Vermont State panel barred from nuke inspection by Republicans

[bananas]

Republicans hate whistle-blowers.
Some info on Gunderson: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x160168

http://www.reformer.com/ci_9931211

State panel barred from nuke inspection
By DAVE GRAM, Associated Press
Saturday, July 19

MONTPELIER -- The state Department of Public Service has declined to let members of a panel created by the Legislature to do a special audit of the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant join an inspection of the plant set for Monday, officials confirmed Friday.

The decision was the latest sign of strain between the administration of Gov. Jim Douglas and the members of the newly created Public Oversight Commission appointed by House Speaker Gaye Symington and Senate President Pro Tem Peter Shumlin.

"They're trying to stonewall our appointees," Shumlin said Friday.

He said the legislative appointees, retired nuclear engineer Arnold Gundersen and former federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission member Peter Bradford, needed to be full participants in the Vermont Yankee review for lawmakers to have confidence in the plant's continued operation.

<snip>

Gundersen, who maintains he is not the anti-nuclear activist the department makes him out to be but who has been critical of Vermont Yankee, said Friday he also could not comment on the panel's deliberations. But he confirmed he had been barred from Monday's inspection tour, which is to include NRC and state officials.

"Basically we're in lockout," he said. "It's just more of the swift-boating of us, as far as I'm concerned."

<snip>

[FiveGoodMen]

1. Invade them!

[NNadir]

2. Not to worry. Everyone in Vermont has died from nuclear power.

There are no survivors.

Nuclear power has, in fact, killed everybody on earth.

I know this for a fact, because I have peered deeply into Al Gore's Brain and in fact, I speak for him. He knows everything, and since I am his oracle, I know everything.

[bananas]

3. Al Gore: "I do not support any increased reliance on nuclear energy."

November 3, 2000

Mr. Harvey Wasserman
Senior Advisor
Nuclear Information and Resources Center
755 Eau Claire Avenue
Bexley, Ohio 43209


Dear Mr. Wasserman:

Thank you for your recent inquiry regarding nuclear energy and the Kyoto Protocol. Let me restate for you my long held policy with regard to nuclear energy. I do not support any increased reliance on nuclear energy. Moreover, I have disagreed with those who would classify nuclear energy as clean or renewable. In fact, you will note that the electricity restructuring legislation proposed by the Administration specifically excluded both nuclear and large scale hydro-energy, and instead promoted increased investment in energy efficiency and renewable energy. It is my view that climate change policies should do the same.


Sincerely,

Al Gore

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=163310&mesg_id=163328

[NNadir]

4. Are you sure it wasn't the mutant Al Gore, the one the radioactive slime

are mimicing when they're hiding in the highly secret Vermnont nuclear power plant?

[jpak]

5. Al Gore sez "Solar Will Save US!" - nuclear will not

Al Gore is a Nobel Laureate - you are not.

FYI

[NNadir]

6. Well, I suppose that radioactive mutants who have been mutated to telepathically communicate

with Al Gore would know what's going on in his brain.

I certainly wouldn't know what's going on in Al Gore's brain.

I certainly don't think he won the "soothsaying" Nobel, but I'm not quite the expert of soothsaying that say, Amory Lovins, was when he predicted that nuclear power was dead in 1980.

James Watson recently claimed that Africans don't have what it takes genetically to do what white people do.

He won the Nobel Prize <em>for genetics</em> but he was fired from the directorship of the Cold Spring Laboratory, for his claim.

Is it your opinion that he should be rehired, because Nobel Prize winners are never wrong?

Maybe you can get him to hate some Arabs with reactors for you.

[jpak]

7. Al Gore sez "Solar Will Save US"

http://www.alternet.org/environment/92260/?ses=fac9271febbc6d1bda6281232756d024

<snip>

Today I challenge our nation to commit to producing 100 percent of our electricity from renewable energy and truly clean carbon-free sources within 10 years.

This goal is achievable, affordable and transformative. It represents a challenge to all Americans -- in every walk of life: to our political leaders, entrepreneurs, innovators, engineers, and to every citizen.

<more>

no telepathic mutants required...

[Nederland]

8. More power to him

I'm all in favor of letting Al Gore do what he says he can do. I think he will fail, but I'm all for letting him try. I also all for letting people like NNadir build as many nuclear power plants as they can. I don't think it will produce energy quite as cheaply as he thinks it can, but I'm all for letting them try.

