That link you provided is a good read. I am on the fence with this one. When we move, I want to look at solar on my roof but have to agree with you 100% on the government funding something that should be private.

I agree 100%, those nerds at Argonne with all their fancy "technology" are nothing but a bunch of tree hugging liberals. Look at where advancements in energy use and production have gotten us in the last 200 years! I wish for the days of horse and buggy, steam engines.......

Coal and oil is also highly subsidized by the government through enormous tax breaks among other things.

"oldschool" - Scientists are not politically motivated. They are only interested in the science. Your insults only reveal your ignorance. I'm guessing you miss the days when you were the school bully.

Spencer...sarcasm.

^ that was an amusing exchange. But Spencer, scientists are human, want to get work funded and are not above politics. Trust me.

"oldschool" - I apologize. I'm a STEM worker myself and sometimes I get a little hot under the collar and stop seeing the forest for the trees when I detect a threat (even wrongfully). I read your comment again just now and I feel stupid for not having detected the obvious sarcastic tone.

Again, my bad.

The average cost of generating electricity from wind farms is about triple the cost of that produced by natural gas or nuclear boilers. The "fuel cost" iis low, but the capital, maintenance and operating costs per megawatt are far higher.

Gee I wonder if Mr Hodge told the chidlren about the economic infeasibility of wind and solar energy in the 21st century? Methinks not!

BTW, ethanol additives are also uneconomical and do little to improve air quality since catalytic conversion units were added to all vehicles, a change, BTW, that made a lot of sense. It's time we took away the ethanol subsidy that's caused worldwide hunger due to price of grain run-ups and made it conpete with petrochemicals on their own merits.

In order to figure out the "real cost" of fossil fuels we should start considering the long term environmental damage as well as the damage done to environment when extracting them.

A job of that magnitude would need, at the very least, the computer Deep Thought from the Hitchhiker's Guide to calculate that. Much like Deep Thought's penultimate answer to "the question", we probably wouldn't be very happy with figure we received as the answer.

Gerard Schilling: <snip>Wind turbines or solar panels have never been nor ever will be cost effective or competitive. There hasn’t been a nuclear power plant built in this country in over 50 years <snip>
~~~
and there should not be any nuclear power plants built either. Does Fukushima Diachi mean anything to you ? Nuclear power is neither safe nor clean, despite the claims of the proponents and shareholders.

As Einstein said " Nuclear power is one hell of a way to boil water "

Meanwhile, Germany is moving toward renewable energy and it's solar plants now produces enough solar energy equal to 20 nuclear power plants operating at full capacity:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/26/us-climate-germany-solar-idUSBRE84P0FI20120526

If Germany can do it, America can do it.

Actually, Gerard, the last nuclear units that went on line in Illinois were commissioned in about about 1987, about 26 years ago (Byron and Braidwood and Clinton stations). The entire world (including Germany) is realizing that pollution free nuclear power is a necessary part of the energy generation portfolio. I wonder if Mr Hodge taught that to his visitors? Once again. methinks not!

"Does Fukushima Diachi mean anything to you ? Nuclear power is neither safe nor clean, despite the claims of the proponents and shareholders"

Actually, unlike you. it dfoes mean something to me Sue. It means that the Obama-like corrupt crony capitalism in "Japan Inc." is incapable of properly desiigning and operating nukes as safely as the US. In the US part of the licensing process is postulating every conceivable threat from 9/11 style suicide airplane crashes to explodong rail cars to "El Centro" level earthquakes, and , yes, even Tsunami's in coastal regions. The corrupt Japanese government needed to place the emergency generators and oil storage above maximum flood levels as US nukes do. They didn't. As far as being "clean" the only contamination issues the industry has had is not in commercial generating stations, BUT IN GOVERNMENT RUN WEAPONS FACILITIES LIKE ROCKY FLATS. There, as in Japan, the gevrnment showed it coldn't be trusted to safely deal with radioactive contamination. The biggest problem the industry in the US has is not safe operation but disposal of nuclear fuel pellets. The government was SUPPOSED to develop a system of fast breeder reactors in the 1970s that would've enriched spent fuel and eliminated most high level waste, but, as usual, the reneged on the deal.

Sue, at lelast learn a little bit about these issues before you get involved in these discussions. A mind is a terrible thing to waste!

"As Einstein said " Nuclear power is one hell of a way to boil water ""
Ummm...he actually said that in SUPPORT of nuclear power generation!

"If Germany can do it, America can do it." Susan, please learn to think beyond the first step. Let me ask you this, what do you think Germany does when the sun isn't shining to generate solar power? They burn fossil fuels to meet demand. This means they incur the capital cost of building and fueling plants for the ENTIRE electrical load IN ADDITION to the solar construction and operating costs. Solar and wind are both highly unreliable and transient means of production and will never produce what's needed to the grid WHEN it's needed.
Nuclear power works most efficiently when when running at full capacity and is a "base load" generating source. Large gas and coal plants work best at near full load, but can be effective at partial load. Finally, gas "peaking" units supply the fiinal system demand at costs much higher than large fossil and nuclear stations, but FAR less expensively than solar or wind.

I love the idea that Gernany is relying so much on Solar and wind power. When their factories are shutting down because of clouds and their energy costs are far higher than ours, it'lll make American manufacturing much more competitive and create jobs for Americans!

...

Bob,

Are you even remotely aware of what has hapened in Japan ?

Does Chernobyl mean anything ?

Nuclear power is being phased out in many countres as a direct result of the 4+ reactor meltdown in Fukushima, which is still going on in case you were not paying attention. This is some very serious stuff.

OK, Susan, let's try a little test to see if you actually have any knowledge about nuclear power systems and policy issues. Here are a few questions you should EASILY be able to answer if you consider yourself well informed about nuclear safety issues:

1) What is the difference in the Chernobyl reactor design and the nuclear power stations in the US that would would have prevented that socialist disaster from happening here?
2) How many people have died from radiation exposure from a commercial nuclear power station in the US?
3) What is the difference between the designs and permitting requirements at the Fukishima power plant and those licensed in the US?
4) What is the average cost of producing power per KWH in solar, wind, nuclear and natural gas fired power generating stations, including first costs and operating costs?
5) At Fukishima, what was the source of the contamination outside the station, spent fuel storage or in-service reactor fuel rods?
6) In all US nuclear power in the US, how much solid nuclear material has been released in "accidents".
7) What was the system failure that caused the problems at Fukishima, and what simple, appropriate design feature would have preventd the problem?
8) How many of the Fukishima reactors released contamination in significant amounts?

I eagerly await your response. Fill this blog with your objective "intelligence"!

Recently, a friend contacted her local waste disposal company requesting a larger capacity recycling wheeled dumpster because her household recycles extensively and the current one is not adequate. She was told that they have only one size recycling dumpster and that if that's not enough, she may place her items to be recycled in bins next to the curb for pick up.
We have all seen those small blue tote bins bearing the recycle logo alongside curbs and on windy days, it's contents strewn about the neighborhood. Plastic jugs and newspapers everywhere but inside the bins where they belong. Poor design coupled with limited capacity discourages people from recycling, and consequently, cans, newspapers and plastic are thrown in with everyday trash.
Waste disposal companies need to get with the program instead of being part of the problem.
Is there a valid reason why waste disposal companies cannot provide larger capacity recycling wheeled dumpsters like what is used for trash ?

Susan, you DO know that many waste companies don't actually separate and recycle what's in the blue bins, right? Most of the time they just mix it in with the trash after costly separate pickups. Except for aluminum cans and some metals, it's more energy, economically and ENVIRONMENTALLY detrimental to recycle things like glass, paper and non-biodegrables than to just make it from fresh materials!

Bob,
Recycling creates jobs and opportunities and is good for the enviornment. I thought you rightwingers were all about jobs creation, so what gives.

Here is something for you to study :
http://www.intomobile.com/2013/02/09/ewaste-infographic/

Susan, you and the government seem to think that doing work like digging a hole in the morning and filling it in in the afternoon "creates jobs", but it doesn't, it just takes valuable labor away from productive purpose. There are many ways to create jobs while making things better and creating prosperity for the citizens of our state and country, but the problem is that folks like you discourage productive endeavor rather than encouraging it.

Government "make work" is much like drowning in water...it's not the water that kills you, it's the fact that it's taking up space that could've been used for things prudent and necessary.

"Here is something for you to study :
http://www.intomobile.com/2013/02/09/ewaste-infographic/";
Interesting, Susan. I red the piece and NOWHERE did I see the realtive cost of recycling vs building new. Apparently establishing value or cost of what Mr Belic is proposing is beyond his skill set.

Here's an idea for an "environmentalst" like you, Susan. Start a business buying old electronic equipment for recycling, then create a network and supply chain to sell your recycled products back to the electronic manufacturers.

Don't you DARE ask for government dollars to subsidize it, but solicting donations from suckers....errr..."environmental supporters" is fine! Let's see your business plan and show us how you can make it work economically by paying your workers a "living wage" and full health care benefits under Obamacare. Please include all the pollution you'll be creating by pick up and transport of the materials, as well as the environmental and energy costs associated with recycing the silicon materials.

BTW, I expect you'll do this as a "non-profit", right? You can't expect people to pay for profit for your work and investment, can you?
...

ummmm...Susan, you DO know that the taxes charged to the people at gas pumps by state and Federal governments are FAR higher than the oil company profits on each gallon of gas, right? If you want more affordable gas, go after Sprngfield, City Hall and Washington, NOT the oil company shareholders!

Bob,

Did you just out yourself as a shareholder ?

Now your posts advocating waste and danger makes sense, as in dollars and cents

Susan, if you're receiving a public pension, own any stock market index funds, you're a shareholder in the energy industries as well. We are ALL stakeholders in energy policy in this country, and every bad policy decision made by you and the corrupt politicians in our state and nation impairs and diminishes all the citizens of this nation. The fact is that, unlike you, I CARE about safe, economical energy in this country, and I do my homework to separate the "anti" BS fro the truth. When I see that BS spewed out ojn blogs as has been done by you, I think it necessary to inform and educate those who may be duped by you.

FYI, while I haven't worked in the nuclear industry for over 15 years now, I worked on designing and permitting nuclear stations in the 70's and 80's and clearly understand the issue and the safety concerns far better than someone who's expertise is limited to washing pop bottles for energy inefficient recycing.

If you're one of those "education" people, I have a masters degree in engineering and have done nuclear engineering graduate work at onoe of the top nuclear engineering schools in the world.

Please list your bonafides for being able to intelligently debate issues on nuclear and power policy?

Thanks for the educated comments Bob. I work in the energy industry and our portfolio is made up of fossil, nuclear and wind. I would like to think that we have wind due to altruistic reasons; however, fact of the matter is that we are forced to have a certain percentage of our portfolio from renewables. If not for government subsidies, wind is a financial loser. As tax incentives are taken away, you will see a number of these wind farms shuttered as they cannot operate at a profit without the tax breaks.

What a lot of people fail to realize is that even with wind, you need to have reliable energy in the form of nuclear or fossil available or you better be prepared to change your lifestyle. A neighbor of mine said how neat it is to see the number of windmills on the countryside and how he feels that we are really making change. I told him that since electricity can't be stored that he better hope the wind is blowing when he wants to use something; otherwise, be prepared to be disappointed. He had no idea that you couldn't store the electricity!

Wasn't going to comment, but just like my neighbor above, there are many people who might not know the facts about these alternative energy sources.

When we wake up in the middle of the night when the air conditioning power is shut off in the summer and the heat is turned off in the winter because of some idiots in Washington relied on solar and wind instead of hydro, fossil and nuclear power!

I'll wake up when I need to do my laundry in the middle of the night because the wind is blowing and I will have the electricity needed to run the washing machine.

Bob posted:
When we wake up in the middle of the night when the air conditioning power is shut off in the summer and the heat is turned off in the winter because of some idiots in Washington relied on solar and wind instead of hydro, fossil and nuclear power!<end>
~~~
If I were you Bob, I would be a lot more concerned about the power grid failing.

