Environment & Energy
Related: About this forum
Vermont Yankee: A Nuclear Battle Over States’ Rights
http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/13022/vermont_yankee_a_nuclear_battle_over_states_rightst was a 40th birthday bash attended by more than 1,000 people in three states–but the attendees came to demonstrate, not celebrate. The Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant, a poster child for anti-nuclear protests throughout its four-decade history, was the target. Only the day before, on March 21, its state permit to operate expired and the legislature voted to shut it down. But the power plant was still operating.
The protest brought demonstrators (“Hell no, we won’t glow”) to Vermont Yankee’s owner, the Entergy Corporation, and its offices in Brattleboro, Vt., White Plains, N.Y., and corporate headquarters in New Orleans. There, they put up a yellow crime tape outside the building and went inside to demand an interview with CEO J. Wayne Leonard.
In a statement, Entergy said it was “business as usual for our employees, who are focused on providing safe, clean and affordable electricity.”
Vermont’s legal battle to shut down the Yankee power plant is on the radar screen in states throughout the country where local communities are fighting the relicensing of aging nuclear sites. Citizens are concerned by ongoing radioactive leaks that contaminate groundwater, shutdowns resulting from degrading systems and lax maintenance, and fears that corporate owners won’t pay the near $1 billion price tag to decommission plants.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
PamW
(1,825 posts)The battle should really be a "no-brainer".
Amendment X of the US Constitution gives the States any power that the US Constitution hasn't given the federal government, and hasn't forbidden to the States. However, if a power IS given to the federal government; then by Article VI Section 2 of the US Constitution, called the "Supremacy Clause", then the federal power TRUMPS State laws when the federal government is given the power.
The US Supreme Court has held in MANY, MANY cases that the US Constitution gives the Federal government the power to regulate nuclear power, and the US Congress has vested that power in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The US Supreme Court has held that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is the SOLE agency with the power to regulate safety issues with regard to nuclear power as provided by the US Congress.
That was the essence of Judge Murtha's ruling. The Vermont Legislature attempted to muscle its way into an area of law where they don't belong and the agency responsible for safety regulation is clearly known; the NRC.
As far as the decommissioning costs; as with all nuclear plants in the USA; as a condition of the license the plant is required to put aside funds in an escrow account for the decommissioning of the plant. The plant earns the money to decommission itself as it operates. If the protesters are so concerned, they should mind their own business and let the plant operate and earn its decommissioning costs.
PamW
kristopher
(29,798 posts)That is a point made clearly in the article:
“It is inconceivable to me that Entergy can force Vermont to allow continued operation of Vermont Yankee, an aging and problem-plagued nuclear plant, when the people of Vermont want to move aggressively to energy efficiency and sustainable energy,” Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders said in January.
What we have is a case where a privately owned obsolete energy source is confounding the desires of the state to move to a new and better energy system. That is not unusual, really, we face similar conservative forces in most areas of culture as we seek to change. What is unusual is the manner of obstruction: a poor record of safety is coincidental with the economic problem.
The ruling by Murtha that the economic issue doesn't exist because there is ALSO evidence of (legitimate) safety concerns is not likely to stand, IMO.
zeaper
(113 posts)But at the same time it is unreliable and does not run-sorry this anti-nuke logic confounds me.
FBaggins
(26,760 posts)Aren't they selling their future power production out of state? Vermont can direct their own future power needs however they like.
There are all kinds of made-up loopholes that they can try. It's an ugly plant. They can pass an eyesore law and require all power plants to submit photos for approval... but it doesn't change the fact that everyone knows why they tried to block it... and that isn't within their power.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)That's right, it is only to be found in your post. That's called "a straw man", for your future reference.
Here is what I wrote:
The ruling by Murtha that the economic issue doesn't exist because there is ALSO evidence of (legitimate) safety concerns is not likely to stand, IMO.
Are you saying the states have no role in deciding the issues identified by Watts?
“Traditionally, states have had oversight on a whole range of issues now at stake in this case – economic benefits, the role of a nuclear plant in a state’s energy planning, waste disposal, land use and water discharge issues. Those are all at issue here,” he said.
FBaggins
(26,760 posts)The statement is patently untrue. The state can move to whatever it feels is a "new and better energy system". In fact... the best way to ensure that VY closes down is to convince everyone who might otherwise buy power from the plant to decide not to do so.
