Nobel Prize Winner on NHK: “Only way to preserve human life is to completely turn away from nuclear

[bananas]

http://enenews.com/nobel-prize-winner-only-way-to-preserve-human-life-is-to-completely-turn-away-from-nuclear-power-nhk-video

Nobel Prize Winner on NHK: “Only way to preserve human life is to completely turn away from nuclear power” (VIDEO)

Published: June 17th, 2012 at 11:20 pm ET
By ENENews

Novelist Oe submits anti-nuclear petition to govt.
NHK
Jun. 15, 2012

Nobel Prize-winning Japanese novelist Kenzaburo Oe has asked Japan’s government to end its policy of dependence on nuclear power. [...]
...
Oe told Fujimura that he opposes the government’s plan to allow a restart of the Ohi nuclear plant in Fukui Prefecture, western Japan.
...
He told reporters that the Fukushima accident has shown that people cannot
coexist with nuclear plants.

He also said adults are responsible for opposing the restart, to maintain a healthy environment for children.

Oe and his fellow campaigners plan to hold an anti-nuclear rally in Tokyo on July 16th. 100,000 people are expected to attend.

More from Oe

I believe the only way to preserve human life is to completely turn away from nuclear power.

The segment about Kenzaburo Oe starts at 2:50 into the video clip.
Oe and three academics presented a petition to the cabinet signed by more than 6 million people.
The rest of the video is additional Fukushima news.

[FBaggins]

1. Nobel prize *in literature*

Almost as silly as refering to the music major dropout as an expert and scholar in the field of nuclear power.

[bananas]

2. What an ignorant thing to say.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenzaburō_Ōe

Kenzaburō Ōe (大江 健三郎 Ōe Kenzaburō?, born January 31, 1935) is a Japanese author and a major figure in contemporary Japanese literature. His works, strongly influenced by French and American literature and literary theory, deal with political, social and philosophical issues including nuclear weapons, nuclear power, social non-conformism and existentialism.

Ōe was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1994 for creating "an imagined world, where life and myth condense to form a disconcerting picture of the human predicament today."[1]

Contents [hide]
1 Life
2 Writing
2.1 Writing about his son, Hikari
2.2 Silence
2.3 Honors
3 Selected works
4 Nobel lecture
5 Notes
6 References
7 External links

<snip>

In 2004, Ōe lent his name and support to those opposing proposed changes in the post-war Japanese constitution of 1947. His views were seen as controversial by those who wanted Japan to abandon the constitutional impediment to "the threat or use of force as a means of settling international disputes," which is explicitly renounced in Article 9.[2]

In 2005, two retired Japanese military officers sued Ōe for libel for his 1970 essay, Okinawa Notes, in which he had written that members of the Japanese military had coerced masses of Okinawan civilians into committing suicide during the Allied invasion of the island in 1945. In March 2008, the Osaka District Court dismissed all charges against Ōe. In this ruling, Judge Toshimasa Fukami stated, "The military was deeply involved in the mass suicides". In a news conference following the trial, Ōe said, "The judge accurately read my writing."[3]

Oe has been involved with pacifist and anti-nuclear campaigns and written books about the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Following the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster, he urged Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda to “halt plans to restart nuclear power plants and instead abandon nuclear energy”.[4] Kenzabu Oe has said that Japan has an "ethical responsibility" to abandon nuclear power in the aftermath of the Fukushima nuclear disaster, just as the country renounced war under the postwar Constitution. During a 2012 press conference at the Foreign Correspondents' Club of Japan, Oe called for "an immediate end to nuclear power generation and warned that Japan would suffer another nuclear catastrophe if it tries to resume nuclear power plant operations".[5] Kenzaburo Oe participated the nuclear energy demonstration in Tokio Yoyogi Park in February 2012 with thousands of people. 2011 Japanese nuclear accidents were among the most severe nuclear accidents of the world.[6]

<snip>

[FBaggins]

3. You appear to have provided the wrong wikipedia link

There isn't anything in there that makes my post look "ignorant".

