam]

@52111centrumcz In regards to nuclear storage site: "In the US a permanent storage site has been selected at Yucca Mountain, Nevada... While Yucca Mountain is near of a fault line, the fault is believed to be inactive."

[3314adam]

@52111centrumcz From uspirg.org "The World Nuclear Association estimates that 20 percent of nuclear reactors worldwide operate in areas vulnerable to earthquakes." You cant get too smart for common sense.

[DogCognition]

George says it's nuclear or coal.

Funnily enough that's exactly what the nuke industry keeps trying to convince everyone.

So why has more renewable energy been deployed in Europe and the USA in the past 2 years than nukes + fossils combined?

Who do we believe? The nuke industry + George Monbiot? Or documented reality that shows renewables already replacing fossil + nuke production?

George Monbiot = nuclear puppet.

[suction]

@DogCognition So DogCognition = Renewablesindustry puppet

[52111centrumcz]

@DogCognition

You do realize that so far the absolute majority of renewables due to their low factor and mass demand for materials to produce them have and EROEI close to 1, many under 1? In other words they cost more energy to mine materials, ship them, produce the "renewable technology" and ship it to its final destination, and then dismantle it after its life cycle is over than it produces during its entire lifetime? If you support renewables, you support using gas for power generation too.

[DogCognition]

@52111centrumcz

Your comment is typical of the ignorance that fills this debate. Far from EREOI being near 1 or even below it, most renewable energy has the highest EREOIs when compared to nuclear and *much* higher than fossil fuels.

That's why more renewables are now being deployed than nuclear + fossil fuel combined in US an Europe. That's why global investment in renewables now exceed fossil fuels. Nuclear is nowhere in comparison.

[52111centrumcz]

@DogCognition

There is NO "renewable" technology that has Higher EROEI than nuclear power. Show me any papers that show EROEI of a renewable tech that has a ratio higher than 50 to 1 (that's the modern gen III nuclear reactors EROEI using modern fuel enrichment methods.)

The reason renewables are being deployed is they are a nice way for politicians to transfer money from public funds to their own pockets through private public partnerships in which they hold shares - that's the reason.

[DogCognition]

@52111centrumcz

Why does it not surprise me that you don't know how to use Google or don't have the curiosity to put in the most obvious search? Copy / paste this in to Google to find out how badly wrong you are: 'ereoi energy wind solar nuclear coal' - 2nd result after Wikipedia shows a nice, simple graph for you.

Sure. China, Germany, USA, Spain, Denmark, Thailand, Dubai, India, France, etc. - all deploying renewables because of corrupt politicians. Tighten your tinfoil hat!

[52111centrumcz]

@DogCognition

I quote the page you linked to, assuming I found the same /cleanenergywonk. com/category/eroei//"

The EROEI chart uses fascinating and wrong data on nuclear from the 1950s as a baseline, nut updating for newer much cheaper methods of fuel preparation. Then you have the EROEI overhyped for renewables, like the ludicrous 9 for solar power.

"Tighten your tinfoil hat!"

No thanks, I work maintaing a hospital electric backup system and medical devices

(cont part 1)

[DogCognition]

@52111centrumcz

You are so confused and so misinformed in so many different ways. EREOI is calculated on technology that exists - not fantasies. Therefore wind power is massively higher than nuclear and fossils - as are most renewables.

After 60 years and 100s of billions of $s in subsidies nuclear still cannot compete in open market and still needs massive subsidy. Also see e.g. Fukushima.

Renewables growing rapidly globally, nuclear falling. Reality. Get familiar with it.

[52111centrumcz]

@DogCognition

Yes, I should probably link you to an AREVA report on how much fuel oil it costs them to operate their gabon mine, and the costs for the electricity they pay for the enrichments plants and the rest. I am saying - if you take anyones numbers except those of greenpeace, EROEI of nuclear is near 50 to 1 using modern (as in up to date) centrifuges.

Section 4.4

ww w(.)sd-commission (.)org (.)uk/publications/downloads/N­uclear-paper2-reducingCO2emiss­ions (.)pdf

[DogCognition]

@52111centrumcz

Yes, link to Areva if you want to believe nuclear fantasies.

You demonstrate with the link you reference that you do not understand difference between CO2 emissions and EROEI.

EROEI for nuclear and fossils are lower than for renewables - particularly wind power. CO2 emissions are much lower for wind than nuclear.