The ruling by Murtha that the economic issue doesn't exist because there is ALSO evidence of (legitimate) safety concerns is not likely to stand, IMO.
Now there's a strawman. That wasn't the ruling (and it wasn't reality). The state's goal was to close the plant because legislators were convinced (incorrectly) that the plant was unsafe. Everything else was window dressing.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)This:
Isn't even similar to this:
Poor little feller; you're getting more and more desperate with every passing day...
FBaggins
(26,760 posts)English obviously isn't your first language... or second.
The two statements say the same thing. You're claiming that the continued existence of VY keeps VT from moving to new and better (sic) energy systems.
It doesn't. VT can go with whatever power systems they "desire". They can build other plants, they can buy from other providers, they can do whatever they like. They just can't put a private federally-regulated company out of business just because they got irrationally paranoid.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)You have completely gone off the rails, Baggins. You aren't even trying to make sense anymore.
FBaggins
(26,760 posts)This is the only state that has tried to create such rules and they were corrected.
You may remember that I supported VT in the lawsuit and had to be corrected myself. My opinion was much as you have stated. I figured that the normal power to zone/etc would give them the right to do this... but I was wrong.
As you are here.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)The ruling by Murtha that the economic issue doesn't exist because there is ALSO evidence of (legitimate) safety concerns is not likely to stand, IMO.
PamW
(1,825 posts)Last edited Sun Apr 15, 2012, 04:08 PM - Edit history (1)
“Traditionally, states have had oversight on a whole range of issues now at stake in this case – economic benefits, the role of a nuclear plant in a state’s energy planning, waste disposal, land use and water discharge issues. Those are all at issue here,” he said.
=======================
Economic Benefit - Vermont Yankee is earning money, paying taxes, providing jobs for Vermont residents. It's just like any other employer in good standing in that regard. Vermont Yankee isn't "costing" the State of Vermont. Therefore, it's an economic benefit. Next case...
State Energy Planning - Vermont Yankee is a "merchant plant". It's selling its power out of State. It's not part of Vermont's power; so it doesn't figure into Vermont's energy planning.
Waste Disposal - are you talking trash or nuclear waste disposal. Nuclear waste disposal is TOTALLY a FEDERAL issue for an operating plant.
Land Use - Vermont gave its permission to build the plant. That's not a revocable permission.
Water Discharge - if you are talking about chemicals and sewage, then you have a State issue. If you are talking radioactivity - again that is TOTALLY PREEMPTED by the Federal Government. The NRC is the ONLY authority that can shut down Vermont Yankee for discharging too much radioactivity, and NOT the State.
These are all codified in US Laws by the Congress - and reviewed by the US Supreme Court in a number of decisions; one directly involving Vermont Yankee Vermont Yankee v. National Resources Defense Council decided IN FAVOR of Vermont Yankee.
PamW
PamW
(1,825 posts)States have the right to regulate the plants that provide power for the State.
However, Vermont Yankee is what is called a "merchant plant" - it's not supplying power to the State of Vermont, and is not part of their power system. Vermont Yankee sells power on the open market.
Suppose Ford built an automobile assembly plant back in the 1970s in Vermont. At the time the Ford plant was built, Vermont approved Ford building the plant there. The Ford cars are shipped all over the country, and not just to Vermont. Suppose now Vermont says cars are bad and we shouldn't be building cars and they want to shut the Ford plant down.
What legal reason do they have to kick Ford out and shutdown the plant? The answer is NONE.
Kris - you show your manifest ignorance of our nuclear licensing laws. When Vermont Yankee was built; Vermont had to give its permission; and that permission under the law is for PERPETUITY. Vermont AGREED three decades ago that Vermont Yankee could operate as long as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission licenses the plant.
Vermont is attempting to go back on its word. Vermont's Public Service Board can only revoke Vermont's agreement to host the plant "for cause". If Vermont Yankee was violating State Law; that would be "for cause". The only charges against Vermont Yankee have been due to radioactivity leaks. However, that's not Vermont's concern; it is up to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to determine whether to shut the plant down for the radioactive leaks; and the NRC has decided the leaks are not that egregious.