He is, in fact, a nobel prize winner in literature. Not in anything that would make his opinion relevant re: whether getting rid of nuclear power is the "only way to preserve human life" (itself the actual "ignorant thing to say&quot .

Putting "nobel prize winner" in the title is obviously a transparent attempt to grant additional credibility to the person's opinion (as are similar attempts to make Caldicott's nonsense appear less nonsensical).

It's like quoting an olympic gold medalist's opinion on Michael Phelp's poor technique... when it turns out the medalist interviewed won in dressage.

[kristopher]

5. "Putting "nobel prize winner" in the title..."

Yes, it is.

It doesn't require an advanced degree in physics to understand the nature and relative risks of nuclear power.


Claiming that no one is qualified to evaluate the role of nuclear in our world except those who are part of the nuclear village is a transparent ploy that highlights the thoughtless nature of your posts in this thread.

[FBaggins]

6. Thanks for the admission.

You were trying to grant credibility to his statements because you subconsciously knew that he otherwise had none.

It doesn't require an advanced degree in physics to understand the nature and relative risks of nuclear power.

So? Nobody said that it did... the point was that a nobel prize in an entirely unrelated field doesn't make his opinion more relevant than some ignorant slob giving in to his irrational fears.

[kristopher]

7. It does in this case.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenzaburō_Ōe

[FBaggins]

8. Lol... yeah... by your normal standard.

Which is simply "someone who says what I already believe... has credibility".

Which is what you're stuck with. Because the people who have actual credibility never say what you want them to say.

Since he apparently lives in "an imagined world" of "myth"... I can see the attraction.

[RobertEarl]

9. What about this? "Ignorant slob", too?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/asia/japans-naoto-kan-condemns-nuclear-power.html

In an unusually stark warning, Japan’s prime minister during last year’s nuclear crisis told a parliamentary inquiry on Monday that the country should discard nuclear power as too dangerous, saying the Fukushima accident had pushed Japan to the brink of “national collapse.”

...his strongest comments came at the end of his testimony, when a panel member asked him if he had any advice for the current prime minister. Mr. [Naoto] Kan replied that the accident had brought Japan to the brink of evacuating metropolitan Tokyo and its 30 million residents. He said the loss of the capital would have paralyzed the national government, leading to “a collapse of the nation’s ability to function.”

He said the prospect of losing Tokyo made him realize that nuclear power was just too risky, the consequences of an accident too large, for Japan to accept.

“It is impossible to ensure safety sufficiently to prevent the risk of a national collapse,” Mr. Kan said. “Experiencing the accident convinced me that the best way to make nuclear plants safe is not to rely on them, but rather to get rid of them.”

[FBaggins]

10. A politician swaying with the winds of popular opinion?

What a shock!

Not to envoke Godwin's law, but do you realize how many german politicians started making ridiculous statements once it was clear which way the political winds were blowing?

Treating the general public as if they're too stupid to think rationally is offensive... but it isn't uncommon.

[RobertEarl]

12. eh?

Now you are saying the public is ""too stupid to think rationally""?

Wow. Guess you and the nukies are the only smart ones? ! ?
Got news for ya.....it is the nukies who are irrational. And increasingly offensive.

[NickB79]

13. The US public elected Bush twice, just re-elected Wisconsin's governor

And has Romney neck-and-neck with Obama.

I'd say the public, at least in the US, is clearly too stupid to think rationally. If you have some evidence to show otherwise, I'd be happy to hear your side.

[RobertEarl]

15. What counts the votes?

Last edited Mon Jun 18, 2012, 08:59 PM - Edit history (1)

Do you even have a clue? Do you not think the crooks haven't considered how to steal elections?

I do not get the idea some have that nukes are ok, when clearly nukes are the most anti-human operation we have ever designed. I just don't get it.