The one thing I'm not in favor of is letting people build more coal plants, and when people like jpak and NNadir rag on each other's proposed solutions they become part of the problem, not part of the solution. In short, anyone who makes it difficult for others to try things that can help us get rid of all our nasty coal burning plants should be hung up and castrated.

'nuf said.

[kristopher]

9. That isn't as balanced a view as you might think

And it actually isn't as aggressive an approach at solving GW as it first appears. First, if the same resources that would be devoted to building nuclear plants are instead devoted to facilities for producing solar panels and wind turbines, the result would be a greater amount of fossil fuels displaced over both the short and long term. It is quicker to build these renewable plants and deploy their products short term and long term installed capacity will continue to increase far beyond the fixed capacity of the money spent on nuclear.

For example how many solar panel plants can be built for the cost of one twin reactor nuclear facility? Overnight costs are now estimated to be about 12-15B for the proposed plant in Florida, right? I recall a recent story on a solar panel plant that produces 1 GW of panels per year being built for around $500M. Not to overly simplify this, but the math is fairly easy; that single nuclear facility would fund 24-30 GW of panels/year. Given a lifespan of only 15 years (presumed product obsolescence that may or may not occur) that means 360-540 GW of installed capacity for the same investment as the 2-3 GW nuclear plant. Now multiply that by the 45-100 nuclear plants that McNuts is calling for. While this isn't the whole story of course (cap factors, operating costs, training technical workforce etc) the advantage to solar (and wind also) is so large that it is really a no brainer.

If we take a "let the market sort it out" approach, I will be forced to be on the same page as you are because of market realities, but I've gone beyond that to the point where I want direct government control of the direction our technology is going to go. That means political choices based on total amount of public resources.

I believe this approach is also superior as it takes into account the unquantifiable externalities of nuclear power (waste and proliferation) while addressing GW worldwide through lowering the costs of energy for both advanced and developing nations. That second part is probably the most important; if we orient to a renewable grid, then the costs of renewbles will decline where it can supplant coal everywhere, not just in the US.

[Nederland]

13. You make a lot of assumptions in there

Most obviously, you are assuming that you are right and NNadir is wrong. I'm not prepared to make that assumption. There is no way I'm putting all my eggs in one basket on this one.

[kristopher]

14. I'm making no such 'assumption"

I'm reaching a conclusion...

I'm curious, what Democratic politicians support large scale expansion of nuclear power production at this time?

As much as it is pushed on this forum, it *must* have somewhat of a corresponding presence in the policymaking area also, right?
I haven't taken a roll call, don't know of any Dem politicos calling for such a policy, did I miss something?

I'll be reposting this with more comments later.

Senate Republicans on Friday blocked a vote on legislation to rein in speculation in the energy markets, instead calling for energy votes that would expand domestic petroleum production and more nuclear power development."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121702679230086263.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

[Nederland]

15. Well, there are a long list of other assumptions then

...or do you actually maintain that everything in your post is indisputable fact?

And yes, lots of Democrats favor building more nuclear power plants:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2005/Energy_Nuclear%20Power_August%2016.htm

[kristopher]

16. I asked about policy makers and politicians - experts, in other words...

I asked about policy makers and politicians - experts, in other words, that are easily identified as definitely not in the Republican camp. That was deliberate as I consider the right wing smear campaign against environmental values, renewable energy and climate change to have been effective at swaying public opinion with their coordinated misinformation campaigns. Policy makers are sometimes a little more well informed.

As for the "indisputable facts" in my post, I didn't claim any. What I gave was a quick representative example of the difference between investing in manufacturing infrastructure for renewables versus investment in central generating facilities. As the scale of the example demonstrates it is simply a no brainer if your actual goal is to address global warming, energy security the environmental risks of generating power. If anything I have (intentionally) inflated the cost of solar by a factor of as much as 300X - $1.65M machines for the new solar printing technique can produce 1 GW per year of 14% efficient panels. So, to the extent I've made assumptions they were weighted in favor of nuclear power since the price of the Florida reactors is (1)an overnight cost (2) thought by most financial analysts to be significantly lower than the final delivered price of the reactors.