Kris - I'm VERY FAMILIAR with nuclear regulatory law - and Murtha's decision CERTAINLY WILL STAND. It is totally consistent with a number of US Supreme Court rulings giving NRC the SOLE power to regulate safety, and not the State.
PamW
kristopher
(29,798 posts)So far you've demonstrated a complete lack of ability to reason with any validity. But I will say in your favor *on this topic* that you consistently display one trait I associate strongly with the legal profession, your words usually have only a tenuous grounding in truth.
PamW
(1,825 posts)I can see why Kris has such problems with my reasoning on this subject.
It's just like when we disagree over scientific issues. By his own admission in his posts, Kris doesn't believe the Laws of Physics put any limits on the efficiency that we can convert one form of energy to another. He thinks that the concept of the Law of Physics putting limits on what we can do is preposterous.
However, as a scientist I know, and anyone that has taken the very basic science courses offered in grade school, high school, and college knows; there are limits imposed by the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics on the conversion of energy and work. Solar power is limited by the "quantum efficiency" and the effect of "charge carrier recombination" ( Google the quoted terms ). Wind turbines are limited by "Betz's Law".
These laws are NOT something that we can "engineer around". When ever scientists and engineers design and build something, we are using Mother Nature's Laws to do what we want. However, Mother Nature own Laws obey the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, and Betz's Law.... Since Mother Nature is constrained by these laws, anything that Man does using Mother Nature's laws is also constrained.
So when I say we are constrained by these physical laws; someone who doesn't believe in those laws will not be able to understand my logic. However, the truth is that the non-believer in these physical laws is just plain WRONG and their opinion is uninformed and ill-considered. People should ignore such opinions.
Likewise, there is a whole body of laws, written by Congress starting with the Atomic Energy Act of 1947 and the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as well as the Nuclear Waste Policy Acts of 1984 and 1987...
Numerous environmental groups, particularly the NRDC - the Natural Resources Defense Council - have challenged these laws all the way up to the US Supreme Court, and they have LOST EVERY TIME.
The US Supreme Court has held many times in such landmark cases as Vermont Yankee vs. NRDC and Baltimore Edison vs NRDC, that the exclusive powers vested in the NRC was a proper use of Congressional authority under the US Constitution.
The US Supreme Court has also said that nuclear power is a highly technical enterprise, and hence the regulation is also highly technical. The NRC has a cadre of highly trained staff in the science and engineering of nuclear power. The Supreme Court has said numerous times that the judiciary ( judges ) should not be "second guessing" the decisions made by the NRC. Judges and their staff don't have the highly technical trained staff to make decisions grounded in good science. Therefore, the US Supreme Court has said numerous times that the judiciary has to accept the ruling of the NRC.
I've read these laws and US Supreme Court decisions.
However, others who have not read these decisions are like the NRDC. They go to the US Supreme
Court with some vacuous claims that the NRC is not acting in the public interest or has made a mistake of some sort. Of course, they "think" it's a mistake because they are manifestly ignorant of the science. The NRC and its staff know the science, and that is why NRDC has an unblemished record of LOSING in their appeals to the US Supreme Court.
This unbroken LOSING streak by the NRDC is brought to us by people who are incapable of learning, and hence repeat the same mistakes over, and over, and over, again.
One only has to look at how many here said that it was a "slam dunk" that Murtha would rule in favor of Vermont and against the hated Entergy.
They were misinformed and wrong, and haven't learned from their errors. That's why they will continue to be WRONG and why they can't understand the logic of those who's opinions are informed because they have read the law and the Court decisions.
PamW
kristopher
(29,798 posts)You claim that I do not "believe the Laws of Physics put any limits on the efficiency that we can convert one form of energy to another. He thinks that the concept of the Law of Physics putting limits on what we can do is preposterous."
Of course, since it it totally false, you cant back up anything you claim in that post, just like you couldn't provide a citation for your false assertions about what the National Academy of Sciences says related to the potential of renewables to meet our needs.
It beats me why you do it, but your claims are so over the top and obviously false that I doubt any rational person pays any attention at all.
PamW
(1,825 posts)For the record, what I stated was that the National Academy of Sciences stated that without energy storage technology, that the use of renewable energy which is not "dispatchable" - that isn't available on demand; had to be limited to about 20% of total capacity.