There are many reasons nuclear energy share is falling and renewables are growing globally. Read and try to understand credible source to know why.

[52111centrumcz]

@DogCognition

Levelised CO2 emissions for second generation nuclear is the same as 25% nameplate capacity wind as built today. Gen 3 and Gen 3+ reactors are even better.

EROEI for renewables has rarely (including wind and solar) exceeded 7, and the reason nuclear is falling worldwide is because coal and gas is being ramped up. Provide any credible source that claims a nuke has a lower EROEI than 8 - by credible I mean people from physics or economics departments, not eco departments.

[DogCognition]

@52111centrumcz

Yes, the evidence shows wind power has much higher EREOI than nuclear and much lower CO2. So wind power costs less and is much better at mitigating climate change while also having no catastrophic downside.

Whichever way you look at it, wind power (and other renewables) are better than nuclear. This explains why nuclear is falling globally while renewables are growing very rapidly.

[52111centrumcz]

@DogCognition

Do you realize your statement is worthless? Link any credible source. Any report using Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen, Philip Smith or Helen Caldicott is non-credible by default, due to their absolute lack of quotation and reporting standards of using newspaper articles(!!!) as credible sources of information for "scientific" reports.

The only way renewables are better than nuclear is their up-front investement costs are lower than for nuclear where you need a large lump sum.

[DogCognition]

@52111centrumcz

That is correct. The massive capital costs of nuclear also make them a bad choice along with lower EROEI and higher CO2 as shown by peer reviewed science. Also the fact that nuclear reactors take on average over 10 years to build.

All these reasons explain why nuclear is declining globally while renewables grow rapidly.

[52111centrumcz]

@DogCognition

The massive once lump sum is the conceded argument. The others you have to still link a remotely credible source to. Nuclear reactors like the AP1000 can be built in 4 years as proven by the Chinese.

Slowly so you comprehend: Nuclear electricity production is rising, but its proportion to world electricity production is dropping because power generated is rising. You also have not answered the massive instability problems cause by an unsuitable power source (solar/wind).

[DogCognition]

@52111centrumcz

That is correct - the peer reviewed science shows nuclear has much lower EREOI than renewables as well as higher CO2.

Even with growing global energy consumption nuclear continues to lose share while renewables are accelerating in growth. Many countries are now targeting 100% renewable energy. You can Google if you want to educate yourself - the basics are easy to find.

Renewables are clearly the future while dangerous ,expensive nuclear is being left behind.

[52111centrumcz]

@DogCognition

You obviously have reading comprehension problems.

WHICH LITERATURE? (HINT HINT: POST LINK)

you sound a bit like a Scientologist claiming niburu will save your ass fromt he lizard brains. Seriously, the world share of renewables (minus large hydro) is less than four percent.

[DogCognition]

@52111centrumcz

You need to read what you link to and then you will see nuclear has a lower EROEI than renewables.

The fact that nuclear produces more CO2 per kWh than wind power and most renewables is common knowledge. Practice using Google to help you learn about that.

These things explain why renewables are being deployed at a massive rate while nuclear falls globally. Many countries are now going 100% renewable - that is the future.

[52111centrumcz]

@DogCognition

Again, you fail to link any credible ones. The sources I linked have renewables at comparable CO2 emissions per kWh generated > because on nuclear power nameplate is near real power produced, while renewables have 30% at best and with backup calculated in they require to maintain the grid working they come out at CO2 similar outputs. Of course if you don't count backup, you get different numbers. Read the links provided.

[DogCognition]

@52111centrumcz

You need to read what *you* link to and follow the trail from there. It is clear: nuclear and fossil fuels have a lower EROEI than renewables - proving you exactly wrong.

Nuclear is more expensive than renewables overall. This is why nuclear is in decline while renewables are being deployed more quickly than even fossil fuels. These are the *realities*.

[52111centrumcz]

@DogCognition

You are a bit like a bible thumper; no matter how much you thump what you say, you have not provided a link to any credible source. The sources I provide clearly show that except wind in very favourable spots (and where the costs of building power lines is excluded) renewables at best provide comparable EROEI. At worst, if built in wrong settings, they provide much lower.

[DogCognition]

@52111centrumcz

You cannot blame others that you have not read or understood the link you provided that shows nuclear + fossils have lower EROEI than renewables. All peer reviewed science will show you the same if you educate yourself, although it is technical so you might not understand.

