One thing that repeatedly irks me is the assertion that the French electricity sector is loss-making, seen in this article and elsewhere.
My understanding is that EdF has been and remains profitable while charging a very low price for electricity compared to most European utilities, that it pays at least its fair share of taxes to the French state, and that electricity as France's fourth largest export has been immensely lucrative for that country.
Anti-nuclear arguments very often work by telling half-truths out of the wider context, but this statement seems to be flat out wrong. Why does no one call them on this?
At the end of the day I think the Nuclear revival is inevitable---you really can't fool Mother Nature. What is in doubt is whether it happens fast enough to avoid real climate change trouble, and whether the US is left in the dust by other countries that 'get it'.
I was a long-time member of the Sierra Club and active in environmental issues. I'm also a Scientist and I'm afraid irrational people like Pope, caused me to abandon my support of his organization.
Well, I threw my 2 cents in over at the Huffington post. I really don't like their short comment length restriction.
@Matt, your comment sparks my interest in knowing more about the finances of Areva and EDF. Awhile back, I saw a video of Ernest Moniz, professor from MIT and co-author of the 2003 MIT Nuclear study, make some comments that their recycling program was not financially beneficial. And thus is maybe partly why the study recommended the once-through cycle. Anyways I'll try to find the video and post a link.
I find it very strange and disingenuous of many of these anti-nuke activists that they don't acknowledge nuclear's current contribution or express a wish for the perceived problems of nuclear to be solved. There is never a statement along the lines of "wouldn't it be great if nuclear was cheaper and had a better waste solution, because we need all the help we can get to solve climate change." They simply dismiss it as all evil and not worthy of being on the table. This is utter lunacy.
I'm hoping comment repetition will sway any online readers who are on the fence concerning nuclear power. Possibly this, combined with DV82XL's proposal that we 'deflect' more instead of direct arguing will have a beneficial effect.
I think I need to work on my rhetoric.
Deflection will get you only so far.
I know that the "coal is so much worse" argument will win some converts who are utterly opposed to coal, but much of the anti-nuclear rhetoric relies on sheer denial. (All cults do.) Thus, deflection by comparing nuclear to "something worse" like coal (a ridiculous argument when you think about it, since nuclear is by far superior to everything else, not just coal) tends to backfire as often as it works, since the anti-nuclear cultists simply claim that they're opposed to coal too.
Furthermore, I recommend that you don't use scare tactics to promote nuclear. That's the opposition's strategy, and it is an effective one if your ultimate goal is to do nothing but promote despair and help the status quo. We're advocating solutions, not problems. Don't forget that. Thus, if you're going to use repetition, repeat something positive.
There's a reason why NIRS's new slogan is "No nuclear, no coal, no kidding." To us that's a joke, but you must realize that they and their followers don't live in the real world, so the most effective way to convince those who are on the fence is to wait until they make a mistake (and they always do, because the facts are not on their side) and then attack. Hold them to it. Point out how glaringly wrong their misinformation is, throw a dose of reality into their fantasy land, and watch them squirm.
Here is an example. Watch Paul Gunter of NIRS try to deflect again and again, every time he is proven wrong, like a rat scurrying for his hole after he has been spotted by the cat. He realizes that he has made a mistake, so he tries to return over and over to his one talking point. This is when you hold their feet to the fire.
I think it's very helpful, when trying to persuade people, that we look like the ones who know things. Even people without the intellectual wherewithal to look at the arguments can skim through and see that one side seems to be a lot smarter than the other. (For someone like me this feels almost dishonorable, but it works.)
You should all go back to the comments section for the Pope/Sierra Club article. Most of the commentators are tearing him apart. Thanks Rod for letting us know about this.
One criterion, two or more criteria.
Hi Rod,
seems like Huffington Post immediately blocks any link to your blog, hiding in tinyurl or others is no help. It happens within less than a minute even at 3am NY time on a Fri night. Remarkable.
BTW Thank you for your blog, great food for thought always.