"Nanosolar is a thin film photovoltaic manufacturer who is making major strides in the solar industry. The most notable stride is the fact that Nanosolar is the first manufacturer to figure out how to make solar panels at less than $1 per kW. This news broke many months back and Nanosolar has been all over the green blogsphere, so we did not write about it at the time even though it was probably the larges solar breakthrough we will ever see. Since then, Nanosolar has been producing their thin-film photovoltaics on a very large scale and have only been providing panels for 2-10MW municipal solar power plants. Much to dismay of die hard solar enthusiast(like me) eager to get their hands on these $0.96 per kW solar panels, Nanosolar has not begun selling their panels on the free market. Nanosolar wants to make the biggest environmental impact they can, and by only selling to large municipalities at first, they will do just that. Even though it hurts, it is whats best for the solar industry and for the environment. Along with these major stride in pricing, Nanosolar just put into production the solar industries first 1GW thin-film photovoltaic production tool. The tool shown in the video above is printing thin-film solar panels at 100 feet-per-minute and is capable (in theory) of ramping up to over 2,000 feet-per-minute. The photovoltaic printer cost Nanosolar $1.65 Million. Now considering that the current high-vacuum process that other manufacturers are using will generally produce 10-30MW per year and cost almost ten times as much as Nanosolar’s printer, I’d say Nanosolar is about to dominate the solar industry and give coal a run for its money."


So, what are you really concerned about; addressing the problems or pushing the right wing agenda? Those are mutually exclusive goals.

[Nederland]

17. Right Wing Agenda?

Funny, I thought this was a non-partisan issue. My mistake.

[kristopher]

18. It certainly is.

Pushing nuclear has been a clear, unequivocal plank of the right wing since Ronnie Raygun killed off everything at DOE except coal and nuclear.

Opposing its use until the associated problems are solved has clearly been a position of the left.

Now, about the issue at hand:

I asked about policy makers and politicians - experts, in other words, that are easily identified as definitely not in the Republican camp. That was deliberate as I consider the right wing smear campaign against environmental values, renewable energy and climate change to have been effective at swaying public opinion with their coordinated misinformation campaigns. Policy makers are sometimes a little more well informed.

As for the "indisputable facts" in my post, I didn't claim any. What I gave was a quick representative example of the difference between investing in manufacturing infrastructure for renewables versus investment in central generating facilities. As the scale of the example demonstrates it is simply a no brainer if your actual goal is to address global warming, energy security the environmental risks of generating power. If anything I have (intentionally) inflated the cost of solar by a factor of as much as 300X - $1.65M machines for the new solar printing technique can produce 1 GW per year of 14% efficient panels. So, to the extent I've made assumptions they were weighted in favor of nuclear power since the price of the Florida reactors is (1)an overnight cost (2) thought by most financial analysts to be significantly lower than the final delivered price of the reactors.


"Nanosolar is a thin film photovoltaic manufacturer who is making major strides in the solar industry. The most notable stride is the fact that Nanosolar is the first manufacturer to figure out how to make solar panels at less than $1 per kW. This news broke many months back and Nanosolar has been all over the green blogsphere, so we did not write about it at the time even though it was probably the larges solar breakthrough we will ever see. Since then, Nanosolar has been producing their thin-film photovoltaics on a very large scale and have only been providing panels for 2-10MW municipal solar power plants. Much to dismay of die hard solar enthusiast(like me) eager to get their hands on these $0.96 per kW solar panels, Nanosolar has not begun selling their panels on the free market. Nanosolar wants to make the biggest environmental impact they can, and by only selling to large municipalities at first, they will do just that. Even though it hurts, it is whats best for the solar industry and for the environment. Along with these major stride in pricing, Nanosolar just put into production the solar industries first 1GW thin-film photovoltaic production tool. The tool shown in the video above is printing thin-film solar panels at 100 feet-per-minute and is capable (in theory) of ramping up to over 2,000 feet-per-minute. The photovoltaic printer cost Nanosolar $1.65 Million. Now considering that the current high-vacuum process that other manufacturers are using will generally produce 10-30MW per year and cost almost ten times as much as Nanosolar’s printer, I’d say Nanosolar is about to dominate the solar industry and give coal a run for its money."


So, what are you really concerned about; addressing the problems or pushing the right wing agenda? Those are mutually exclusive goals.

[Nederland]

19. Old School thinking

Identifying the pro-nuclear crowd as right wing and the anti-nuclear crowd as left wing is old school thinking. It might have been true 30 years ago, but it is not true today. You need to get past the partisanship and argue the facts.