Edited to add this link about vote counting:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=822454

[PamW]

21. Bogus "experts" with no training in the field

People with advanced degrees are not fooled by the propaganda that is put out by the anti-nuclear organizations. Sometimes it doesn't take an advanced degree but just a little high school physics. For example, the outright LIE foisted on us by the Union of Concerned Pseudo-scientists when they claimed that the Sandia F-4 Phantom test of reactor containment wall was invalid because the concrete block was not tied down. A high school student that knows the law of conservation of momentum can easily disprove their lie; like all the LIES from UCS.

When a large building experiences an earthquake, and we are wondering if it
is safe to inhabit, do we send for a novelist, even one who won the Nobel?
The opinion of a novelist on this matter would be LESS than WORTHLESS.

No - you send for a structural engineer.

When there is an airliner crash, and we are wondering how to prevent such crashes
in the future, do we send for a novelist, even one who won the Nobel?
Again the opinion of a novelist on the matter would be LESS than WORTHLESS.

No - you send for an aeronautical engineer.

As above, the novelist's opinions on Fukushima are again LESS than WORTHLESS.

You need someone that understands what went wrong, and how it can be fixed. You need
someone that can keep the consequences in perspective. You need someone who understands
the complex system. That is not a novelist.

What went wrong at Fukushima is actually pretty simple and easy to fix. The back-up
generators were in a non-watertight basement where a tsunami could flood the generator and
switchgear. ( Couldn't have been licensed in the USA. Fort Calhoun didn't just get "splashed",
it was inundated by water all around. But the diesel generators stayed dry and worked ).
The fuel tanks for the back-up generators at Fukushima were above ground at dockside. In the
USA, the tanks are required to be buried like at your local service station.

The back-up generators that TEPCO flew in didn't have the proper connectors. In the USA, the
operator has to practice flying in and hooking up. If TEPCO had done that, they would have found
the incompatibility on their first drill.

The above problems were obvious. If they had been fixed, the failure of the plant never would have
happened.

The logical fallacy problem here at DU is what I call the "narcissist fallacy". In this fallacy, some people
"think" that is someone, or some group agrees with them, then he / she / they are the experts. One DUer,
in particular, suffers from this self-righteous delusion, and its corollary that if someone disagrees with him,
then they are wrong.

PamW

[JDPriestly]

16. He won the Nobel Prize, as all winners of the Nobel Prize for literature do,

in great part for the moral teachings in his writings. He is far more qualified to speak about the morality of the use of nuclear materials whether for war or supposedly for peace than any nuclear scientist.

Nuclear scientists make their livings working with and selling the idea of nuclear weapons, energy and other "peaceful" uses for nuclear materials. They have a conflict of interest when it comes to assessing whether humans should use nuclear energy or weapons. It's the nuclear scientists whose opinions I do not trust on this issue.

[PamW]

22. Lumping too much together.

You FALSELY lump too much together under one roof.

There are nuclear scientists that have nothing to do with either nuclear power or nuclear weapons. They work on nuclear medicine and other uses.

The nuclear scientists that work on nuclear power for the most part have NOTHING to do with nuclear weapons. In fact ALL the nuclear weapons scientists are found at two labs; Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore because only at those labs can anything regarding nuclear weapon design be done.

We also have scientists like those from the National Academy of Science that are not beholding to either nuclear power or nuclear weapons industries. They don't have a financial interest in either. They are principally academics. However, the vast majority of them; like 99%; are in favor of nuclear power even though they don't profit from nuclear power.

The other thing I reject about your contention is that nuclear scientists can't be altruistic; that they are only in it for the money. Evidently you don't understand that these scientists CHOSE nuclear power. The nuclear power industry didn't have them in their control. They CHOSE to join because they saw nuclear energy as a very powerful force, and they wanted to harness that very powerful force for the good of mankind.