Along with the higher costs and higher CO2 emissions of nuclear this explains why nuclear is failing globally while renewables are growing very fast. These are the realities you must accept.

[52111centrumcz]

@DogCognition

Apparently you have not understood - when counting in the backup dispatchable power required to back up absolutely irregular supply from renewables (except hydro) and unless you have large scale easily dispatchable cheap swing power (like large scale hydro) then counting in the backup, renewables have higher EROEI. The only time its not so is if you leave out their backup.

And no, nuclear is fading because of political pressure which has 0 to do with their properties.

[DogCognition]

@52111centrumcz

I see you are confused about how modern grids work - which peer reviewed science shows that renewable energy has higher EROEI than nuclear and fossil fuels largely because of the free energy collected by these devices.

This also explains the lower CO2 and lower cost. So whichever way you look at it renewables beat nuclear and fossil fuels. This is without even discussing nuclear catastrophes or weapons proliferation.

[DogCognition]

@52111centrumcz

Also the global decline of nuclear is because of all these factors which results in economic and political pressure to invest in the best technologies - which is wind, solar, biogas, etc.

Atom power is 20th century technology. We are in the 21st century now!!!!

[52111centrumcz]

@DogCognition

Excellent. A non-sequitur to deflect from the fact the methodologies of counting EROEI as they are used now do not count in dispatchable backup, do not count the lower utilisation of transmission lines, the need for much higher balancing and frequency monitoring, and the extra equipment required to remove the higher harmonics...you know nothing about power transmission networks, and are probably a humanities student, right?

[DogCognition]

@52111centrumcz

Yes, the science really does describe that renewables beat nuclear+fossils in every criteria that counts in this debate.

If you are no in denial of climate change then renewable energies are the only viable solution. We judge this on energy returned or GHG or costs - which fall for REs while rising rapido for atom power.

Google will certainly help you find plenty of information to help you understand the basics of this subject.

[DogCognition]

@52111centrumcz

Also of course it is important in our democracies that the voice of the people is heard. When you look at what the people want you will see awesome support for RenewEnergy techs but most people do not want to see the nuc reactors.

Even when we hear the voice of the French people we find they do not want atom power. This is certainly a big red flag you must agree.

[52111centrumcz]

@DogCognition

So we are slowly grinding down to where you start your position from. The position of fear of what you do not understand and the elementary distrust you hold for people that promote a technology you do not understand because it might give someone else power over your life.

That is an understandable reaction, and a very human one. It is not something to base a decision on, however.

And "voice of the people" does not change physical pricinples, or reality.

/watch?v=AZR0UKxNPh8

[DogCognition]

@52111centrumcz

I am sorry you do not understand the subject so well - but if you try to read and learn the science will show you the energy return from renewable tech is much higher than coal and gas nuclear. Also the GHG is lower - this all combines to make the clean energy sources clear winners.

This explains why clean technology is winning all over the world.

Please do not be angry that your nuclear dreams do not come true - we now have better technology.

[52111centrumcz]

@DogCognition

Show me any "green tech" with a EROEI higher than ten.

Then read about BN-600. Because BN reactor types have EROEI of 25. With modification of LFTR, normal liquid core thorium reactors (because they do not need enrichment of fuel) have EROEI of over 60. Green tech cannot dream of such energy returns > their source is too diffuse and requires too much raw materials to construct. The fact is your "green dream" is just that > nukes are being replaced by coal (mostly)

[DogCognition]

@52111centrumcz

The subject can be complex for you to understand but certainly the science is clear that more energy on investment comes from the clean green technologies -- which explains to us why these technologies grow while atom power is falling for many years.

The nuclear dream did not come true so the time is for 21st century energy systems powered from sun and wind and water. You must educate yourself to understand how these work. Do not live in the nuclear past!!

[52111centrumcz]

@DogCognition

Speaking to you is like speaking to a bible thumper:

Why do we know Jesus is god and lord all mighty? Because the Bible says so!!! Why do we know the bible is true, unfallible and correct? Because it was given to us by the Holy ghost, which is in unity with Jesus and the Father!

No sense, no evidence, no rational thought. Just screaming of nonsense ad infinitum.

[DogCognition]

@52111centrumcz

It is true that some people like you cling to atom power dreams like a religion - but you must not get angry because you cannot understand why cleantech now destroys dangerous nucler power.