[kristopher]

20. I have been arguing the facts, you're the one avoiding giving answers.

I asked about policy makers and politicians - experts, in other words, that are easily identified as definitely not in the Republican camp. That was deliberate as I consider the right wing smear campaign against environmental values, renewable energy and climate change to have been effective at swaying public opinion with their coordinated misinformation campaigns. Policy makers are sometimes a little more well informed.

As for the "indisputable facts" in my post, I didn't claim any. What I gave was a quick representative example of the difference between investing in manufacturing infrastructure for renewables versus investment in central generating facilities. As the scale of the example demonstrates it is simply a no brainer if your actual goal is to address global warming, energy security the environmental risks of generating power. If anything I have (intentionally) inflated the cost of solar by a factor of as much as 300X - $1.65M machines for the new solar printing technique can produce 1 GW per year of 14% efficient panels. So, to the extent I've made assumptions they were weighted in favor of nuclear power since the price of the Florida reactors is (1)an overnight cost (2) thought by most financial analysts to be significantly lower than the final delivered price of the reactors.


"Nanosolar is a thin film photovoltaic manufacturer who is making major strides in the solar industry. The most notable stride is the fact that Nanosolar is the first manufacturer to figure out how to make solar panels at less than $1 per kW. This news broke many months back and Nanosolar has been all over the green blogsphere, so we did not write about it at the time even though it was probably the larges solar breakthrough we will ever see. Since then, Nanosolar has been producing their thin-film photovoltaics on a very large scale and have only been providing panels for 2-10MW municipal solar power plants. Much to dismay of die hard solar enthusiast(like me) eager to get their hands on these $0.96 per kW solar panels, Nanosolar has not begun selling their panels on the free market. Nanosolar wants to make the biggest environmental impact they can, and by only selling to large municipalities at first, they will do just that. Even though it hurts, it is whats best for the solar industry and for the environment. Along with these major stride in pricing, Nanosolar just put into production the solar industries first 1GW thin-film photovoltaic production tool. The tool shown in the video above is printing thin-film solar panels at 100 feet-per-minute and is capable (in theory) of ramping up to over 2,000 feet-per-minute. The photovoltaic printer cost Nanosolar $1.65 Million. Now considering that the current high-vacuum process that other manufacturers are using will generally produce 10-30MW per year and cost almost ten times as much as Nanosolar’s printer, I’d say Nanosolar is about to dominate the solar industry and give coal a run for its money."


So, what are you really concerned about; addressing the problems or pushing the right wing agenda? Those are mutually exclusive goals. Your claim about it being "old school thinking" while avoiding all substance in the above posts demonstrates my point perfectly. All you've done is FALSELY criticize the capability of renewables, used right wing talking points in an attempt to neutralize Gore's position, and pushed nuclear while refusing to address the negatives of the technology.

That is "right wing" through and through.

[Nederland]

21. More of the same

Cut and paste the same thing and repeat the smears over and over again. Your partisanship is tiresome...

[kristopher]

22. Address the points

You've yet to support anything you say but we are not supposed to question your assertion that this right wing platform is one *we* should support even though it flies in the face of thirty years of party alignment. You say nuclear is the only alternative: I've shown that false. Now you want to hide behind some sort of faux indignation about being having your position identified with the right, where it does, in fact, originate from.
If you want substantive discussion instead of dwelling on the partisan aspect, then answer the damned points and stop attempting to divert by focusing exclusively on the partisan origin of your position.


I asked about policy makers and politicians - experts, in other words, that are easily identified as definitely not in the Republican camp. That was deliberate as I consider the right wing smear campaign against environmental values, renewable energy and climate change to have been effective at swaying public opinion with their coordinated misinformation campaigns. Policy makers are sometimes a little more well informed.

As for the "indisputable facts" in my post, I didn't claim any. What I gave was a quick representative example of the difference between investing in manufacturing infrastructure for renewables versus investment in central generating facilities. As the scale of the example demonstrates it is simply a no brainer if your actual goal is to address global warming, energy security the environmental risks of generating power. If anything I have (intentionally) inflated the cost of solar by a factor of as much as 300X - $1.65M machines for the new solar printing technique can produce 1 GW per year of 14% efficient panels. So, to the extent I've made assumptions they were weighted in favor of nuclear power since the price of the Florida reactors is (1)an overnight cost (2) thought by most financial analysts to be significantly lower than the final delivered price of the reactors.