Please, Susan. enlighten me. I've only designed transmission line systems, substations and low voltage distribution systems, and I'm not aware of any current threat to our distribution system grid.

Since you're OBVIOUSLY better informed than professionals who designed the systems in our area, please tell me where our transmission system on the grid is inadequate to meet our peak demands for the next few decades before expansion.

Wow. Just let Spencer do the talking on this thread. The rest of you really don't understand solar and wind are to lessen our burden on nuclear energy. No, the Midwest will never be completely off grid. However, our fossil fuels will run out. When that happens, what are we going to do? If you're still alive, you'll complain nothing was ever funded to assist us in reuseable energy.

Thanks for posting this. Getting through the comments section was a migraine.

Spencer, what exactly is your "STEM" background? If you're in an engineering (E) part of it, you'd know that there is no current path to building efficient and cost effective wind power for reliable supply (with the possible exception of some valleys in Northern California), solar silicon panels are highly polluting and energy intensive items with high first and maintenance costs, and that reflected/focused solar power production only makes sense in some of our deserts.

When there is science that shows an efficient, cost effective way to produce wind power, it makes sense to fund research and give tax credits to support that research. The problem is that currently there is no method for producing competitive wind or solar power in the design stage, not even if they were built by slave labor in China! Wind and Solar power on large electrical generation scales just isn't feasible. If someone wants to use wind power to fill water sisterns from wells, that's fine. It works. If people want to put a hose system on their roof to provide a supplemental source of hot water for domestic purposes, that can be cost effective also. Substantial economical electrical generation to supply the grid from wind and solar? Not gonna happen. Laws of Thermodynamics are a stubborn thing, and no amount of "green wishing" will make it happen.

Were you aware that oil company profit levels are no higher than US industry overall, and far less than McDonalds and most of the entertainment industry?

Technology development is not static. Not so long ago, you probably would have been tried as a witch for merely suggesting that people would one day fly.

One day our fossil fuels will run out. This is an inevitability. If we don't have viable means provide for us our energy requirements, the world will become a weird place.

Everyday we see the greatest fuel source in our universe. The science may not exist right now to harness it efficiently, but one day it will.

Agreed Spencer...

Bob,
When you try and rip others down in order to feel superior, whatever point you are trying to make gets lost in space. Only an insecure person would preface his/her remarks in that manner.
The reality is, nuclear power is not safe, despite the spin and outright lies from it's proponents and supporters, and despite the greenwashing. Other countries are moving toward the decommissioning of existing plants as a direct result of the ongoing meltdown in Fukishima.
Did you catch the word " ongoing " ?
Are you now going to insist that everything is A-OK and it's fixed and that there is nothing to see there so keep moving ?
I am waiting for you to call me a communist next.

I see you were unable to respond factually to any safety concerns about nuclear power in the US, yet still call it "unsafe" despite no examples to support your claim. Ignorance can be a warm cloak that many like you wear. Learn something about which you speak. Give examples as I do to make your case. If you can't, you're just perpetuating the "Big Lie" that worked for other despots for awhile, but eventually led to their downfall.

Despite electing Obama, I have faith that eventually we can turn those "low information voters" like you who elected him into reasoning, thoughtful, citizens.

All you have to lose is your chains of ignorance, Susan!

You, and many others, may legitimately disagree with Bob's position, but looks to me as though he has done a good job of stating his case.

I agree Paul. He has. However, that's only under the assumption that the science and technology will only stay as is indefinitely.

When did I say I didn't agree with him? I said he knows everything and always has a better answer.