The National Academy of Sciences has been saying that in numerous studies on energy including the most recent. It took me some time to find the reference in the most recent NAS study; but I found it:
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12619&page=4
Combined with hydropower, total renewable electricity could approach a contribution of 20 percent of U.S. electricity by the year 2020.
The National Academy of Sciences says renewables "could approach 20 percent".
I cited the above in rebuttal to a contention that there were no impediments to the USA going 100% solar.
The National Academy has this to say:
However, achieving a predominant (i.e., >50 percent) level of renewable electricity penetration will require new scientific advances (e.g., in solar photovoltaics, other renewable electricity technologies, and storage technologies) and dramatic changes in how we generate, transmit, and use electricity.
The National Academy says there are challenges just getting over 50%; let alone the 100% solar proposed.
100% of my posts have been 100 % consistent with the National Academy of Sciences.
There are those that don't like what the National Academy has to say. That's their problem because they will NEVER defeat the laws of Physics.
PamW
kristopher
(29,798 posts)Last edited Sun Apr 15, 2012, 06:33 PM - Edit history (1)
That is a very distorted view of events, just as everything else you write is a compete distortion of the truth. Let's take a trip down memory lane. First however, I'd like to make two points:
1) the NAS statement, "new scientific advances and dramatic changes in how we generate, transmit, and use electricity are needed" refers foremost and primarily to smart grid technologies and modifying end use applications to perform load-shifting functions.
2) your original claim said this: "The USA's best scientists at the National Academy of Science and Engineering have said that we can get at most about 15% to 20% of our electric power from renewables" (your post #38). In my post #59 I called you on that and provided the actual NAS quote.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x282854
From there you moved to "should" as shown below but claimed I had the citation wrong and that your original claim was correct.
"That's one of the reasons the National Academy of Science and Engineering says that renewables should be only about 15% to 20% of our electrical capacity. For the remaining 80% to 85%, we need energy sources that are dependable and not dependent on the whims of Mother Nature."
I replied:
Pegging current US consumption at 4,000TWH they tell us that deploying existing energy efficiency technologies is our "nearest-term and lowest-cost option for moderating our nation’s demand for energy", and that accelerated "deployment of these technologies in the buildings, transportation, and industrial sectors could reduce energy use by about 15 percent (15–17 quads, that is, quadrillions of British thermal units) in 2020, relative to the EIA’s “business as usual” reference case projection, and by about 30 percent (32–35 quads) in 2030 (U.S. energy consumption in 2007 was about 100 quads)."
They state that more aggressive policies and incentives would produce more results and that most of the "energy efficiency technologies are cost-effective now and are likely to continue to be competitive with any future energy-supply options; moreover, additional energy efficiency technologies continue to emerge."
The authors offer that renewable energy sources "could provide about an additional 500 TWh (500 trillion kilowatt-hours) of electricity per year by 2020 and about an additional 1100 TWh per year by 2035 through new deployments."
They are less optimistic about increased contributions from nuclear plants writing that they might provide an additional 160 TWh of electricity per year by 2020, and up to 850 TWh by 2035, by modifying current plants to increase their power output and by constructing new plants." However they are very specific with warnings that nuclear powers economics for Gen3 plants are significantly worse than predicted by the 2003 MIT nuclear study. They further opine that failure to prove the economic viability of at least 5 merchant plants by 2020 (it used to be 2010) would probably rule out nuclear as a viable option going forward.
Since the report was penned we have seen a complete collapse of the very idea that US merchant reactors are even possible and the likelihood is that few, if any, new plants will actually be built. If any ARE built it is extremely unlikely that they will be able to demonstrate the economic viability that is called for in the Report. This means that if their caveat about proof of concept is accurate, new nuclear is unlikely to play any significant role in carbon reduction in the US.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x275881#276952
The exchange covers posts 68 to 75 of that thread.