"Nanosolar is a thin film photovoltaic manufacturer who is making major strides in the solar industry. The most notable stride is the fact that Nanosolar is the first manufacturer to figure out how to make solar panels at less than $1 per kW. This news broke many months back and Nanosolar has been all over the green blogsphere, so we did not write about it at the time even though it was probably the larges solar breakthrough we will ever see. Since then, Nanosolar has been producing their thin-film photovoltaics on a very large scale and have only been providing panels for 2-10MW municipal solar power plants. Much to dismay of die hard solar enthusiast(like me) eager to get their hands on these $0.96 per kW solar panels, Nanosolar has not begun selling their panels on the free market. Nanosolar wants to make the biggest environmental impact they can, and by only selling to large municipalities at first, they will do just that. Even though it hurts, it is whats best for the solar industry and for the environment. Along with these major stride in pricing, Nanosolar just put into production the solar industries first 1GW thin-film photovoltaic production tool. The tool shown in the video above is printing thin-film solar panels at 100 feet-per-minute and is capable (in theory) of ramping up to over 2,000 feet-per-minute. The photovoltaic printer cost Nanosolar $1.65 Million. Now considering that the current high-vacuum process that other manufacturers are using will generally produce 10-30MW per year and cost almost ten times as much as Nanosolar’s printer, I’d say Nanosolar is about to dominate the solar industry and give coal a run for its money."


So, what are you really concerned about; addressing the problems or pushing the right wing agenda? Those are mutually exclusive goals. Your claim about it being "old school thinking" while avoiding all substance in the above posts demonstrates my point perfectly. All you've done is FALSELY criticize the capability of renewables, used right wing talking points in an attempt to neutralize Gore's position, and pushed nuclear while refusing to address the negatives of the technology.

That is "right wing" through and through.

[Nederland]

23. Response

Make a post that doesn't contain any references to "ring wing agendas" or comments that imply I'm a Republican hack and I'll respond.

[kristopher]

24. Answer the questions and quit hiding

You've yet to support anything you say but we are not supposed to question your assertion that this right wing platform is one *we* should support even though it flies in the face of thirty years of party alignment. You say nuclear is the only alternative: I've shown that false. Now you want to hide behind some sort of faux indignation about being having your position identified with the right, where it does, in fact, originate from.
If you want substantive discussion instead of dwelling on the partisan aspect, then answer the damned points and stop attempting to divert by focusing exclusively on the partisan origin of your position.


I asked about policy makers and politicians - experts, in other words, that are easily identified as definitely not in the Republican camp. That was deliberate as I consider the right wing smear campaign against environmental values, renewable energy and climate change to have been effective at swaying public opinion with their coordinated misinformation campaigns. Policy makers are sometimes a little more well informed.

As for the "indisputable facts" in my post, I didn't claim any. What I gave was a quick representative example of the difference between investing in manufacturing infrastructure for renewables versus investment in central generating facilities. As the scale of the example demonstrates it is simply a no brainer if your actual goal is to address global warming, energy security the environmental risks of generating power. If anything I have (intentionally) inflated the cost of solar by a factor of as much as 300X - $1.65M machines for the new solar printing technique can produce 1 GW per year of 14% efficient panels. So, to the extent I've made assumptions they were weighted in favor of nuclear power since the price of the Florida reactors is (1)an overnight cost (2) thought by most financial analysts to be significantly lower than the final delivered price of the reactors.


"Nanosolar is a thin film photovoltaic manufacturer who is making major strides in the solar industry. The most notable stride is the fact that Nanosolar is the first manufacturer to figure out how to make solar panels at less than $1 per kW. This news broke many months back and Nanosolar has been all over the green blogsphere, so we did not write about it at the time even though it was probably the larges solar breakthrough we will ever see. Since then, Nanosolar has been producing their thin-film photovoltaics on a very large scale and have only been providing panels for 2-10MW municipal solar power plants. Much to dismay of die hard solar enthusiast(like me) eager to get their hands on these $0.96 per kW solar panels, Nanosolar has not begun selling their panels on the free market. Nanosolar wants to make the biggest environmental impact they can, and by only selling to large municipalities at first, they will do just that. Even though it hurts, it is whats best for the solar industry and for the environment. Along with these major stride in pricing, Nanosolar just put into production the solar industries first 1GW thin-film photovoltaic production tool. The tool shown in the video above is printing thin-film solar panels at 100 feet-per-minute and is capable (in theory) of ramping up to over 2,000 feet-per-minute. The photovoltaic printer cost Nanosolar $1.65 Million. Now considering that the current high-vacuum process that other manufacturers are using will generally produce 10-30MW per year and cost almost ten times as much as Nanosolar’s printer, I’d say Nanosolar is about to dominate the solar industry and give coal a run for its money."