Read the introductory portion of this interview with nuclear physicist Dr. Charles Till conducted by Richard Rhodes for Frontline. Read why Dr. Till chose to become involved in nuclear power:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/interviews/till.html

Q: Talk about when you decided to go into nuclear power, and about the vision as it looked back then.

A: Oh, it was the field of the time. It was a field where you could be assured of doing something important, something for your time, is how I thought of it, that energy is the basis of our society, and nuclear energy was to be the way of the future.

Q: You saw this as an enormous benefit for mankind?

A: As a tremendous benefit for mankind, and that work, only the first work had been done on it.

Q: What was this benefit? Was it the amount of energy? Was it environmental aspects of the energy?

A: No. Remember, this was the late 1950s. The word "environment" was not even used much then, nor in fact really was the word "energy" much in the all encompassing sense that we use it now. It was, though, the unlimited amounts of energy. It wasn't the fact that nuclear, as I later came to believe, was also the best form of energy environmentally. But it was simply that the humankind is going to need vast amounts of energy in the future. Here was the way.

PamW

[JDPriestly]

25. I answered you in another post, telling you about my experience with the people.

in the nuclear energy industry and their obsession with having a product to sell rather than with providing consumers with a safe and inexpensive form of energy. (See my response to you about the First International Energy Conference, London, January 1974 -- response of representative of the Canadian nuclear energy industry to a presentation by Massachusetts Institute of Technology on solar energy.)

People who invent junk food do it so that they can feed people with food they like. That does not make junk food healthy. That a scientist in the nuclear energy industry claims he went into the field for altruistic reasons does not mean that the field exists and is funded and that dangerous nuclear plants are built for altruistic reasons. Besides, altruism is claimed as the excuse for all sorts of crimes, especially war crimes.

Nuclear energy, as we have seen in Chernobyl and Fukushima requires a huge investment. Once the money and the economic stake (jobs, marketing, installations in homes) has been made, it is very, very hard to take the losses and admit that nuclear energy was not a good investment and that it should be dismantled and somehow packed up.

We have no safe way to store nuclear waste. It could wreak havoc and destroy life centuries from now. Nuclear energy is a horror for future generations. An irreversible mistake of enormous proportions. I favor taking our losses now and shutting down existing plants.

So, we have to give up our nocturnal lives and some of our appliances. I would like to know that my grandchildren will not die in a nuclear disaster.

Drones combined with nuclear reactors? Are you kidding me?

[PamW]

28. Nuclear Power has been VERY SUCCESSFUL!!

Why would we "pack up" nuclear power? It's been very successful. Nuclear power has been providing 20% - 25% of the electric power used in the USA for the past 3 decades. Nuclear power is the LARGEST source of low carbon emission electric power.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-carbon_power

Nuclear power, with as of 2007 a 20% share of U.S. electricity production, is the largest deployed technology among current low-carbon energy sources


The USA had a very minor accident in terms of public effect in Three Mile Island. The Russians and the Japanese have made some serious mistakes, and the result was Chernobyl and Fukushima.

However, even with those accidents; nuclear power is an unqualified success.

How many airliners have crashed? Those crashes actually KILL people. Do we say that air travel is a failure and we need to "pack it up"? NO WAY!!

If we reprocess / recycle spent fuel as Dr. Till states in this interview; we won't have the thousand year storage problem. The fission products are much shorter lived than actinides. We just have to burn / recycle so that the only thing we have is fission products:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/interviews/till.html

Q: And you repeat the process.

A: Eventually, what happens is that you wind up with only fission products, that the waste is only fission products that have, most have lives of hours, days, months, some a few tens of years. There are a few very long-lived ones that are not very radioactive.

PamW

[GliderGuider]

4. The only way to preserve human life is to completely turn away from fossil fuels

Oh, and reduce our population to (well) under a billion in the process.

In the context of species extinction, nuclear power is a non-issue.

[NickB79]

11. Yeah, that was my take as well

Worrying about nuclear power wiping out our species while we allow global warming to rampage unchecked is like a diabetic worrying about eating a candy bar while standing on railroad tracks in the path of a 50-ton train.