From the first you were given by me the the text you are now misrepresenting and the link to the actual study - versus the 2004 fantasy study you claimed to be citing - and asked to substantiate your claim:
This report from the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering explores the potential for and barriers to developing wind, solar, geothermal, and biopower technologies for electric power generation. It concludes that with an accelerated deployment effort, non-hydropower renewable sources could provide 10 percent or more of the nation’s electricity by 2020 and 20 percentor more by 2035. However, for these sources to supply more than 50 percent of America’s electricity, new scientific advances and dramatic changes in how we generate, transmit, and use electricity are needed.
http://needtoknow.nas.edu/energy/library
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x284964#285370
In this next thread, in order to support your false claim, you are now actually fabricating not only the existence of a 2004 document, but you are actually making up a title there is no record of anywhere:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/11277405
Next we have you making a similar false claim about the findings of the California Council on Science and Technology regarding renewable energy. The dishonesty is simply staggering. You made your false claim based on a cherry picked section when the very next sentence completely contradicted your false statement.
Your claim is, "The California Energy Commission released a study that contradicts the contention that renewables are capable of totally replacing both nuclear and fossil fuels ... Renewables can't solve the problem alone"
Your selected quote,
Your selected quote in context,
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=296568&mesg_id=296711
There are literally dozens of other examples where you knowingly make completely false claims - for example your posts in this thread.
PamW
(1,825 posts)your original claim said this: "The USA's best scientists at the National Academy of Science and Engineering have said that we can get at most about 15% to 20% of our electric power from renewables" (your post #38). In my post #59 I called you on that and provided the actual NAS quote
Brother, I don't see why you have such a difficult time comprehending this.
==============================================
Because I understand the science and what the National Academy is saying. I provided you the link, but you don't remember.
The National Academy of Sciences made it very plain in:
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12619&page=258
A grid can support some intermittent resources without electricity storage if sufficient excess capacity is available to maintain resource adequacy. As described below and in Chapter 7, in many cases the amount of intermittent renewable resources that can be supported is approximately 20 percent, particularly for utilities that rely primarily on hydropower or natural-gas-fired generation. Hydropower and natural-gas-fired plants can ramp levels of generation up or down fairly rapidly, and are able to incorporate a higher fraction of renewables ...
A grid can only support, i.e. "have"; 20% intermittent renewables ( wind / solar ).
You continue to tell the same LIE that the National Academy only started studying energy in 2007. They've been studying the energy issue about every five years for DECADES now. Just because they don't have the 2004 report online doesn't mean it doesn't exist. NAP.edu states that they don't have all the NAS reports online. Just go to a LIBRARY of a good University with an engineering school.
For example, here is one from 1980 which DISPROVES your contention that they only began studying energy in 2007:
Energy in Transition 1985-2010
Publication Year: 1980
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11771
I don't see why you and others have such a difficult time understanding the limits to solar and wind.
Let's suppose we do what you want; we go 100% with solar and wind over the entire US. Suppose it is night, and a big high pressure system covers most of the USA; so there's very little wind. Wind is created not by high pressure but by pressure differences. If all the region is at high pressure, you don't have differentials.
Now people do need electric power at night. Practically every house has a refrigerator and that needs to have power available continuously or the food spoils. But with little or no wind, and zero solar because it is night; where does the energy come from for refrigerators at night????
We do NOT have electric grid ties to the other side of the globe. All the fancy "smart grid" technology can't make energy.
Unless you have some energy storage; you are screwed. That's what the National Academy is saying.
If solar / wind are less than 20% of the mix; then the other 80% of the power generation facilities that are continuous "on demand" can back-stop the intermittent wind and solar.
However, if solar / wind are greater than 20%; then the less than 80% that is "on demand" can't back-stop the larger fraction of intermittent power.
PamW
PamW
(1,825 posts)There is no 2004 report as the project was launched in 2007. The 2009 report doesn't make any recommendation couched in the "should" language you present, nor do the numbers you've offered reflect the potential they see in the relevant technologies.
===============
I said "should". The National Academy of Sciences says it strong.
They say has to or can only.
I allowed for a weaker statement than what the NAS said; but you don't understand that.
GEESH!!
PamW
kristopher
(29,798 posts)This is drawn from the NAS prepared document called a "Report in Brief" where they explain the important findings from a larger paper. In this case it is the paper, "Electricity from Renewable Sources Status, Prospects, and Impediments" This is is a more detailed accounting of the actual information Pam overly misrepresented in the beginning and continues above to miscast even now in order to defend and promote nuclear power.