The reasons are clear if you look: lower cost, fast to build, 100% safe and the energy never runs dry. All over the earth we see the change happening as clean energy destroys old fossil and atom systems.

[52111centrumcz]

@DogCognition If you think green can supply the terrawatts an industrial society needs, you are nuts. If you want to live like people do in sub-saharan africa, with their daily allotment of one kerosene can of 0.5L and no other power, than its doable. Be prepared to work 14 hours a day to earn a subsistence living.

[DogCognition]

@52111centrumcz

The insults show you are frustrated by the truth. This is common for the atom power dreamers.

When you understand the realities you see green energy wins on every factor.

[52111centrumcz]

@DogCognition

green is subsidized by fossil fuel, and except hydro does not pay its way. Nuclear needs subsidies to pay for insurance premiums and risks asociated with licensing. Green needs subsidies to break even.

Green loses in every factor except public appeal; its a bit like a beagle compared to a german sheperd; its cuter, but its stupid and only good for a lab dog, garden alarm or a couch pooch. If you utility and value (and a smart dog) go for the shepherd.

[DogCognition]

@52111centrumcz

We do this already: renewables = higher EREOI and lower CO2 than nuclear. That is certain you must admit.

[52111centrumcz]

@DogCognition

You realize green tech is built in China on coal power plants, and its embodied free energy is not capable of being paid back because of the energy used to transport it over the world right?

[DogCognition]

@52111centrumcz

Yes - that is correct. China now builds awesome GW of renewables - both for home and export. The Chinese know the winning technology now.

[52111centrumcz]

@DogCognition

China says it will make awesome renewables; they are building very little. In fact they are leading the west into a trap the west laid for itself; why do you think any country/state/region that invested in green is going underwater so fast? Economic nonsense if subsidized destroys the whole economy instead of only the investor > the former USSR is an excellent embodiment of this principle.

[DogCognition]

@52111centrumcz

Yes, China now makes awesome quantities of clean energy for home and sale to Amerika where we know many people not to clever with understanding reality of energy world.

[52111centrumcz]

@DogCognition

China will build 75 reactors in 15 years. They have an option for 130 more. If you think "nuclear past" then I welcome you to the nuclear reneissance. But since the west is in decline, it will take place where the money is - Asia.

PS: ask any individual who works for a power transmission company what he thinks about integrating more than 10% of renewables in a grid. If you are not beaten to death within an inch of your life, come back and speak again.

[DogCognition]

@52111centrumcz

Also true - China have cut back on nuclear due to Fukushima disaster and rising costs. Now they invest heavily in renewable energies and are building out very quickly. 500 GW by 2020 - but this will almost certainly increase.

Yes, it has already been proven by many countries that high levels of clean energy can be used in modern grids with no major problems. This clean power also reduces cost of energy for consumers. The future certainly now is for renewables.

[52111centrumcz]

@DogCognition

China is saying its investing in green, yet it is building coal power. It is saying green for political brownie points, and will actually build very little. A bit like their stance on pollution control > they talk a lot of talk, but do actually very little. This will be the same.

CHALLENGE: Name me one country running an isolated grid that has above 10% in their power system and does not use other power grids to subsidize their green tech by providing stabilization services.

[DogCognition]

@52111centrumcz

Correct: China is dominating the renewable energy sector because they know this is where the future lies.

Also the Germans know this as they shut down all atomkrafte power to invest 100% green energy. We see the economic success this brings today but much bigger success tomorrow.

[52111centrumcz]

@DogCognition

China makes plastic toys for the west using coal power; windmills and solar are just that; toys that will never pay in an unsubsidized enviroment. The moment you cut subsidies, they collapse like a deck of cards.

Name me ONE country, where green is sucessful unsubsidized.

solar(.)calfinder(.)com/blog/n­ews/pge-solar-biomass-project-­abandoned/

This and other like it which were built are one of the reasons California is going under. Economic suicide in direct sight.

[DogCognition]

@52111centrumcz

A good point you make: even after almost a century nuclear power still needs massive subsidy to exist. Wind power for the example now competes with lowest costing of fossil fueled power. Solar technology falls very quickly and already wins the argument for each home owner.

You cannot argue if you look to real world that the green technologies dominate because highest EROEI and lowest CO2.