[RobertEarl]

14. WTF?

Worrying about global warming wiping out our species while we allow nukes to rampage unchecked is fucking stupid.

Some here should be glad the nukes are killing off humans. It is their dream come true.

Sad cases those. They hate their own humanity, it seems.

[GliderGuider]

18. Straining at gnats while gulping down camels. nt

[madokie]

27. Stepping over dollars to save pennies

[JDPriestly]

17. We have to drastically cut back on fossil fuels AND

avoid using nuclear energy. The sun shines brightly here in Southern California. Seems to me that if wisely used, the sunshine we get here would be plenty for the needs of a reasonable number of people at least in N. America.

[GliderGuider]

19. Yes, that's what we should do.

What we actually will do is what we are already doing. Until we can't, of course.

[PamW]

23. You haven't done the math.

You "think" that would be the case; but the National Academy of Sciences says it isn't.

The NAS tells us that renewables are intermittent, and that you can't have an electric grid system with more than about 20% of renewable power. Even if we cut back on our energy use; no more than 20% can be intermittent or electric grids fail.

So yes - let's max out renewables to the 20% maximum recommended by the National Academy of Science.

Where do we get the rest? The NAS says that to be environmentally friendly and not cause global warming; the other 80% must be nuclear.

PamW

[JDPriestly]

24. Nuclear is not safe, and we have to have a replacement for coal and oil.

Affordable oil is limited in quantity.

Coal is really dirty. I lived in houses heated by coal-burning furnaces as a child. We were sick all the time.

We would have to change our lifestyle to live with solar energy at this time, but I have no doubt that if we invested more in solar energy, especially in ways to store and enhance it and new ways to produce it, here in Southern California, we would not need much else. It's a matter of applying our abilities to research and develop products that produce solar energy. That's all it is.

The reason that the nuclear industry does not like solar energy is that, with solar, they don't have a product to sell. A representative of the Canadian nuclear energy industry stated that in London at the First International Energy Conference in, I believe, January 1974. (I was there, and am pretty certain that I remember the date correctly.)

I was sitting just a few rows in front of this representative from the Canadian energy industry representative and remember his statement very clearly. The nuclear industry sees solar energy as a rival form of energy that would, in the long run, be cheaper for individuals who consume energy.

[PamW]

29. National Academy of Sciences disagrees with you

The National Academy of Sciences disagrees with you. Solar is NOT the answer.

You are like so many that say, "All we have to do is research..and solar is the answer".

Evidently you don't know that there are unbreakable laws of physics which tell us that we can NEVER make solar into the panacea that you claim it will be.

So many look at the dismally poor efficiency of solar and say that research will solve the problem. There are fundamental limits on the efficiency of solar power; "quantum efficiency", "charge carrier recombination" and the like that limit what we do. Just as the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and the Carnot Efficiency limit steam engines that we've had for TWO CENTURIES and we have never gotten around the efficiency limits that Carnot derived over a hundred years ago. So it will be for solar.

The problem is you are just not educated in Physics and science; so you don't see the problem.

PamW

[kristopher]

31. Everyone (including NAS) says you are making false claims

"Renewable electricity generation from technologies that are commercially available today, in combination with a more flexible electric system, is more than adequate to supply 80% of total U.S. electricity generation in 2050 while meeting electricity demand on an hourly basis in every region of the country."

http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/re_futures/

[FogerRox]

33. Is that NREL report come from people that work at

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Oak Ridge National Laboratory & Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

[PamW]

35. More falsehoods - entirely expected

Contrary to the ill-considered contention in the title of the above post; the National Academy of Sciences does NOT say that I'm wrong.

Evidently kristopher can't tell the difference between the National Academy of Sciences and the National Renewable Energy Lab.

Kristopher needs to be educated in the following:

The National Renewable Energy Lab is Amory Lovins and his ilk of renewable energy advocates.