You can download this paper and many more for free by googling the "national academy press" and registering.
Pegging current US consumption at 4,000TWH they tell us that deploying existing energy efficiency technologies is our "nearest-term and lowest-cost option for moderating our nation’s demand for energy", and that accelerated "deployment of these technologies in the buildings, transportation, and industrial sectors could reduce energy use by about 15 percent (15–17 quads, that is, quadrillions of British thermal units) in 2020, relative to the EIA’s “business as usual” reference case projection, and by about 30 percent (32–35 quads) in 2030 (U.S. energy consumption in 2007 was about 100 quads)."
They state that more aggressive policies and incentives would produce more results and that most of the "energy efficiency technologies are cost-effective now and are likely to continue to be competitive with any future energy-supply options; moreover, additional energy efficiency technologies continue to emerge."
The authors offer that renewable energy sources "could provide about an additional 500 TWh (500 trillion kilowatt-hours) of electricity per year by 2020 and about an additional 1100 TWh per year by 2035 through new deployments."
They are less optimistic about increased contributions from nuclear plants writing that they might provide an additional 160 TWh of electricity per year by 2020, and up to 850 TWh by 2035, by modifying current plants to increase their power output and by constructing new plants." However they are very specific with warnings that nuclear powers economics for Gen3 plants are significantly worse than predicted by the 2003 MIT nuclear study. They further opine that failure to prove the economic viability of at least 5 merchant plants by 2020 (it used to be 2010) would probably rule out nuclear as a viable option going forward.
Since the report was penned we have seen a complete collapse of the very idea that US merchant reactors are even possible and the likelihood is that few, if any, new plants will actually be built. If any ARE built it is extremely unlikely that they will be able to demonstrate the economic viability that is called for in the Report. This means that if their caveat about proof of concept is accurate, new nuclear is unlikely to play any significant role in carbon reduction in the US.
Originally posted at: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x275881#276952
PamW
(1,825 posts)Once again Kris repeats the same old DAMN LIE that he has been telling over and over and over again, that the National Academy of Sciences only started studying the energy policy issue in 2007 culminating in a report in 2009.
What do you think the National Academy of Sciences has been doing for all these decades???
One of the most important scientific issues that the National Academy has been studying is energy policy.
They have published NUMEROUS reports on the energy issue and not just the one in 2009.
I've referenced a few, but Kris keeps telling the forum readers that these reports do not exist.
One of the oldest that I've referenced is:
Energy in Transition 1985-2010
Publication Year: 1980
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11771
We can't "save" our way to an electric system that is climate friendly. We will always have the need for energy, no matter how efficient we get at using it. The question is what technologies do we use to get the energy that we need.
Yes - we can get a goodly amount of energy from renewable sources; but that is not the problem.
The problem is those sources are intermittent and unreliable. We don't get any solar power at night for land-based systems. The wind may or may not be blowing. Do we allow our entire electric grid to collapse because we can't meet demand?
The National Academy of Science quite clearly stated in the 2009 study as in others that without energy storage technology, we can support only about 20% renewables:
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12619&page=258
A grid can support some intermittent resources without electricity storage if sufficient excess capacity is available to maintain resource adequacy. As described below and in Chapter 7, in many cases the amount of intermittent renewable resources that can be supported is approximately 20 percent, particularly for utilities that rely primarily on hydropower or natural-gas-fired generation.
I don't know why Kris persists with his attempts to bamboozle the readers here by saying that renewables are a solution in and of themselves.
PamW
kristopher
(29,798 posts)The last time they reviewed renewables before that was in 2000 when they looked at the way DOE was doing research into renewables.
And, as you note there was a report in 1980.
I knew that when you first made your false claim on DU. You soon said it came from a 2004 report, but wouldn't provide the name of the report. Finally after about a dozen cases where the forum was polluted in the same manner this thread has been, you were forced to make up a title. So you said the paper was called:
US Energy Policy: The Path Forward.
National Academy of Sciences
May 19, 2004
There is no listing anywhere for such a paper, not even as a reference in another paper. This paper doesn't exist.
Even knowing there was no such paper Pam I still looked and thought I'd found support for your statement once. While doing a search, I found the same exact claim on a physics forum but that turned out to be invalid also. It was identical to your statement in every way, right done to the "at most". That, of course, means that it too had no sourcing.