Paul Shafer posted:
You, and many others, may legitimately disagree with Bob's position, but looks to me as though he has done a good job of stating his case.<end>
~~~
Not hardly, unless you are almost clueless and then he can seem like an expert. An educated person can see through him easily because to the Bobs in this world, it's about money and about winning and not letting the facts get in the way.

Russ, the important issue is timing for change, and when the time for change approaches the free market system will adjust ao the right thing.

By most measures, our natural gas supply in the US is able to support our needs for at least a century unde current usage, far longer with reasonable conservation measures, IF THE GOVERNMENT DOESN'T SCREW IT UP BY INCOMPETENT REGULATORY OPPRESSION!

Agood cas for this is what happened with oil shale development. About 15 years ago Unocal created the technology to extract sweet crude from Rocky Mountain Oil shale, but it wasn't economical when oil prices were below $55/ barrel. At the time, oil was selling for between $19 and $30 per barrel, so it didn't make sense, except with a government subsidy like wind, solar and ethanol enjoys today. When the government withdrew its sudsidy to guarantee $55/barrel, Unocal went bust. Once it became economical again, the "environmentalists" prohibited using the oil shale and process extraction.

Speaking about wind power, there are already "environmentalists" who want it banned because its a "hazard to bird migration". Solar panels are made largely from silicon, which has a highly energy intensive manufacturing process, as well as highly polluting, and clean production is cost prohibitve except in China where pollution is accepted.

There will be a time when wind and solar may be economical due to low supply of fossil and nuclear fuel. THAT is when we use it, NOT now!

Russ, to your anology to horses and buggies in transportation, would it have made sense to ban horses and force people to buy cars in the 1890s? OF COURSE NOT! there was time when the conversion made economical sense in the early 1900s, and it happened.

The same applies to energy policy. Right now we have infrastructure and low cost fuel to provide all the energy we need without solar and wind. As fuel supply decreases, the cost of fuel will increase and at some point solar and wind productin will make sense, but that day is a liong time away. We saw the foolishness of government subsidizing uneconomical and unsustainable fuels like solar (Solyndra and Volt ring a bell?) contrary to market forces, and it failed miserably. Wait until wind and solar make sense and is needed. The free market detrmines that best, NOT some corrupt idiot in DC!

Russ,

Can we be friends? Let's go out for a beer or three!

"Exxon Mobil: $15.1 billion
U.S. federal: -$156 million
U.S. state and local: $110 million
International: $15.2 billion
Exxon paid the most taxes last year of any U.S. company, by far -- but not a cent went to the IRS for income taxes. That's because the oil giant does business in some of the mostly highly taxed countries in the world. Want to extract petroleum in Nigeria? Be prepared to fork over up to 85% of your profit in tax payments.
Exxon doled out more than $15 billion in income tax payments to foreign countries last year. U.S. tax codes allow companies to take massive deductions in light of those international charges, which knocked Exxon's federal income-tax bill down into negative territory.
Including sales taxes and duties, Exxon recorded $7.7 billion in U.S. tax costs last year, and paid even more overseas.

Its grand total in global taxes for the year? A whopping $78.6 billion. The company's effective income tax rate was a hefty 47%, its highest in three years. "

Russ, this is from CNN money. Don't lie about the taxes paid by the oil industry. You WILL be caught!

Also, comparing "cost per taxpayer" for Solar (less than 1% of US energy) to fossil fuel is deceptive at best. The REASON it's much less is that the prospects for making solar cost competitive are miniscule, so it isn't worthy of more money. Fossil energy is FAR more complicated and gaining even 1% efficiency makes a HUGE difference in US.

OK,give me the link from the CBC and GAO disputing what I've copied above and I'll believe you. Of course you can't,but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

We can agree that we'd rther not import oil from Afric and the Miseast, but we really don't have to. Between the available reserves in the US through new recovery techniques, oil from Alberta, Canada and Mexico and the Gulf, we have enough oil to be energy independent, especailly if we convert existing coal energy production to natural gas fuel and nuclear electrcial generation. The most "research"that should betaking place is NOT for electrical vehicles, but for natural gas fueled vehicles. We have abundent, low cost NG supply within our borders, and the technology exists to do the conversion today if we stop wasting resources on wind andsolar and move to build the infrastructure and technology for NG distribution and vehicle conversion. Most existing vehicles can handle NG fuel with a change of carburator and fuel storage.

This would minimize the need for oil and make is energy independent.

Of course, the current occupant of the White House is sadly mired iun the failed unsupportable gvoernment support of wind and solar (that's where his "campaign bundlers" are) and allow access through safe pipelins and conversin to clean naturals gas fuels. Of course, that makes too much environmental and economic sense for folks in DC and those who elected them!

Russ, I see you can't give a direct link for the "facts" you state here that I disputed. If you'd acutally found them from a reputable source, you'd be able to reference it. If you got it from CBC and GAO, you couold refence a source.

Why are imaginary "facts" always part and parcel of environmental wacko arguments?LOL

If you trust CNN, then you'll love this piece by Reuters. But then again, if you truly believe that climate change is not real, that fossil fuels do not contribute to the change in our climate, and that their is an infinite supply of resources, you probably believe that renewable energy is part of a socialist agenda and that health care for all is not something anyone should support.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/24/us-climate-labor-idUSBRE91N0CN20130224

Russ, you probably might as well be trying to get a giraffe to consider what you're saying. You'd probably have better luck. People like Bob have made up their minds and are set in stone.

Here yoyu go Bob. Since you insist that my federal government sources do not exist, explain this:
https://openpv.nrel.gov/search
Good impartial information.

If you're trying to make a point that left wing communist/socialist China is responsible for irresponsibly polluting at levels exceeding that of US policy for the last half century, I won't disagree! Talk to the Chinese and Indians about that, because they're where the greatest threat to our environment exists.

The US has been, and is, the world leader in BAT (Best available technology) in pollution control for removal or carbon particulates and SO2 from coal burning processes. We set the standard for stopping sewage and industrial waste disposal in our waters, and we oxygenate water even in man made waterways like the cal sag. We changed the world with vehicle catalytic conversion. Beijing and Shanghai have virtually unlivable pollution due to the left wing political power there.

Want to reduce greenhouse gasses? Go picket the chinese and Indian embassies!

Ummm..Russ, the Reuters piece doesn't attribute ANYTHING to man made global warming, it's just engaging in well paid fantasy theories. That's what the NOAA does. Please note that the NOAA has had a terrible record in even prdicting climate conditions a year off, let along FORTY YEARS OUT!

Russ, your link says NOTHING to validate your tax claims against the oil industry or refute my CNN data. That is a SOLAR research site which doesn't give fossil fuel research data. As I said before, solar research receives little research because everbody knowledgeable knows its a "dry hole" that likely won't ever be competitive. THAT's why research funidng is low relative to legitimate energy research!

Hello fellow Radical!lol

Susan, I'm still waiting for your response to my query regarding those simplle questions regarding your nuclear power safety knowledge. I'm not surprised.

When people like you and Russ are challenged to provide authoritative facts to support thier arguments, they usually evade them or respond by attacking or ridiculing tose who challenge them.

Too bad the questions weren't regarding the 10 Alinky's "Rules for Radicals" regarding deception and propaganda. I'm sure you and Russ would get 100% on that!LOL

Bob, "Rules for Radicals"? Thanks for clarifying your position. We want to reduce carbon emmissions and our dependence on fossil fuels from foreign and domestic sources and we're radicals. Cool. I'm all for it. Its not the first time I've been identified for "radical thinking".In my almost 20 years of military and defense dept service my ability to think outside the box was complimented frequently. Fortunately I was a "good" radical or they'd have bounced me out after the first tour. So, I rather take your label as a compliment.
I believe that your position of adhering to fossil fuels and denouncing alternative energy while subtly defaming the opinions of others through misdirection displays an amount of training not readily available to most persons...which makes you a bit of a "radical" even borderline fanatic. Either way its an enjoyable exchange, but I'd suggest you be less caustic in order to avoid alienating potential support.

Russ, twenty years in the military? Thank you for your service.

Butch, I was a soldier in the 70's and lived in that firing range at Yakima...and nobody said a thing to us about any potential harm...and recently the Governor of Washington State has been trying to get the word out that those facilities have been leaking for years. Seems we have a problem getting authorities to accept reality.

Does anyone think Illinois will actually aggressively enforce any regulations concerning fracking? They speak a great game, but seriously, when it comes to environmental laws Illinois has a very poor record of adhering to and enforcing restrictions and regulations when it interferes with industries that make major campaign donations.

Russ, try building or transferring a property that has environmental contamination, and you'll you see how incorrect you are about how "soft" the IEPA is in regulation!

Bob, yep, they (IEPA) crack down on the end user once the damage has been done. Then the landowner gets drawn into the mess. Try getting the responsible party to clean up your land once they've screwed it up and you'll see just how messy a problem it is. You might own the land, but you do not automatically own the mineral rights under it. The Amish in Pennsylvania found that out the hard way and now they're stuck in a battle with a mess to clean up that wasn't even their fault.
The lessons from Love Canal and Lake Eirie, the Cayuhoga River (it actually caught on fire!) and others fell by the wayside. Clean Air credits can be purchased by polluters to avoid the costs of conversion to cleaner practices (if a surplus of credit occurs the holder may sell those credits to others that have less or no clean air credits) The end result is the same....there is no way to drastically reduce the emmissions without a major change to current practices and to existing infrastructure. That change will not come from fossil fuels entirely and does not eliminate the problem of energy needs. Ironically, Illinois was a pioneer state in alternative energy but has fallen far behind due to lack of support and public information. We have the wind and the sun, but we haven't capitalized on those resources due to lack of funding...yet. Lets see what happens in 2014 elections. The guy that addresses energy alternatives has the advantage over the ones that ignore it.

Here's a challenge for you, Russ. Identify a SINGLE case where fracking has been definitively determined to be the source of groundwater pollution. There hasn't been any, so that's a trick question. I've worked a lot in central Pennsylavania, and what you'll find there is that even where there is NO fracking, there are sometimes natural occuring methane in the water. Some cheats have tried to blame fracking, but surveys done before the fracking was started showed no increase from the procedure. Case closed. FYI, if we have the "big one" from the New Madrid Fault near St Louis, which, BTW, was considered in nuke design, it would have no more affect than if no fracking had occurred. The fracturing is small for the process, and the loosening of the structure would just have a damping effect on the propagation fo the seismis S and P waves. Affects, by ALL rational assessment, would be small or negligible.

I'm not avoiding your question. It's just none of your business, "Bob."

Bob, please tell the world how to stop the Fukushima Diachi nuclear disaster.

Seems I've gotcha, Spencer. Most STEM workers are PROUD of their profession. My guess is that fixing copiers isn't a very good "T" to give credence to your opinions here.

Sue, the way to have stopped the Japanese disaster was to have the same nuclear safety procedures we have in the US, which is to have a thorough review of all postulated threats, and have ways planned in design to mitigate those threats.