The National Academy of Sciences is a group of the most distinguished scientists.

I've pointed out to kristopher that National Academy of Sciences has stated in numerous reports on energy going back decades, and the most recent published in 2009; that renewables because of their intermittent nature which can upset our electrical distribution system, can be no more than 20% of the electric energy generation capacity. That way the other 80% of the generating capacity, which is "dispatchable", which means we control the throttle, unlike renewables; can be use to "cover the slack" due to the intermittent nature of renewables.

Over time, I've given kristopher numerous scholastic citations from the National Academy of Sciences, and his response has been to either ignore the studies, claim they don't exist, or he misrepresents what those studies say as is done in the title of the above post.

Anyone with any common sense knows that renewables are not constant reliable suppliers of energy. Clouds shield solar arrays, wind speed fluctuates... all things that even school children know about. Electric systems require that the generation meet demand from fractional second to fractional second. Averages over days as krisotopher likes to quote, don't cut it.

Conservation of energy, which kristopher doesn't understand; invalidates the use of day-long averages. If the renewable has a slack morning but makes up for it in the afternoon; the electric grid can't "deficit spend" on energy in the morning only to be repaid in the afternoon.

The Law of Conservation of Energy applies instant to instant, and is not to be considered as a day-long average. In the morning when the renewable energy starved power system "deficit spends" because demand exceeds supply; where does that energy come from?\

The point is there's no place for it to come from; and the Law of Conservation of Energy doesn't allow this "deficit spending" with regard to energy. Kristopher doesn't appear to understand this; and neither does his mentor Amory Lovins from what I've read of his writings.

Kristopher, you really have to learn to tell the difference between real physical scientists, like yours truly; and political "scientists" like Amory Lovins.

PamW

[gejohnston]

32. that might have been true in the 1970s

but research and technology marches on. The solar cell isn't just the junky chips found in Radio Shack kits anymore, OK so I'm showing my age.

http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/science-scope/top-10-solar-power-advances-to-watch/1509
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_Germany
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/may/28/solar-power-world-record-germany

[FogerRox]

34. I know you have an education, and a huge attitude problem.

And you like to think you can deliver smack downs, and you try vigorously.

Kris is not without similar imperfections too, and the 2 of you have a history with each other, there are times neither of you act as human beings.

That said, having gone over some of the NAS material it seems they say that without changes 20 to 25% (25% where nat gas and hydro peakers are available) is the max for renewables. They also say that it can be done. They mention the need for smart grid development:

A contemporaneous, unified intelligent electronic control and communications system overlaid on the entire electricity delivery infrastructure would enhance the viability and continued expansion of renewable electricity in the period from 2020 to 2035.

and state that for renewable to contribute 50% or more

Achieving a predominant (i.e., >50 percent) penetration of intermittent renewable resources such as wind and solar into the electricity marketplace, however, will require technologies that are largely unavailable or not yet developed today, http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12619&page=6

Their comments concerning the DOE paper 20% from wind in 20 years..

Transmission could be the biggest obstacle to seeing levels of wind power rise to 20 percent. Studies of wind integration at the utility and state level show that incorporating significant amounts of wind power into the electricity grid, while feasible, would require improvements in the transmission grid, wind forecasting, and other modifications to the electricity system,
page 297

I think most advocates of wind power understand that.

DOE (2008) shows that 20 percent of U.S. electricity generation could be obtained from wind and integrated into the nation’s electricity system.
page 320

Solar electricity is the only renewable resource that has a sufficiently large resource base to supply a majority of the electricity demands of the United States.
Page 320

But Pam, you said:

Solar is NOT the answer.

Well apparently the NAS disagrees with you.

In conclusion:

In the panel’s opinion, increasing manufacturing and installation capacity, employment, and financing to levels required to meet the goals for greatly increased solar or wind penetration goals is doable. However, to do so would require aggressive growth rates, a large increase in manufacturing and installation capacity, and a large infusion of capital. The magnitude of the challenges is clear from the scale of such efforts.