You've been caught over and over again doing things that would make any real academic resign, yet you don't have the decency to feel shame. Amazing.
PamW
(1,825 posts)I knew that when you first made your false claim on DU. You soon said it came from a 2004 report, but wouldn't provide the name of the report. Finally after about a dozen cases where the forum was polluted in the same manner this thread has been, you were forced to make up a title. So you said the paper was called:
US Energy Policy: The Path Forward.
National Academy of Sciences
May 19, 2004
There is no listing anywhere for such a paper, not even as a reference in another paper. This paper doesn't exist.
======================
The Library at the National Laboratory where I work will be extremely interested to know that the above report does not exist.
As National Academy Press states; not all the reports are online. Some reports are just in libraries, like ours.
If you give me your e-mail address; I can see about having the library scan a PDF copy for you and e-mailing it to you!!
The only downside is that I won't get to see the dumbfounded stupid expression on your face when you are proved to be the LIAR that the intelligent half of the forum knows you to be.
PamW
kristopher
(29,798 posts)What they say are that a few of them are not available for download, but an abstract is provided even those.
The paper doesn't exist. You made it up. Do they encourage you to do that at the National Laboratory where you claim to work, make up references?
Misrepresenting the fact again.
The National Academy Press lists all the papers for which they have electronic copies.
Sorry but a LOT of scientific literature hasn't made the jump to electronic media.
Oh - but if you go to the library - you can check out the Science Citation Index.
That will give you the citations that reference the paper in question.
Sorry it's not online. You do have a good University library that you can go to?
Why don't you get out from behind the keyboard and go to the library like good scholars do.
PamW
kristopher
(29,798 posts)*There are a small number of reports that never had PDF files and, therefore, those reports are not available for download. In addition, part of the series, “Nutrient Requirements of Domestic Animals” are not be available in PDF and future titles in this series will also not have PDFs associated with them.
http://notes.nap.edu/2011/06/02/more-than-4000-national-academies-press-pdfs-now-available-to-download-for-free/
Not available for download does NOT mean that the titles are not shown in their catalog of papers/books for sale.
Nutrient requirement standards for economically important domestic animals and laboratory animals have served as the foundation for animal feed formulas in the United States and abroad since the first National Research Council (NRC) report was published in 1921. The requirements set forth in the series of species reports, begun in 1944, are used by producers and manufacturers as the basis for feed formulation...
http://dels-old.nas.edu/banr/nutrient_requirements_series.shtml
Even papers that are not available for download via pdf are listed.
Now let's turn to your assertion that this rare, unlisted NAS document is only available by going in the door of an academic library. There are a raft of reasons to question your claimed qualifications and this is but one more in a long list. I can't think of any academic or any plugged in researcher that doesn't know the capability of the internet and the library network called "WorldCat".
With WorldCat you can search the contents of most of the libraries in the developed and developing world. Before concluding that you were actually doing something as egregious as fabricating a reference I had previously searched for your secret paper at the general MIT library and MIT's Science library.
http://www.worldcat.org/libraries/110366
The paper you claim to have been citing doesn't exist.
PamW
(1,825 posts)Last edited Thu Apr 19, 2012, 11:16 AM - Edit history (1)
In reading the title of this thread, I'm reminded that the subject of this thread is the legal issues surrounding Vermont Yankee.
All this falderal with Kristopher's completely vacuous claims that if something doesn't exist online, then it doesn't exist; is really a diversion from the fact that he and the other anti-nukes have completely lost the argument over the legal issues at Vermont Yankee.
The fact of the matter is that the US Supreme Court has ruled that regulation of nuclear energy is a federal power totally within the purview of Congress. Therefore, "state's rights" under Amendment X doesn't apply.
The Congress vested almost total control of nuclear energy in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission with States having a limited role in the approval of new plants, and essentially no role in the re-licensing of existing plants the State has already approved.
The US Supreme Court has ruled that nuclear energy is a technically complex field, as is its regulation. The NRC has the cadre of trained technical people, and the federal benches do not. Therefore, the US Supreme Court has ruled that judges have to give a lot of deference to the rulings and judgment of the technical people at NRC.