In the US spent fuel pool cooling systems are supplied by both offsite power and diesel generators. The oil tanks are seismically designed, as are ALL nuclear related systems, and are either placed above flood level on built up hills, inside the Auxiliary building on the second floor, or protected by berms from high flood levels.

The Japanese reactors WEREN'T, which is why the tragedy happened. Had they used US designs, the cooling system would have provided cooling for the spent fuel rods for 30 days until offsite power could be restored to run them, or allowing for fuel tank refill.

For the existing condition, all that can really be done for the spent fuel is to pour as much concrete as possible over them after the rods are sufficiently separated to prevent chain reaction. The unnecessary contamination, unfortunately, will need to be collected or dispersed. That's why the US nuclear licensing process is so necessary to safe nuclear power.

Bob, you didn't "get me" and I don't fix copiers for a living. Frankly, I just don't feel the need to give you any more information about other than what you already see through my comments, my name, and my picture.

Also, it's kind of childish to attempt to bolster your own arguments by making personal attacks. It does not say a lot for who you are as a person.

Actually, you did, Russ. You claimed the oil companies don't pay any taxes. Do you actually READ your posts? I responded to that.

BTW, I'm in the construction industry (as I believe you are, COO?) and if your not able to manage at least 15% of your billings as profit, I'm surprised your still in business. If your ROI is only 3%, your better off shutting the doors and putting the money into a utility stock!

Ummm... Those who follow the methods of Alinsky are not necessarily communist of socialist. He found a subversive method to fight factual argument and policy to support his agenda when it had no merit, kinda like you!

I find your statement about letting the "adults" take charge interesting. Let me know when you and Russ find one so that you can learn something and grow up!

Bob...why link me to Sue? I have no association with her other than we agree that your position in this argument is one that we do not agree with..as do many others here. But I will say Sue nailed her prediction about you reducing your support for your argument to unsubstantiated accusations and sensationalism against those that do not readily agree with your position.

Russ please note the mindless,personal insults from her above. I challenge your and Sue's knowledge about the subject, and the apparent lack of understannding you have beyond the usual leftie talking points. When Ipresent facts, you don't dispute them with ayuthoritative factual rebuttal, you try to change the conversation. Feel free to answer the eight questions I posed to Sue above, if you actually know ANYTHING about nuclear safety it should be a snap!

Butch, write a sober, coherent question and I'll be happy to answer it for you1

I never saw any reactors in Yakima when I was there, but that was 30 plus years ago. I did see those international warning signs about Nuclear Chemical or Biological hazards posted though.

Thank you for grouping me with Susan and Russ! I will take that as a compliment!

Spencer, eventually our sun will burn out and go nova. Should we devote all our resources TODAY to prepare for interstellar evacuation? Of course not, but there may be a time (in hundreds of millions of years) where that should be a priority. Would our grandchildren THANK US for bankrupting our economy our economy and dooming them to poverty to solve problem that won't exist for another hundre million years? I thnk not. The same applies to energy issues. There's at least five generations of KNOWN reserves in natural gas in the US. When the time comes that it's depleted, we will develop the technology to make use of other energy sources. We should research and develop the "how" part now. but not install and manufacture it until energy costs make it viable. That's the biggest difference between Russ, Karen, Susan and me. I support converting to these sources when it makes economic sense. They support converting to these sourses when it DOESN'T, to further some non-science or economic based agenda.

Now I wish we WERE researching instellar evacuation. That would be awesome. To boldly go where no man has gone before...

Bob is way more entertaining than a Fellini flick. I adore his comment about the sun burning out in a gazzillion years being relevant to denying funding for research into alternative energy on earth today. Say whatever you want but this is great entertainment! Oh...and there is some useful ideas being put forth as well.

Bob, the way they deal with spent fuel is to encase the small pellets into concrete slabs, therefore the fuel pellets have their own shielding. Extracting the nuclear materials after encasement is a very dangerous, and likely lethal, task for anyone stealing it. The best way top deal with these shielded casks is to bury them in salt domes in the desert where their not subject to water corrosion or erosion. They're small enough that seismic events won't damage them underground. the only obstacle to doingthis safe, relatively simple disposal is, of course, the Federal goernment which currently has the assinine policy of keeping it in spent fuel pools in the nuclear facility. The big problem in the Japanese reactors is that they lost the generators, and oil fuel supply for the generators, for the spent fuel. The spent fuel keeps on generation heat until its encased, therefore it creates a risk. Had the Japanese properly disposed of the spent fuel, the tragedy at the plants never would have happened!

Bob posted: <snip> The big problem in the Japanese reactors is that they lost the generators, and oil fuel supply for the generators, for the spent fuel. The spent fuel keeps on generation heat until its encased, therefore it creates a risk. Had the Japanese properly disposed of the spent fuel, the tragedy at the plants never would have happened!<end snip>
~~
If it were only that simple. TEPCO was warned not to build nuclear power plants in areas of high seismic activity and prone to tsunamis but they did as they pleased.

The truth is the melted core cracked the containment vessels:
http://enenews.com/scientist-melted-core-cracked-containment-vessel-really-containment-fukushima-reactors-video

and water must be continuously pumped into the cracked and leaking containment vessel indefinitely until the experts can figure out what to do. Meanwhile radioactive water is flowing into the Pacific Ocean and radioactive fish are showing up in California.
This was greed, reckless incompetence and lies. A lot of people are going to die because of this, some estimate 5X Chernobyl and that estimate is nearly one million people affected by that meltdown.
Any ideas or suggestions would be welcomed by TEPCO and probably the entire northern hemisphere's residents.

Actually, Sue, no authoritiative regulatory agency "warned" TEPCO not to build nukes in that area. The regulatory agencies had the power to prevent them being built. They chose not to.

You obviously don't understand how "risk" aversion serves "greed". Anyone involved with technology with risk; be it airplanes. explosives, oil drilling, or nuclear plants, knows that the costs of remediation are far more costly than proper design and construction. The "greedy" thing to do is spend pennies up front to avoid downside risk of millions later on. BTW, if you dig a little deeper, you'll find that the reactor vessel cracks were't due to seismic activity, it was due to the thermal stresses from residual heat removal systems.

PLEASE learn at least a little about the technical side of the issue before you form an opinion, provided facts and knowledge have anything to do with the opinions you spout out.

yeah Butch I know...but did you ever consider that maybe BOB is actually taking that stance in order to get us to propel alternative energy? It is a common strategy of a "radical" to incite others by taking an aggressive stance in order to draw out common opinions. I mean look at his posts, they are too well structured to be that of a layperson...unless he's just a fanatical zealot with a degree from an online community college based largely upon "life experience".

"unless he's just a fanatical zealot with a degree from an online community college based largely upon "life experience"." Ummm... you mean like a certain Chief of Operations of a family constructiion business who only got an AA degree from college of DuPage? Actually, I'm a licensed professional engineer in six states, have a Bachelors degree in engineering from UI Urbana and aMasters in Engineering from IIT. I'm also a certified energy conservation professional in the City of Chicago, LEED certified by the US Green Building Council, and I've also been certified by the Federal Nuclear agency as a lead technical auditor for nuclear design. Of course that can't compete with having an associates degree from COD, can it?

Bob's official song and dance AKA: line of bs is straight out of fox news and the rush limbaugh playbook, including the part about calling others communists and blaming everything on Obama.
I suspect he's profiting and protecting his investments. Bob is way too involved in trying to prop up the reckless energy cartel while glossing over the mega-disasters they were involved in.
I see BP ( big polluter ) is going on trial soon over their role in the Gulf Of Mexico Macando well enviornmental disaster. I understand BP was warned not to drill in that location of the gulf due to instability but, like TEPCO in Japan, went ahead anyway and did as they pleased anyway.
Do you have any suggestions on how such disasters can be prevented?

Well, it seems you lost the argument because you gave uop debate and now are trying to blame Fox news and Limbaugh!LOL

Regarding the Gulf spill, you really area ignorant of the issue, arean't you, despite ALL the information out there!

The root cause had nothing to do with the location, it was due to the "mud liner" being used for the casing instead of underwater concrete and an explosive isolation valve (it crushes and crimps the pipe to prevent or minimize the leakage when all else fails). There's no doubtin BP screwed up, as did the government inspectors who were responsible for ensuring the right liner was used and the energency valve was in proper working order.

Unlike the nuclear industry in the US, oil drilling in international waters isoften less strngent on safety. If your point is that the industry must do better, we agree. YOU can ALWAYS improve safety, It's a journey, not a destination.

BTW, a funny thing happened after this "environmental disaster" . The oil supply injcreased the rate of growth of oil eating bacteria, and the blooms were nowhere near as serious as predicted.

Mother Earth is pretty resilient. She does a better job of taking care of herself than we can!

OMG Bob!You can read!I have a degree from COD.I got it after my Bacc in BA and later my COC.Just last semester I also took 12 hours at JJCin Bio, EEAS, and Mfg (I guess that makes me "man of letters" considering I started taking college courses in the 70's in Washington state and keep going back for more)Ever hear of on going education?If all you found on me was an AS from COD(which is actually an AAS in Facilities Management to supplement my BS in Construction Management)then you really need to dig further and do a better job of research.Did you miss that certificate of comprehension I got from Sanyo Cho in International Trade back in 95'?How about when I was denied readmission to an Illinois university in 79?Did you get those transcripts from St Georges or my acceptance letters into the Masters of Project Management program at Villanova in Pa?: Try checking out the Army's "Project Ahead" program from the 70's. You'll find several (that means many) colleges listed in my CV Then again, you missed CLC and WU as well as CPD in Newport News Va. So what did you do...go to my Facebook page for research?lol That explains your posts...you don't do enough due diligence and you attack others that disagree via a campaign of discreditation. Wait!According to you I only have an AS degree(does an AS actually exist?)so I may not be expressing myself eloquently enough to merit the consideration of "Bob who doesn't give his last name".Next time list the rest of the credentials,amateur.

@Bob:

for your edification:http://real-agenda.com/2011/10/10/gulf-of-mexico-sea-floor-unstable-fractured-spilling-hydrocarbons/

http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/translating-uncle-sam/stories/offshore-drilling-low-bills-vs-big-spills

The area of the Macondo well lies on an unstable shelf and BP was warned but the EPA exempted BP from rules. Hows that for cozy ?

@Bob <snipped>
BTW, a funny thing happened after this "environmental disaster" . The oil supply injcreased the rate of growth of oil eating bacteria, and the blooms were nowhere near as serious as predicted.

Mother Earth is pretty resilient. She does a better job of taking care of herself than we can!
~~~
So let mommy clean up the messes and disasters ? Where is responsibility in the picture ? Why was BP allowed to dump toxic corexit into the gulf to SINK the oil when this same product was banned in Great Britain where BP is based ?