I was interested in the fact that some of the opposition to fission power is from people who believe that making people wealthy, healthy, and numerous is dangerous. There is a form of environmentalism that believes that the presence of humans on the planet harms the planet and we should be reduced or removed.
As a Christian, I cannot accept this premise. I wish to reduce or eliminate pollution but not at the expense of killing people, starving them with expensive energy as I saw last year when food prices responded to the spike in fuel prices.
I read the responses in the Huffington Post and decided I did not need to add... Great job! Every post I read had solid facts and reasoning to refute the article.
Kirk Sorensen has an amazing series of quotes in his presentation at Manchester
Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.
Prof Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University.
and
It would be little short of disastrous for us to discover the source of clean, cheap, abundant energy, because of what we might do with it.
Amory Lovins, Rocky Mountain Institute
and
The prospect of cheap fusion energy is the
worst thing that could happen to the planet.
Jeremy Rifkin, Greenhouse Crisis Foundation
This shows that the opposition is not simply pro-fossil fuel but anti human.
@David "There is a form of environmentalism that believes that the presence of humans on the planet harms the planet and we should be reduced or removed."
Yay, I always tell them that the talk is cheap and to show us the shining path by jumping off a cliff, but they never do.
David, you hit on a hugely fundementally serious issue with the anti-nuclear community, even among those that push the 'massive Sahara plan' for solar energy or the "10 times what we need in wind power" segment of this miliue: they are, at the end of the day, more interested in using *less* energy than more.
One of our sides greatest assets is the undertanding that on a world basis, we need more percapita energy use not less. And that means nuclear, of whatever kind, to provide it.
There is a real "Energy Starvation" group called, broadly speaking "The Greens" and they represent a "reactionary", essentially "back to the land" high-tech form of "Luddism" that needs to be scientifically exposed and politically smashed. I don't know any other way to put it but you are correct.
David
@David Phillips ~ Please add more commentary. This is one case where some more salt on the wound would do some good.
These environmentalist, are they the same environmentalist that live on 20 acre lots in the forest. Cut down trees to build and heat their homes. Have half mile long private roads to their homes. Sounds like the altimate in urban sprawl and environmental abuse.
Do we really need to listen to these nuts.
If you are a suspicious man like me, and you read the following quotes, it is possible to come up with at least two interpretations:
Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.
Prof Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University.
and
It would be little short of disastrous for us to discover the source of clean, cheap, abundant energy, because of what we might do with it.
Amory Lovins, Rocky Mountain Institute
Alternative 1 - The quote sources really hate human beings in general and wish for them to lead lives of energy starvation where every kilowatt hour must be counted and conserved.
Alternative 2 - The quote sources are in the employ of established energy suppliers who love the idea of people paying top dollar for their product under the assumption that it is "scarce" and not subject to a very simple and basic law of physics - E=MC^2 where both M (mass) and C (speed of light) are very larger numbers.
I know most engineers who are observers of the "environmental" movement vote for alternative 1. It is my experience that engineers are often guilty of "projection" where they believe that most other people are a bit like themselves - honest and straightforward about their motives.
As an English major who did his senior project comparing the satire of Jonathan Swift (Modest Proposal, Gulliver's Travels) against that of Joseph Heller (author of Catch-22 and Good as Gold) I am a bit more cynical about human nature and the ability of people to be inhumane to other people.
I vote for alternative 2, a vote that has not changed by personally meeting and chatting with Lovins in both a formal setting and in at least one elevator ride when he did not know I was there and listening to his pre-speech preparations.
I highly recommend this article in this month's Wired:
http://www.wired.com/techbiz/it/.../17-07/
mf_freer
It is about abundance vs. scarcity in the tech business world but can easily be applied to the energy field.
The truth is that the environmental leaders want people to follow them through bind faith. They do not want people to learn form science and facts. They are afraid that either people aren't smart enough to understand the truth, or their motives are contrary to the truth.
I think it is more about contol and pushing ahead an agenda than about making the world a better place.
May the truth set you free.
Commenting by HaloScan