[52111centrumcz]

@DogCognition

Good point; without subsidy, green tech comes in at 4x or 5x per watt more expensive than any nuclear power plant. (Except large hydro). Therefore it is absolutely energetically unfavourable, because cost is an embodiement of invested energy.

You can simply point out without cheap labor and subsidy by fossil fuels, renewable is aboslutely unsustainable (that's why human went from wind to coal > efficancy, efficiency, dispatchibility)

You did not mention a single valid point.

[DogCognition]

@52111centrumcz

You now understand! Yes!! Renewabls are more cost effective without subsidy but the nuclear cannot be built without massive subsidies.

So we see the advantage always goes to green energies which is clearly the reasons why these power technology takes market share from atom power + coals and gas.

[DogCognition]

@52111centrumcz

So now we have certain information that shows many of the reasons why atomkrafte nuclear falls in share across the world while we look to see renewable energies rapidly increase.

Also with investment we see all clever money go to clean tech because this is the future. You cannot deny this reality even as you dream for nuclear.

[52111centrumcz]

@DogCognition

Again .. name a single green tech that has EROEI of more than ten. I can link a process using thorium that was used in the 1960s. You should pick up a book and read. It was called MSRE and ran for thousands of hours. Green cannot even begin to approach the EROEI of 30 that that reactor design had. It operated for 1.5 years.

[DogCognition]

@52111centrumcz

Of course you may believe nuclear fantasies but science shows clean power generators have highest EROI and certainly the most low global warming emissions.

It is good for you to dream but we must live with reality - this means you must look at reality to understand. Do you understand this?

[52111centrumcz]

@DogCognition

Give a link to any country that has more than 10% green in stand alone grid power, not couting hydro.

You must look at reality that nuclear is superior as baseload power to anything green (except hydro) could ever hope to provide.

[DogCognition]

@52111centrumcz

The truth is so we see - nuclar is ending as the renewable technologies grow very rapidly. You dream for this not to happens but still it happens.

We see lower cost and lower CO2 and much higher energy returned for investment with clean enrgy -- this explains why the new energyies take over in every market.

You live in the past with yor nuclear dreams.In every way the clen and green energy wins the case for the future. This is truth you must agree.

[52111centrumcz]

@DogCognition

The truth is clear to see - nuclear will outpace green as generation is added - plus due to utilisation factors nuclear generation is 95%, while in green its less than 30%.

Guaranteed lower CO2 for total grid solutions is lower with nuclear, since backup is left out when calculating green .

You live in a green world of your dreams. In every way, nuclear is superior to green except intelligence required to understand it.

The truth is you must agree.

[DogCognition]

@52111centrumcz

You are correct: nuclear has been reducing for many years while renewable energys grow very rapidly because they are cheaper, cleaner, lower CO2 and higher EROI. Now we see global investment for clean technology to be bigger than fossil energy + nuclear both together.

Do not be angry that reality kills your atom power dreams.

[52111centrumcz]

@DogCognition

You are correct; green tech has been subsidized at four times the rate per kilowatt generated than nuclear ever was, and now with subsidies drying up it is dying. They require the mining of much more material per generator power, spread toxic metals to an extent unheard of with nuclear power, have a higher CO2 per unit power, and now global investment in green drying up with the economic crisis while nuclear is rising.

Do not be angry reality is killing your green dreams.

[DogCognition]

@52111centrumcz

That is right - after 75 years and over $1 trillion in subsidies the atom power still must take subsidies from the tax paying people to be build. The radiation waste mountains become higher to cost more monies -- this is not sustainble.

Now we see most investing money to renewable energys which is certainly the future now. The lower cost and lower CO2 makes this the best investment.

Do not cry for your failed atomic dreams!!

[52111centrumcz]

@DogCognition

That's right, after 50 years of investment and 1$ trillion in subsidies worldwide to green power, it contributed less total power generated worldwide than nuclear did in 5 years! The toxic hazard waste made from mining nyobium and others for green tech (unlike nuclear power) will NEVER decay, meaning it will remain and bioaccumulate for as long as earth lasts!

They cost more CO2 per watt generated and are an unsustainable financial bubble. Dont cry for your green dreams.

[DogCognition]

@52111centrumcz

Exactly correct!! This is why nuclear power now falls for many years but the renewable technologies grow at AWESOME rate!!

The atomkrafte dream dies before you.