Corexit is not an oil eating product. You should know that, Bob

Russ, I found your background on your "linkedIN" site where you provided the info for the general public. I couldn't care less about your personal life. I was just looking to see if I was debating someone with some kind of scientific literacy, and I found out I wasn't. I'll frame my responses to you in that context from now on. I apologize that I may have assumed too much regarding your ability to engage in science and fact based argument on nuclear, oil and energy policy issues. Once again, my heartfelt apology.

Aways! And be careful, Russ, you might actually learn something about which you write!

Butch, you really need to get off of drugs, your consistent incoherence is indication of a real problems. Seriously, bud, seek out some help.

Butch not all career service members are LIFERS. Most are professionals (except in my case, I was a hippy soldier that just loved my job!).

..and I'm still waiting for you to read the response to your original question. Try scrolling back up to your questino and you'll see the answer. Not really diligent about looking for information and responses, are ya Sue?

BTW, where exactly is YOUR response to my questions regarding your understanding of nuclear safety issues? I guess your lack of any answer IS the answer to my query!

Susan, excellant question. That's what's scaring all of us. They're pumping in water to keep the molten glob of radioactive gook cool, but where is that runoff going? Right back into the ocean that's being fished for food. Not good. I can see that bob's pro nuclear power, that's good, so am I, but, but, but? I don't pretend to have an answer. I guess in the short term we're OK here, but there will be issues in the future.

@Russ i was not a career guy and loved my job the day after I arrived back home, i was in VA and the left coast as well as Mo and TEXASS here in the states and Istanbul in Eurasia many of these places are potential disasters thanks to BOB'S designs!

I gave your response to that issue above. PLEASE learn to read before trying to debate these issues. Of course, if you actually bothered to read my response, you couldn't give your snide little digs, could you?

Bob, you did not provide and answer to my questions so I will ask again.

What happened to the melted fuel which escaped from a cracked containment vessel and how can this re remedied & when are you going to provide TEPCO and perhaps The Union Of Concerned Scientists with your solutions on how to stop this ongoing meltdown.
How about you address these very real and critical questions.

Russ,there's a handful of people here that are very opionated and they don't mind resorting to name calling. Skip them. I enjoy the intelligent posts, even bobs, but skip the nonsense.

opioniated??? spell check please.

Bob is having fun with Bob. All those Jedi mind tricks he plays with himself must get tiresome after awhile. So sad.

@ laird skip these posts at yer own peril!