Pages 320-321

Higher levels of penetration of intermittent renewables (above about 20 percent) would require batteries, compressed air energy storage, or other methods of storing energy such as conversion of excess generated electricity to chemical fuels.

Did someone recently post that it would require 80% nuclear? Bah Humbug on that.

Its clear that integrating significant amounts of renewables into the grid is going to be an issue. But the world is not staic, and it may be that in the near future Alternative PV will help out, thin film on windows, flexible PV products to be used as siding, etc, means that solar will be able to generate 12 hours a day. That would be helpful. The NAS says that technologies that are not currently available will have to be developed. Well some of these technologies are in the lab right now, Like Magnolia Solar's 20% eff. thin film.

I think we can all agree that when solar generates 12 hrs a day it will have taken a big step forward.

The NAS repeatedly mentions the need for storage systems if renewables are too contribute past about 20%, Nat gas and hydro can help peak, but getting to 30% renewable will require some storage, getting to 50% renewables will require more storage.

Whats a shame is that after skimming 100's of pages of that pdf, I learned almost nothing. I was faimiliar with each concept I read about, so the NAS has only confirmed what I already know.

[PamW]

36. Evidently you didn't read the NAS report closely enough

The NAS report that 20% can be exceeded ONLY when we have storage capabilities that can be used with renewables to even out their intermittent nature.

The point is we DO NOT have these facilities and these technologies.

There are other reports from the NAS that cast doubts on whether we will ever have facilities that meet the criteria identified for using renewables at 20% or 50% or more.

If you go to the "position papers" of the NAS, which is the NAS position on what we can do now with current technology, and not some "pie in the sky" technology that may or may not be realized in the future; the NAS states that nuclear power needs to be expanded.

Additionally a study done within the Department of Energy a few years ago, also concluded that the use of nuclear energy was essential for a sustainable low carbon energy future:

A Sustainable Energy Future: the Essential Role of Nuclear Energy

http://www.nuclear.gov/pdfFiles/rpt_SustainableEnergyFuture_Aug2008.pdf

Look at the 3rd signature down in the first column. That's the signature of Nobel Prize winning Physicist Dr. Steven Chu, our current Secretary of Energy. At the time, he was the Director of Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, one of the leading labs in the use of renewable energy, and even Dr. Chu states that because renewables are not "dispatchable", we don't control them, and we do NOT have the energy storage technologies, that we MUST rely on nuclear for the majority of our electric demand if we are to forestall global warming due to the use of fossil fuels.

PamW

[FogerRox]

37. Evidently you wanted to use another report from 2008, not 2010,

I linked to the 2010, so no........ I read it just fine, again, the tude, very unbecoming.

So what you got girl, more smart ass than smarts?

SO do you really get off behaving like that?

[PamW]

38. Either report says the same.

Either report says the same; as do reports going back to at least 1992.

As a scientist / scholar; I hate to see games played with the truth.

PamW

[FogerRox]

39. I see a 2010 report that outlines how to get more than 50% from renewables

Tout your credentials some more, so I respect them more, honk your horn if you will. OK?

Bragging is so unbecoming.

[madokie]

26. There is no doubt in my mind about that.

They can start rationing my electric power if need be until we get the renewables to take care of the loss of our nuclear generators up and running. I'll manage just fine.
Lets get the show on the road.
Shut them down now is what I say.

[PamW]

30. Ever think about factories????

Ever think about factories? Factories use LOTS of electric energy.

Shut down the nuclear power plants; and you'll shut down the factories.

When you do that, lots of people will be without jobs. ( That's OK with you I guess. )

However, suppose Obama were to shutdown nuclear power, and the factories, and the jobs that go with them.

He wouldn't have a snowball's chance in Hell of getting re-elected if he did that.

Be careful what you wish for.

PamW