[52111centrumcz]

@DogCognition

and the few per cent of energy supplied by renewables will remain just that. For you cannot store power, and those unreliable, undispatchable and requiring a huge backup green tech has to be seriously subsidized. Why do you think Spain, Italy and Greece are in such financial straits? Because they went green first, and subsidized it with the vision it will get them "green jobs". Meanwhile Germany isn't stupid and runs on King Coal, and French reactors.

[DogCognition]

@52111centrumcz

That is correct - many countries have created awesome amounts of renewable energies in very short time and move quickly to 100% clean energy. Atom power is not needed and actually harms the investment with the best results which is wind and solar etc.power.

China makes massive investment now in clean energy. Also France debates full exit from nuclear and most French people want this. Vive la France!!

These things are true because EROEI of clean tech is best.

[52111centrumcz]

@DogCognition

Hydropower is acceptable. Unless you have hydro if you invest in wind/solar you need gigawatts of backup, like in the cold winter where England almost froze and had to import all the Channel transmission lines could carry from French nuclear reactors - without French backup, both English and German power grids which have significant "green" would have shut down.

[DogCognition]

@52111centrumcz

You now begin to understand - all the green power techs are viable to give us all the energy we need.

We see the danger and pollution and massive cost from the old energy systems making them fail in open markets.

Yes, the French must often buy from Germany and Spain and England because their reactors cannot produce in hot weather and not enough in cold weather. The French failure of nuclear is clear to see - which is why the French people do not want.

[52111centrumcz]

@DogCognition

The French are a massive net exporter of electricity. Green is less than 0.4% of their market. It is also one of the main reasons why the French economy during the recession entered the recession last and exited it as one of the first. Their power price is stable, their power supply is assured.

French power: France's nuclear response to Kyoto". BBC. 2005-02-18. news(.)bbc(.)co(.)uk/1/hi/worl­d/europe/4276461(.)stm Retrieved 2007-08-25

[DogCognition]

@52111centrumcz

It is true hydropower is excellent but most clean technology now is for wind and solar and growing is wave and tidal and biogas holds big promises.

While we see these grow we see nuclear in big troubles as many countries leave the old dangerous technology behind.

[52111centrumcz]

@DogCognition

This shows without reliable backup, green is suicidal. But then again, bloody revolutions by "will of the people" which have resulted in mass graves like the USSR, the French Revolution and Nazi Germany were all done "with the will of the people". With "useful idiots" as Lenin called them.

Non dispatchable power, with poor reliability and no power storage ability are a nightmare for a power network. You obviously have no clue on how hard it is to keep one operating.

[DogCognition]

@52111centrumcz

That is a big failure for nuclear - when it fails the grid can lose huge power and maybe the reactor is off for many weeks or months or maybe years. This is never possible with renewable energies.

As many countries now prove the claims of the experts on the internet about backup are false - the modern grid easily makes it work.

The big problem to see is the nuclear waste and reactor explosions happening much more than nuclear people said.

[DogCognition]

@52111centrumcz

Renewables: cheaper, cleaner, safer, faster and more reliable to build. All the factors are win for renewables and fail for nuclar. This is the explanations to show nuclear failing in market and renewables are the winning.

You cannot deny this is truth.

[52111centrumcz]

@DogCognition

renewables; more expensive to operate per watt, require more manpower per watt, provide ustable and unpredictable power, and are unreliable to operate. They also use more materials per megawatt generated, and therefore increase pollution in excess if powered to the same degree by nuclear.

This explains the effect of subsidies and financial ponzi scheme of running green:

ktwop(.)wordpress(.)com/2011/0­7/06/renewable-energy-follies-­subsidies-discourage-maintenan­ce/

[DogCognition]

@52111centrumcz

Correct!! Renewables are already cheaper than nuclears power -- and still clean tech becomes cheaper as the atomic power becomes more expensive.

With lower EROI and higher CO2 showing nuclear is the worst choice it is clear why the world market for renewable grows as atomic power falls. This pattern now grows to favor renewable energys.

As you say rightly - the nuclear ponzi scheme is now failing.

[52111centrumcz]

@DogCognition

Correct...nuclear is cheaper per watt than nuclear. It also creates hundreds of thousands of tons of toxic waste - most of it in China and countries that make the transition metals used in the tech, as value adjusted nuclear power rises in price only moderately, and actually drops in price per watt generated! Nuclear AGAIN outperforms green!