It seems that nuclear materials were transported through piping and equipment after the accident. They're currently trying to "decommission" the station, which involves decontaminating piping, components and structures, disposing of the "clean" materials and interting and shielding the solid waste. The same thing is going on at Zion nuclear station, but with far less exposure and contamination than the Japanese plant, obviously.

Bob posted <snip>:
It seems that nuclear materials were transported through piping and equipment after the accident. They're currently trying to "decommission" the station, which involves decontaminating piping, components and structures, disposing of the "clean" materials and interting and shielding the solid waste. <end>
~~~~
WRONG BOB !!!!!
They're not even close to decommissioning Fukushima Diachi. There are no plans in place as of yet except they want a global response and help:

http://japandailypress.com/iaea-director-general-says-global-team-should-help-japan-dismantle-fukushima-reactors-2624054

Bob, did you think you would run into people here who might actually know what is happening in the world of " safe and clean " nuclear energy ? LOL

@ Russ--nah send it to Bainland China thru the wheat fields let the dirtiest oil and mud on the Planet be refined in Bainland China then deport the Koch's and Twit for their treason!
DO u think the CANADIANS WILL allow the tar to go through their beautiful open spaces and then be loaded in VANCOUVER? not a chance! It is a PR bs campaign there are only a fraction of jobs to be created, we already have the goo on the way to WHITING BP AND U WILL BREATH the SHITE indeed, but besides that they are good stewards of the Planet right?

Russ: <snipped> We could just store all that Canadien shale oil in the great lakes after we empty them <end>
~~
more like after all the water in OUR great lakes is sucked out and sold back to us.
this is not a joke. it's already happening. our resources and minerals are being
" mined " and exported. Check out Nestle Corporation and Michigan lakes.

Russ, if you blog, don't drink. If you drink, don't blog.

Russ and Susan again we are indebted As we are slowly getting the true story and now it is even more horrific any half or nitwit wing nut who says he or she have a fuzzy warm feeling on NUKES think about this, No woman in future generations in all of japan can safely have a child, HELEN Caldicott of Australia whose credentials surpass the HANFORD designers said at a recent sym on FUKI that PLUTONIUM has an affinity for men's testicles! ( just like preador preachers and priests) It is true also in parts of the Balkans and E Europe and soon Wash, ore, Idaho and Mormon Utah, the thought that occurs to me is for the designers of these WMD ( and family members who led the good life ) MUST BE TRIED AND SENT to A FUKISHIMA retirement home from there to live out their miserable lives in comfort, or if they prefer to BELARUS which is directly downwind of Chernobyl Can we get a second and petition started!

Actually the Red Gate disposal was by the Federal government and, is commonly the case, they shrouded their dangerous incompetence by calling it a "National Security Issue". It is my understanding that the waste has now been effectively remediated due to CIVILIAN agency and clean up procedures.

As I stated previously, the biggest danger from nuclear materials comes from the Federal government, NOT commercial power production.

@Russ and Susan , what su said on Nestle is right on and before the XL trans Canada became another disinfo exercise the TPARTY GOV of KANSASS and NEB were getting the surrogates in the Congress to write a bill that would in addition to drying up the aquifers feeding the Lakes try to run a pipeline into the WHEAT FIELDS where the XL was sure to contaminate the Alagalal, most Tparty ungrateful or walking dead intellectuals who are able to read will find this BORING and wake up in a dozen years when LAKE MICH disappeared which would not be good for the BP Whiting refinery either, it is a shame that is good result!

They dont care about the human toll. All they care about is money and power.

Sue, is the problem that you don't know how to scroll, read, or is it just a comprehension problem on your part? Here's what I wrote in response to your question on Monday:

"Sue, the way to have stopped the Japanese disaster was to have the same nuclear safety procedures we have in the US, which is to have a thorough review of all postulated threats, and have ways planned in design to mitigate those threats.

In the US spent fuel pool cooling systems are supplied by both offsite power and diesel generators. The oil tanks are seismically designed, as are ALL nuclear related systems, and are either placed above flood level on built up hills, inside the Auxiliary building on the second floor, or protected by berms from high flood levels.

The Japanese reactors WEREN'T, which is why the tragedy happened. Had they used US designs, the cooling system would have provided cooling for the spent fuel rods for 30 days until offsite power could be restored to run them, or allowing for fuel tank refill.

For the existing condition, all that can really be done for the spent fuel is to pour as much concrete as possible over them after the rods are sufficiently separated to prevent chain reaction. The unnecessary contamination, unfortunately, will need to be collected or dispersed. That's why the US nuclear licensing process is so necessary to safe nuclear power."

...

If you want further clarification on the technical aspects of this, feel free to ask. I guess you're allowed to keep on lying about my not responding if you wish. It's still a free country despite Obama's attempts to make it otherwise.

BTW, when are you going to respond to MY 8 questions above? You've had plenty of time to Google the answers by now. Is the problem that you're not technically literate enough to understand what you Googled?

@ Bob, again I wil ask you why you are not offering up your expertise and genus on all things nuclear to TEPCO and the Japanese Govt. since they cannot seem to stop this ONGOING meltdown of the Fuk plant.
What happens, Bob, when melted fuel leaks from cracked containment vessels and right through to the ground and shallow groundwater thus resulting in hydrogen expolsions ? are you going to try and deny this is happening ?

@ Bob, the waterboy for all things nuclear and profitable. Here is a recent news clip from the Christian Science Monitor regarding radioactive leaks from one of those safe US nuclear plants:
http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Energy-Voices/2013/0225/Former-Manhattan-Project-nuclear-plant-leaking-radioactive-waste

Doesn't sound safe to me. What U think Bob .

To sum it up he is a genius, who knows all, loves women, never blames them for getting attacked and murdered, and is a full supporter of social causes... end sarcasm...

yea he's got a facebook page, too. A pee tardy hateriot. whodda thunk LOL

fyi, I've NEVER been fired from a school or any other public job. "Neo-conservative" party?LOL As far as being a shill for whatever "corporation" out there, that's absolute nonsense! When logic and common sense direct me to position on public policy, I support. When low information folks like Sue, Karen and Russ (I won't even get into BUTCH's problems) try to force bad ideas on the rest of us, I make cogent fact based arguments refuting their ideas. that drives them absolutely NUTS! Their used to demogoging issues and getting their way through personal attacks and ATTEMPTS at intimidation. That's a pretty tried and true leftie tactic.

As far as "Arguing with him is useless since he will always have a talking point to come back to" you're absolutley RIGHT! The truth will out, and that really sticks in your craw, doesn't it?

Nice playin' with ya, fyi!

Bob, you are full of yourself, a legend in your own mind.

Right on...

Well said Bob!

Actually, I DID anser, you just can;'t conprehend the respoonse becasue you don't have a friggin' clue about how nuclear systems work. Those portions of the fuel rods that melted are currently stabilized and no longer molten; they're solid and the currently heat removal system is keeping them from being melting further. You've been reading too much "China Syndrome" malarky. Regarding hydrogen generation, that was part of the original problem because the reactor cladding, when over 500C in contact with water, can result increating hyrdrogen which, when in the presence of an ignition source and oxygen, can explode. That's why US reactors have a "burping" system that can safely release any hydrogen buildup before a explosion concentration can be formed.

There's a lot of info out there on this. Try researching something other than hysterical left wing websites sometime!

I guess if I have better things to do than answer your questions so that you don't actually have to look at informed sources online, you consider that "leaving". Get a life, sue!

Readers, please note that sue is steering you to 1-2 year old material rather than current conditions. That's like using 2009 economic data to form policy for the 2013 economic conditions.

That's what those who have no logical argument for debate do to deceive as many of the gullible as possible. Shame on you, Sue!

Actually, if you actually bothered to read the articles on this, there IS no molten fuel. it's all solidified.

The station is a GE BWR (boiling water reactor) which uses a water that comes into direct contact with the fuel rods to generate steam to run the turbinies an generate electricity, as opposed to a PWR (pressurized water reactor) which has a steam generator that uses steam that NEVER touches the fuel rods to turn the turbines.