The anti-nukes have an unspoiled record of LOSSES in the US Supreme Court; in rulings like Vermont Yankee v. Natural Resources Defense Council and Baltimore Edison v. Natural Resources Defense Council
The anti-nukes can have their rallies, join hands, and sing "Kumbaya", and whine about some ill-defined "rights" of the people.
But when it comes to real legal justifications, legal principles, legal rulings, and legal holdings; the anti-nukes don't have a leg to stand on. They got slapped down hard by Judge Murtha's ruling, which most certainly will be upheld; all the false and uneducated claims of the anti-nukes to the contrary, notwithstanding.
PamW
kristopher
(29,798 posts)See: http://www.democraticunderground.com/112711618#post28
We got onto this topic because you decided to attack me personally with a screed based on another of your complete fabrications:
However, as a scientist I know, and anyone that has taken the very basic science courses offered in grade school, high school, and college knows; there are limits imposed by the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics on the conversion of energy and work. Solar power is limited by the "quantum efficiency" and the effect of "charge carrier recombination" ( Google the quoted terms ). Wind turbines are limited by "Betz's Law".
These laws are NOT something that we can "engineer around". When ever scientists and engineers design and build something, we are using Mother Nature's Laws to do what we want. However, Mother Nature own Laws obey the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, and Betz's Law.... Since Mother Nature is constrained by these laws, anything that Man does using Mother Nature's laws is also constrained.
So when I say we are constrained by these physical laws; someone who doesn't believe in those laws will not be able to understand my logic. However, the truth is that the non-believer in these physical laws is just plain WRONG and their opinion is uninformed and ill-considered. People should ignore such opinions.
That is a total fabrication by you Pam. It is also typical of the way you interact of this forum. I've noticed that in other forums where you are not anonymous you are far more circumspect. Perhaps you should consider exercising the same restraint here.
PamW
(1,825 posts)OK - Kris,
Why don't you give us an example of your "understanding" of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamic, Betz's Law, and "quantum efficiency".
Your vacuous claims of understanding, notwithstanding; tell us what you "think" the above Laws of Physics mean, and the limitations, if any; they place on various methods of generating electricity.
I can't wait; this is going to be good...
PamW
kristopher
(29,798 posts)Not just matters of opinion, but the kind of false claims that demonstrate a complete willingness and intent do deceive. Several of them have been about me personally. If you think I'm going to engage in defending myself against them in any way other than to show your true nature as a prevaricator then you are mistaken.
You said I had shown this lack of understanding in the past, so please, by all means to do as I have and pull that example up and show us all that you have some basis for your claims. I don't engage in discussion with someone that acts as you do. I will refute your falsehoods, but that is as far as it goes.
PamW
(1,825 posts)I KNEW YOU COULDN'T ANSWER!!!
It was a very basic question as to the limits on energy generation that the Laws of Physics place on anything we do.
You couldn't answer it - because you DON'T KNOW the science.
So you get up on your "high horse", and take this self-righteous stand that you aren't going to defend yourself.
All to COVER UP the fact that you don't know, and can't explain the limitations placed by the Laws of Physics.
How about an EXTREMELY simple question - can be answered "yes" or "no".
Do you understand that there are limits on energy generation technologies by the Laws of Physics that we can NEVER get around?
PamW
kristopher
(29,798 posts)I'm waiting for you to show us this exchange you say proves your allegation. I know what you are referring to and it shows exactly the opposite of what you claim here, so I'm actually pretty eager for you to produce it.
Show us what a "liar" I am Pam. Produce the link to this damning exchange you are basing this on.
PamW
(1,825 posts)It's not a single exchange; but your whole collected works on the forum.
How about this question:
Is waste heat generated by solar cells and wind turbines?
PamW
kristopher
(29,798 posts)It is when you were posting as Dr.Gregory before that alias was served a pizza.
Have you heard the bull**** claim that "renewables are great but they aren't enough"?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x258338
See also:
Are TX &SC nuke projects going the way of Calvert Cliffs?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x262032
Three answers // 5 reactors started 1 completed // largest municipal bond default in history
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x262570
TVA has lost $50 Million Cutting Brown's Ferry Output - Tennessee River Too Hot To Cool Plant
Dr gregory on albedo
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=115&topic_id=256645#258337