With lower EORI and higher CO2 generated per watt in "Green tech" nuclear is a superior market force where political hacks have no say in

[DogCognition]

@52111centrumcz

Correct again -- this is why renewables grow as nucler fails globally. This pattern acceraltes now.

[DogCognition]

@52111centrumcz

Also we see the true cost of nuclear with the catastrophes of Tschernobyl and Fukushima which cost together over $732 billion -- but still the cost for these grows.

Free energy from the green power industry now dominates new energy productions. You cannot deny this truth.

[52111centrumcz]

@DogCognition

the economy, as we now see green tech abandoned outright, or in the case of Spain outright fraud as light is bought from the grid to shine onto solar panels to have them re-sell the power back to the grid! This patter clearly shows the inferior economic performer.

As you rightly claim, green is absolutely unsustainable without continuing subsidies for even basic operation - while nuclear does not need subsidy for normal operation.

[DogCognition]

@52111centrumcz

Very true -- we see now the truth of clean technologies which bring economic benefit exposing the lies from nuclear ponzi scheme.

After 75 years and $1.3 trillion in subsidies now atomic power can not comepte with the green energy revlution.

[52111centrumcz]

@DogCognition

Green tech cannot keep running without subsidies - nuclear was invested in research and then is built on commercial scale in the US. Unlike the green tech, it does not require subsidies to keep operating. The reason its not built is uneducated imbeciles that do not know basic physics do not want it in their back yard.

[DogCognition]

@52111centrumcz

This is true. We see 78 years and mnay trillions of DOLLARS but still the nuclear ponzi scheme does not float on a free market system. The massive cost and the high CO2 and low EROI for nuclears power makes it FAIL in comeptition with green and clean technologies.

You must no become angry that your atomic dreams fail. This is the realitiy.

[52111centrumcz]

@DogCognition

That is true. We see 90 years (first photoelectric effect discovered) and trillions of dollars and STILL the green tech ponzi scheme does not float in a free market system. The massive costs of manufacture in China using coal is doting it with billions of tons of CO2 annually that cannot be recuperated due to power balance issues, and the poor EROEI when counting in backup makes it FAIL in competition with ANY power source.

You must be sad that you green dream fails.

[52111centrumcz]

@DogCognition

CO2 emissions are EROEI by default - since the majority of our economy is based on the use of fossil fuels. So if a windmill creates more CO2 per kWh than a nuclear plant, then it means it is inferior in EROEI.

[52111centrumcz]

@DogCognition

(cont part 2)

- a local windmill farm has already sent the local grid fluctuating as wind comes and goes, and the change in frequency and voltage caused by this absolutely pathetic attempt at generating electricity has caused out main switch to burn out twice, as well as resetting our computers due to frequency lag causing their power sources to blank out and reboot. In fact without serious subsidies, it would be more expensive than using an a brand new CAT 1.4 MW diesel.

[52111centrumcz]

@DogCognition

And also...Dubai as part of the UAE are in talks with ROK to buy new reactors. The French are rebuilding a massive AREVA plant to replace 65 of their reactors that are nearing the end of their lifetime with EPRs, Germany caved in to political pressure due to idiots, USA is designing and licensing two reactor types at the NRC, Renewables in Spain are a major contributor to their financial meltdown, Denmark uses Norway and Sweden as capacitors with their large hydro sources

[52111centrumcz]

@DogCognition

India is deploying nuclear reactors and is attempting to build a thorium cycle on their home resource; And the indian state is subsidizing alternative energy because without it it wouldn't work. Thailand I have no idea; but back to Dubai.

Due to their load demand profile, they us PV because highest demand (for ACs) is during noon when PV production is highest; they use a simple demand matching using physics, notwithstanding even an EROEI of 1 is good enough for them.

[52111centrumcz]

@DogCognition

And to further clarify; I am NOT against renewables as such, I am against subsidizing them when they are inefficient, and when their immature technical development makes them a hazard to the Grid at large, especially to sensitive (voltage/frequency wise) equipment. If they were for example used to charge back up batteries, or there was a widespread change to DC (possible thanks to todays inverters) then I would not be against them.

[DogCognition]

> "no one has yet received a lethal dose of radiation"

This demonstrates that Monbiot is dangerously uninformed about how radiation causes cancers, abortions and deformities.