This is important because when a fuel rod is breached in a BWR and leaked particulate material can be transported anywhere that the steam and reactor water went.. It could be plated out in the turbine blades, stuck in a heat exchanger tube, or in some station piping.

If a serious piece of fuel had left the building it would be easily detected by geiger fly overs and immediately be captrued and contained. The big stuff is easy to find and control. The little stuff like contaminated grains in water or in sand are the toughest things to remediate.

Is that simple enough, or should I go ito more detail? BTW, this is all on line if you bother looking beyond the first sentence of the article!

I don't write this for you, Susan, You're happily an ill informed poster ( and probably voter) with a deeply flawed agenda. I write this for readers who actually may want to learn something about the subject of nuclear safety. It's important.

Gene, if you have a valid point to make, please make it. You won't get past the politcs with Russ and Susan, but MANY other people read this who don't post. I write this for them.

If you have any questions or points to make on the subject, I'm sure many of the non-posting readers would profit from it.

@Gene in talking to the surrogates, special interests and lobbyists of the Oligarchs or Cayman islanders it is really not possible to get factual story, event, data or get to the chase as u may observe it is simple evasion and dazzle us with toilet paper responses there is nothing to learn from TPARTY BOB'S until he fesses up and stop his jibbin -jabbin or what ever MR T is suppose to be providing, as u can plainly see he has not provided a single line on HANFORD or CHERNOBYL and barely anything from FUKI that was not from his misinfo manual nor will or can he!

"The love of money is the root of all evil." For once we agree. When politicians steal from us through taxation, their "love" of the money that brings them power is certainly evil. When "Green" technology advocates want subsidies from other peoples' money filtered through the government to enrich their unsustainable, uneconomical agenda, it certainly is "evil". Our government caving in for subsidies for Wall street and banks through ridiculouosly and artificailly low interest rates through the Federal Reserve bank, which they REFUSE to use for ordinary people to fund starting or conveying businesses, certainly is evil.

Using ill gotten money throught the executive branch to shaft GM bond holders instead of allowing sensible reorganization thorugh bankrupcy, all to protect excessive UAW pensions and salaries, certianly is evil.

Perhaps the GREATEST evil, however, is when elected officials in Illinois and DC plunder public funds to unfairly enrich thier campaign contributing "friends" like Sonlyndra, VOLT and Al Gores FOREIGN electric car company for the "love" of their campaign contributions.

There ARE some candidates and public people who are working for the good of their communities even though it's against their personal financial benefit. Seek them out and vote for them this April!

Sue, you haven't made a single argument for wind or solar being more economical than fossil or nuclear electricity or generation. Give us some hard economic FACTS and we may listen to you.

Your comment, "self professed expert with LEED designations would be so patently ignorant on the advances being made in green energy" is both insulting and flat out incorrect. You haven't given a SINGLE CASE where your "Green" technology can be competitive without subsidy. If you could, you would, BUT YOU CAN'T!

Finally, your smear that I somehow am providing the truth for financial gain is utter nonsense, as you well know. You're pretty typical of Green liars who, when they can't make a fact based logical argument, choose to slime those telling you the "inconvenient truth".

FYI I don't own a single share of BP or any major oilr company stock. So much for your "personal financial gain" lies and smears.

Over the years I've met a number of Green technology advocates who actually take the time to educate themselves on issues green, do their homework and earn certification. They come up with ideas for better, more economical designs and are really making a difference.

They're SOOOO different from Green Gadflies like you who know little about which they write and need to smear those disagreeing with them becasue they don't have the knowledge or intellect to debate.

Readers, look for these other Green advocates and ignore those like Susan. "Green" deserves better than her!

@Susan --u are too kind to this poisoner, if this were a Blog on selling pot and where to get a joint the poster would be doing 1-5,THYROID CANCER Bob is a spokesperson not just defending thyroid, breast and testicle cancers that are just a few the leading ones, now thanks to LW and your recent posts on BP he is can be one of the poster men for the entire corporate evil of the Cayman islands and the farce that is ongoing in the FEDERALIST SOCIETY Corporate courtrooms, remember the disaster in FRANCE the tanker that spilled hundreds of thousands of gal on the Normandy or Brittany coast the settlement to the locals was overturned by the EXXON or other sister appointed Judge, any further expectations by us on the present Corp Atty Gen to do anything that is equitable is like getting TESTICLE CANCER BOB to explain " why the US- NRC made RED GATE WOODS GATE a NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUE" Just curious do u think any wing nut posters on the Patch has been victimized in some form by cancer and or Trauma by TPARTY -TRAUMA BOB FRANKENSTEIN designs?

gee, a geophysicist who works for Exxon and Conoco is slamming BP. NO conflict there!LOL

Great piece, LW. the World Health Organization(WHO) has determined only minor risk and health problems from one of the worst nuclear disasters in History. It seems your safer living near a nuclear meltdown than spending a weekend in Chicago's Englewood neighborhood!

Despite this, the real issue here is comparing costly and non-competitive "green" wind and solar with nuclear and fossil generation.

Wind and solar loses every time, and should not be more than about 1% of generating capacity, and that only works in remote areas for specific purposes such a water tank and pump storage.

It IS time to phase out coal fuel, however. We have abundant, cheap natural gas which should be parts or the "three legs" of US power; nuclear, gas, and hydro.

All area clean, and safe (at least in the US) and could prevent the deaths of over 13,000 people per year from respiratory disease from coal fired systems (mostly in China and India).

The way is clear for any informed person who cares more about doing the right thing instead pushing a leftist political agenda!

Greenpeace Says WHO Is Downplaying Health Risks From Nuclear Meltdown....

http://enenews.com/shameless-new-world-health-organization-report-shockingly-downplays-health-risks-after-fukushima-other-organisations-stop-hiding-impact

http://enenews.com/fukushima-cancer-headlines-all-over-mainstream-media

Oh, GOOD - a totally unbiased and informationally reliable source !

Hey Butch..seriously? so that's all you got from the article? That there is (your take) "TRAUMA that is even worse presently than radiation" ??? What was actually written was, "...people living nearby were exposed to radiation and trauma. The trauma was worse" [than the radiation, my clarification here] . and here: "The WHO report highlights the psychological effects of disaster -- fear, anxiety and depression, possibly to the point of psychosomatic illness and psychiatric disorders." Yes, Butch people were fearful, anxious and depressed...Gee, you don't have to live by a frigged up reactor for that - just read any news report dealing with our current economic status and Washingtonian gridlock.

Butch, they have to stick to the official line of BS: nuclear power is safe. They have to because very likely they are benefitting financially or they're complete useful idiots and trolls. Probably both.
They are waging a PR campaign of lies and spin. It's about the money. Plain and simple. Lots and lots of money and they like it that way.

Susan, you and BUTCH just go right on egging each other on. Be advised, though, when you post things like, " very likely they are benefitting financially or they're complete useful idiots and trolls. Probably both. ", you only succeed in diminishing yourselves by casting erroneous aspersions.

Meow and thanks for bringing that to my attention. Did you bother to look at the RSS feeds ? Probably not.

Unlike the energy cartel which allocates gazillions to PR campaigns and has IT personal on their staff, I am one person.

The page is the page. It works or it doesn't. I am sorry that you are so overworked that you cannot do the corrections.

on second thought... you are aware your LinkedIn Profile indicates your position is "web site coordinator"...yup, makes perfect sense, how being just 1 person, you can't get around to fixing the website ...

Experience
web site coodinator
Live Green 4 Less
March 2007 – Present (6 years 1 month)Naperville-Plainfield, Illinois USA

posted by Bob on Wednesday, February 27th at 2:25 p.m.

Actually, if you actually bothered to read the articles on this, there IS no molten fuel. it's all solidified.

If you are going to argue with another person, could you at least read their replies and quit asking the same question, that has been answered, over and over?

