Reply #12: Well, making predictions is easier than producing results. [View All]

:eyes:

I'll add this to the other "predictions" about energy that I hear from this crowd, including the ones about the imminent demise of the nuclear industry that, like the solar nirvana, is often predicted but never actually happens.

There is NO "anti-solar" nonsense. The solar industry - with all the hype and good will - could shut down the nuclear industry if it worked on a significant scale. The problem is that it doesn't work, except for a few relatively wealthy people.

The "solar will save us" crowd - which is a profossil fuels crowd since solar PV power is unable to produce anywhere on scale - wants to project its failure on nuclear energy, but this is merely a matter of changing the subject.

The unit is exajoules. The solar PV industry has not produced an exajoule in its history. The nuclear industry produces 30 of them every year.

That said, as I say many times, I will be happy to discuss the merits of various energy alternatives when fossil fuel use is shut down, meaning that the problem of global climate change is solved.

I have no faith in the solar industry's ability to participate to an appreciable extent. It's been all talk for far too long - but if it does, I'll be happily surprised, even thrilled. This is one case where I thirst to eat my words, but thus far I don't have to do so.

I don't care if people install solar capacity. I'm not against solar energy because I'm FOR nuclear energy. I am anti-fossil fuel. That's clear and that's simple. I note repeatedly that solar PV is not as safe as nuclear power - but it is safer than coal, oil and gas.

Yet again: http://www.itas.fzk.de/deu/tadn/tadn013/frbi01a.htm

Solar power is available to anyone with enough bucks to install it. Not one pro-nuclear person has ever demonstrated against solar power. We don't have to do so. It's no skin off our backs, especially those of us who support the nuclear energy because we understand global climate change and risk. If people have the money, and they want to spend the money in this way, well, shit, it beats a Hummer.

It would be easy for the "solar will save us" crowd if they had some hard numbers like these:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/table27.xls

But the entire renewable energy industry, of which solar PV is a tiny fraction, actually has numbers like these:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/table17.xls

Given that global climate change is happening now, and not in some putative future where the Democratic Party adopts the measures of a completely distracted minority of its membership, that's a problem.

The Democratic Party does not exist for the purpose of quashing nuclear power. (Maybe though, the so called "Green" party does.) Many Democrats, including the late Nobel Laureate Hans Bethe, have always been fond of nuclear power. The worst commercial reactor ever built in the United States, the N reactor at Hanford, was specifically pushed by a Democratic President, John Kennedy, even though many nuclear engineers had reservations about it.

I note that when I switched sides from anti-nuclear to pro-nuclear, I felt no compunction whatsoever to change party affiliation. My commitment to social justice, health, the environment, the rule of law, peace, the use of reason, and secular government is in no way at odds with my support for nuclear power. In fact this positions all speak in favor of nuclear power as opposed to the rich boy's toys represented by solar PV. I am not interested in solutions that only apply to rich people. I do note that historically, for a brief period in the 1980's and 1990's, most Democrats did not favor nuclear power. However, that is changing, and I am very proud of my part in working within the party to elucidate the issue. This 2001 Field poll in California, gives some clarity to the ridiculous claim that being a Democrat is coterminous with being anti-nuclear:

http://www.sacbee.com/static/archive/news/special/power/052301priorities.html

According to Rasmussen, for what its worth, the plurality among Democrats in favor of nuclear power remains high: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2005/Energy_Nuclear%20Power_August%2016.htm

But the issue is not determined by polling, it is determined by reality. I want my party to win, and I want it to govern responsibly, through the application of reason and common sense. There is a very important issue with which I trust my party: Either nuclear power will expand or will we all be overwhelmed by global climate change. It's really, really, really simple. There is no other workable option. I fully trust the members of my party to recognize that, since the members of my party, in general, think rather than emote.

Although there have been some individual conflicts and failures in my party, overall my party has always worked to advance the truth. Here is a truth with which I trust my party: There is no such thing as risk free energy. There is only risk minimized energy. That energy is nuclear energy.