So, what are you really concerned about; addressing the problems or pushing the right wing agenda? Those are mutually exclusive goals. Your claim about it being "old school thinking" while avoiding all substance in the above posts demonstrates my point perfectly. All you've done is FALSELY criticize the capability of renewables, used right wing talking points in an attempt to neutralize Gore's position, and pushed nuclear while refusing to address the negatives of the technology.

That is "right wing" through and through.

[Nederland]

25. Nice try

...but you still aren't being polite. I don't have discussions with rude people.

[kristopher]

26. I'm not being rude.

And I refuse to be intimidated into silence by the accusation. The facts are as I've stated. You are plugging right wing positions; renewables can't do it, only nuclear can meet our needs, and Gore's opinion is inconsequential. If you don't like my pointing that out, then address them and demonstrate my error as I've repeatedly demonstrated yours.

You've yet to support anything you say but we are not supposed to question your assertion that this right wing platform is one *we* should support even though it flies in the face of thirty years of party alignment. You say nuclear is the only alternative: I've shown that false. Now you want to hide behind some sort of faux indignation about being having your position identified with the right, where it does, in fact, originate from.
If you want substantive discussion instead of dwelling on the partisan aspect, then answer the damned points and stop attempting to divert by focusing exclusively on the partisan origin of your position.


I asked about policy makers and politicians - experts, in other words, that are easily identified as definitely not in the Republican camp. That was deliberate as I consider the right wing smear campaign against environmental values, renewable energy and climate change to have been effective at swaying public opinion with their coordinated misinformation campaigns. Policy makers are sometimes a little more well informed.

As for the "indisputable facts" in my post, I didn't claim any. What I gave was a quick representative example of the difference between investing in manufacturing infrastructure for renewables versus investment in central generating facilities. As the scale of the example demonstrates it is simply a no brainer if your actual goal is to address global warming, energy security the environmental risks of generating power. If anything I have (intentionally) inflated the cost of solar by a factor of as much as 300X - $1.65M machines for the new solar printing technique can produce 1 GW per year of 14% efficient panels. So, to the extent I've made assumptions they were weighted in favor of nuclear power since the price of the Florida reactors is (1)an overnight cost (2) thought by most financial analysts to be significantly lower than the final delivered price of the reactors.


"Nanosolar is a thin film photovoltaic manufacturer who is making major strides in the solar industry. The most notable stride is the fact that Nanosolar is the first manufacturer to figure out how to make solar panels at less than $1 per kW. This news broke many months back and Nanosolar has been all over the green blogsphere, so we did not write about it at the time even though it was probably the larges solar breakthrough we will ever see. Since then, Nanosolar has been producing their thin-film photovoltaics on a very large scale and have only been providing panels for 2-10MW municipal solar power plants. Much to dismay of die hard solar enthusiast(like me) eager to get their hands on these $0.96 per kW solar panels, Nanosolar has not begun selling their panels on the free market. Nanosolar wants to make the biggest environmental impact they can, and by only selling to large municipalities at first, they will do just that. Even though it hurts, it is whats best for the solar industry and for the environment. Along with these major stride in pricing, Nanosolar just put into production the solar industries first 1GW thin-film photovoltaic production tool. The tool shown in the video above is printing thin-film solar panels at 100 feet-per-minute and is capable (in theory) of ramping up to over 2,000 feet-per-minute. The photovoltaic printer cost Nanosolar $1.65 Million. Now considering that the current high-vacuum process that other manufacturers are using will generally produce 10-30MW per year and cost almost ten times as much as Nanosolar’s printer, I’d say Nanosolar is about to dominate the solar industry and give coal a run for its money."