Bob Laird, I hear ya....loud and clear. You are so correct about people nowadays freaking out about 'extended' power outages. SO....in honor of BUTCH and Susan (and their ilk) , I think that since Greenpeace really hates every power source except wind and solar, that THEY should underwrite funding for development of a The OFFICIAL GREENPEACE SOLELY WIND AND SOLAR POWERED HOME GENERATOR SYSTEM. That way, when the grid goes down, folks will be able to have lights and heat and use computers and charge cel phones in a green friendly manner that doesn't use those evil old fossil fuels or horribly dangerous radioactive elements.

Of course, that's provided that the sun is shining. Or the wind is blowing.
(eh, minor details)

Sue, I did't say or care about "cartels" or profit or regulation. My point is that we need Mr. electricity to be there when we want our eggs and toast, heat, air conditioning, and all the little things we take for granted. Don't get me wrong, I'm on your side too, I want to see advances in alternate energy, but for now if we want to keep living the good life we have to deal with the down side.

Are you really asking me to prove a negative?

@LW of the A team when u mention mutant butterflies is that in JAPAN or WASHINGTON or CHERNOBYL -BELARUS or FINLAND please elaborate? The same on two headed fish? How about the white deer at Argonne -- just Kidding?

Butch...

butterflies. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/17/world/asia/japan-butterfly-mutations-found-near-damaged-nuclear-plant.html?_r=0

fish: http://rt.com/news/japan-fish-radiation-fukushima-321/

1toomanytickets, she should take it a step further. She could lose the keyboard and use a speech-to-text app. With all that bluster, she could power her own itty-bitty wind turbine.

Susan I can regrettably state that I do not expect you to take any other posts seriously except your own. BTW, I certainly do not find missing fuel to be funny...in any way shape or form. If you actually READ my post you'd get that. The "humor", my dear, was aimed to be at YOUR expense, not the issue.

Susan,
One last thing, before you go.
When you are discussing ANY topic on the Patch and you find that one of your staunchest allies is Butch, you may want to re-think you position on that topic.

I was thinking the same thing......

I'm sure Susan would love to comment...but it's dark now so maybe her solar panels aren't allowing her to "power up"

Hey Butch....just curious, have you ever read "A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man" by James Joyce?

Thanks. I appreciate that. It explains a lot!

Don't know. and couldn't say. anyhow, I'm upwind.

Were you thinking more along the lines of: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."?

LW AND Testicle can BOB FRANKENSTEIN are going over ways to save their failing portfolio and investments in related Nuke energy engineering and Designs they would be smart to invest in SOLANDRA and other solars did u see the scene from BAINLAND CHINA capital this am, a sandstorm combined with poisoned air from the 50,000 MURKAN factory's made it visibility 0 and a massive health alert, Send in the clowns please! Where are u Tired,1toomany and Laird the big fish are in hiding!

Of course your deeply flawed "assumptions" have no resemblance to reality, Hugger.If what you said was true, AND THE WHOLE truth, YOU and Susan could build wind farms without government subsidies and forced purchase.

When you get some facts from authoritative sources instead of fabricated "assumptions", drop on by and we'll debate the issue!

T. Boone Pickens once tried to do that, but he quickly found out that inaccurate numbers like yours were just a sad fiction.

HOW about providing the source of your misinformation, Hugger?

Hot Off The Press:
From todays Chicago Sun Times business section, which really should be front page news in terms of it's significence:

New Evenston Walgreens Store To Become Nations First Net Zero Retailer:

http://www.suntimes.com/business/18691034-420/evanston-walgreens-store-will-be-countrys-first-net-zero-retailer.html

Store will meet it's own energy needs. Amazing and inspiring.

My assumption are based on market quotes that are three to four months old.

eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/er/electricity_generation.cfm supports my assumptions for a CCGT
The EIA NCF for wind is low for the new wind turbine technology. My assumptions are based on the new GE 1.7MW 100m in Texas, Kansas, Nebraska and North Dakota.
The entire energy industry is subsidized mostly through the tax code and in some cases loan guarantees. The tax code subsidies include but not limited to MLP structures (which explicitly exclude renewables), Production Tax Credits (which were initially used to encourage shale gas) and accelerated depreciation.
I don’t believe it is possible to build a new nuclear plant without a loan guarantee (i.e. the $8.3 loan guarantee to South Company to build their NUC)
T. Boone Pickens' plan had several fatal flaws; one of which was opening up ERCOT to federal regulation. And he took a big financial hit when gas pricing dropped.
Finally, the utilities have a duty to their shareholders to protect and expand their rate based. Low cost energy running through a fuel filling does not expand the rate base. The regulatory body is responsible for protecting the rate payers in the franchise. Sometime this means "forcing" the utilities to buy cheaper power (i.e QFs w/a PURPA Put)

WalGREEN's - (should I copyright that?) -is a wonderful thing. - a step in a good direction ...however (from the article) please note : "Net zero signifies that the project will produce more energy than it uses, feeding energy back into the power grid. The concept does not mean the company won't have to buy power from the local utility, said Menno Enters, the company's director of energy and sustainability. Particularly at night, when there is no sun the company will rely on the local utility to supply electricity, he said. The cost of the store will be more expensive. It will also be different. Visitors to the store will see the wind turbines outside, and notice an electrical vehicle charger station."
Once in the store, they might see lights dimmer than usual, with daylight supplementing artificial light."

If you actually bothered to read your link, you'd find that NOWHERE does it claim there's still molten fuel near the reactor. They're decribing the intial event. Come back when you learn to read, and can use something other than that goofy ENENEWS garbage!

Susan inquires "Some scarey and very dangerous stuff going on...? " YES. But regarding Molten vs Melted. - Bob is kinda correct, dear. About a year ago it may have been molten when it burned through the containment vessel, however it is no longer 'molten', although it is accurate to refer to it as melted. While it's a semantic difference, it is a BIG thing when attempting to dramatize by creating a certain mental image. Here's a helpful link: http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/32706/melted-vs-molten
Molten specifically refers to liquids which are extremely hot, and whose usual form is as a solid. It is used as an adjective. By contrast, something may be melted (whether used as a transitive verb, or an adjective), but need not be hot, and it need not be liquid (something that has begun to lose solidity can be considered melted), nor does it even need to still be subject to the melting process (i.e. it may have fully resolidified). From these definition you can conclude that melting describes the process from the moment the object starts changing its shape (due to the fact that it is not solid anymore); melted is used for object that changed its shape due to melting, even though it might not be melted (in stricter sense) anymore and it completely re-solidified; and molten is typically used with glass, lava, rock, all of which all require to be very hot to be melted, so high temperature is usually implied (though strictly speaking it is not necessary)

Susan - HERE's a good one !!! http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/fukushima-plant-set-to-collapse-from-another-quake-or-tsunami/story-e6frg6so-1226593520079

@ LW Sagan:
Either way this cannot be good.

What are your thoughts on this news article?

http://enenews.com/japan-times-melted-fuel-burned-holes-in-fukushima-reactors-then-explosions-cracked-containment-vessels

So, Susan so we can all stop beating one particular dead horse.... do you acknowledge there is a difference between molten fuel and melted fuel?

Dang - will try to recreate in a blander form.

Susan - yes. let's quibble over words. please.

I have to say I'm definitely with Bob on one aspect here - Please work on comprehension in context.

The 'dead horse' I'm alluding to was regarding your ERRONEOUS use of the word MOLTEN versus MELTED. God forbid you should just acknowledge your error and we can move on to the reactor issues. No, instead, you start your retort with a spin attempting to infer that I was describing the reactor meltdown itself as a dead horse.

The only way I was displaying a "cavalier attitude and approach " was towards your consistently misspeaking yourself with "Molten" ..... sheesh...and you wonder why folks don't want to play nice with you. Catch ya later !

Hey, Grabinski, love your writing style.

I'm sorry, Susan...maybe I missed your response...do you acknowledge there is a difference between molten fuel and melted fuel?

BUTCH, I'm worried about you - are you feeling ok? There is nothing oddly capitalized in your last post?