Anyone who wants to understand energy should ignore George Monbiot.

P.S. Do a little research on a guy called Malcolm Grimston - George's old school chemistry teacher who has been a nuke shill since the 1980s. He recently partnered George in a televised debate against renewable energy proponents. George's nuke handler?

[spellingbee51]

George Monbiot - tool of the hidden hand.

[icarus313]

Guys, guys, for God's sake this guy is actually making a pretty rational and level-headed argument here. I get the feeling that some of you weren't listening very carefully to what Monbiot was saying. Regardless of whether or not you agree with him, he's made quite a balanced case as to why letting go of nuclear could prove to be counterproductive and cost more lives in the long run. He's NOT trying to say that nuclear power is good! Nor does he think it should be around forever!

[cfini72]

He is somewhere today with a big smile on his face!



[SteveAstronaut]

"Nobody has received a lethal dose of radiation in Japan"? It takes a while for the cancer to develop, more than a couple of weeks...

[ginganz13]

He deliberately obfuscating - a lethal dose can be anything from 4 Sv to 1 microgramme of plutonium in the wrong place - there's no way he can make that statement without knowing where every single microgramme of that shit went.

[suction]

@ginganz13 Nobody has received a dose that has led to death. He's right. The other stuff is just you putting words in his mouth. In Chernobyl, many rescue workers received lethal doses and died inside several days. In Fukushima, that didn't happen. But now, back to your dream world...

[ginganz13]

@suction - You haven't got a clue how it works, dose, equivalent dose, latency or contamination. It dosen't have to kill things right away - mortality is expressed years and decades later as well as the genetic damage some of these substances will be causing from between 6 months to billions of years.

You think Welsh Lamb was off the menu all those years just because it didn't kill them straight away? There is a difference between not knowing and being a dangerous fucking idiot...

[suction]

@ginganz13 Thanks for letting us know about your IQ. I simply stated that there were no immediate casualties due to radiation like we have seen in Chernobyl. You did not understand what I said, yet sprang to conclusions about my intentions, which disqualifies you from taking part in any relevant debate. Learn to think and argue like an adult first, it will greatly improve your conversational skills, too. Most importantly, learn to separate a text's meaning from your own conclusions.

[ginganz13]

@suction - IQ wasn't mentioned. "back to your dream world..." You disqualified yourself first - and proved (again) you're a fucking idiot.

[MrDarkbloom]

Monbiot is right. All you here who are calling him a moron etc simply are not using your brains. He is obviously NOT advocating Nuclear as the best solution for energy, ONLY a pragmatic solution for now that means we STOP releasing carbon so our species actually survives.

[soblord]

Monbiot: the cleanest energy which produces the least amount of carbon.

Renewable > Nuclear > Coal

Coal energy produces the most amount of carbon and is a very instrumental in the effects of climate change. Nuclear energy produces far less carbon but can have very disastrous long term effects on the environment. The "far less carbon" is what Monbiot's after, even at the price of events like Fukushima (which was down to bad planning). Renewable energy can be the next step down from nuclear.

[52111centrumcz]

@soblord

Then go read how much radioactive dust is released due to the burning of a tonne of coal. Then multiply that by the hundreds of tons of coal worldwide.

[jimparnell]

Stop Cutting trees down...come on. Everything we do on a daily basis has has impacts on the environment. Cars-oil, gas, coal, Hydro all go onto you being able to drive. The roads we drive on need the same resources as building a car. Mp3's, computers, tv's There is not one thing modern man does today that does not affect the environment in one way or the other. Humanity has never changed for the "good" they have changed out of necessity . Ask yourself..What am I willing to give up.

Coal Miner

[010vision]

Monbigot is a moron!!!!!!

Monbigot is a moron!!!!!!

Monbigot is a moron!!!!!!

[JessicaPaulaRose]

@010vision Your "statement" is not productive in any sense...

[VeronicasMidget]

I was going to say that I think we as humans do not have our priorities straight. Of course the truth is it is not 'we' it is 'they'. By they I mean those in power, those who make these decisions in the world.

It baffles me why they cannot investigate more naturally harmonious methods of power generation and why we do not demand it. They have mastered the art of controlling us en mass into believing that consumption is a good thing, yet such consumption goes against every natural law I know.

[PureWhite91]

stop cuting down our trees and the co2

WILL NOT MATTER