So, what are you really concerned about; addressing the problems or pushing the right wing agenda? Those are mutually exclusive goals. Your claim about it being "old school thinking" while avoiding all substance in the above posts demonstrates my point perfectly. All you've done is FALSELY criticize the capability of renewables, used right wing talking points in an attempt to neutralize Gore's position, and pushed nuclear while refusing to address the negatives of the technology.

That is "right wing" through and through.

[Nederland]

27. You are amusing

All you have to do is remove paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 6 and 7 and I'll respond--and yet you just can't bring yourself to do it.

You are a strange bird.

[kristopher]

28. There is no reason I should

And I refuse to be intimidated into silence by the accusation. The facts are as I've stated. You are plugging right wing positions; renewables can't do it, only nuclear can meet our needs, and Gore's opinion is inconsequential. If you don't like my pointing that out, then address them and demonstrate my error as I've repeatedly demonstrated yours.

You've yet to support anything you say but we are not supposed to question your assertion that this right wing platform is one *we* should support even though it flies in the face of thirty years of party alignment. You say nuclear is the only alternative: I've shown that false. Now you want to hide behind some sort of faux indignation about being having your position identified with the right, where it does, in fact, originate from.
If you want substantive discussion instead of dwelling on the partisan aspect, then answer the damned points and stop attempting to divert by focusing exclusively on the partisan origin of your position.


I asked about policy makers and politicians - experts, in other words, that are easily identified as definitely not in the Republican camp. That was deliberate as I consider the right wing smear campaign against environmental values, renewable energy and climate change to have been effective at swaying public opinion with their coordinated misinformation campaigns. Policy makers are sometimes a little more well informed.

As for the "indisputable facts" in my post, I didn't claim any. What I gave was a quick representative example of the difference between investing in manufacturing infrastructure for renewables versus investment in central generating facilities. As the scale of the example demonstrates it is simply a no brainer if your actual goal is to address global warming, energy security the environmental risks of generating power. If anything I have (intentionally) inflated the cost of solar by a factor of as much as 300X - $1.65M machines for the new solar printing technique can produce 1 GW per year of 14% efficient panels. So, to the extent I've made assumptions they were weighted in favor of nuclear power since the price of the Florida reactors is (1)an overnight cost (2) thought by most financial analysts to be significantly lower than the final delivered price of the reactors.


"Nanosolar is a thin film photovoltaic manufacturer who is making major strides in the solar industry. The most notable stride is the fact that Nanosolar is the first manufacturer to figure out how to make solar panels at less than $1 per kW. This news broke many months back and Nanosolar has been all over the green blogsphere, so we did not write about it at the time even though it was probably the larges solar breakthrough we will ever see. Since then, Nanosolar has been producing their thin-film photovoltaics on a very large scale and have only been providing panels for 2-10MW municipal solar power plants. Much to dismay of die hard solar enthusiast(like me) eager to get their hands on these $0.96 per kW solar panels, Nanosolar has not begun selling their panels on the free market. Nanosolar wants to make the biggest environmental impact they can, and by only selling to large municipalities at first, they will do just that. Even though it hurts, it is whats best for the solar industry and for the environment. Along with these major stride in pricing, Nanosolar just put into production the solar industries first 1GW thin-film photovoltaic production tool. The tool shown in the video above is printing thin-film solar panels at 100 feet-per-minute and is capable (in theory) of ramping up to over 2,000 feet-per-minute. The photovoltaic printer cost Nanosolar $1.65 Million. Now considering that the current high-vacuum process that other manufacturers are using will generally produce 10-30MW per year and cost almost ten times as much as Nanosolar’s printer, I’d say Nanosolar is about to dominate the solar industry and give coal a run for its money."


So, what are you really concerned about; addressing the problems or pushing the right wing agenda? Those are mutually exclusive goals. Your claim about it being "old school thinking" while avoiding all substance in the above posts demonstrates my point perfectly. All you've done is FALSELY criticize the capability of renewables, used right wing talking points in an attempt to neutralize Gore's position, and pushed nuclear while refusing to address the negatives of the technology.

That is "right wing" through and through.

[Nederland]

29. Yup

Still too proud, eh? I guess asking for politeness is asking too much.

[jpak]

10. For the record - I am in favor of NNadir building all the nuclear power plants he can

:evilgrin:

[madokie]

11. Come to think of it me too, at least going into the tomorrows I won't have to worry about any

more of them being constructed anytime soon.

[Nederland]

12. My apologies (nt)