Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Blackmoore on Wednesday December 10 2014, @01:00AM   Printer-friendly
from the my-precious dept.

Alan Schriesheim became the first industry executive to lead a national laboratory when he took the helm of Argonne in 1983, after serving as Exxon’s head of engineering and the director of its research lab, which developed more efficient processes for producing components of gasoline. According to Forbes, as the director emeritus of Argonne National Laboratory, he has said:

No utility executive could propose a nuclear reactor ”in good conscience” in the U.S. today, the director emeritus of Argonne National Laboratory said in Chicago Monday.

At Argonne he championed, among other projects, an integral fast reactor, and he is credited with fostering a revival at Argonne. Now in retirement, he leads the Chicago Council on Science and Technology, which sponsors public talks like the question-and-answer session he offered Monday to students at the University of Illinois, Chicago.

“In the United States the price of natural gas is of such a level that I don’t think a CEO of a utility could in good conscience propose a nuclear-power reactor to his or her board of directors,” Schriesheim told about 75 students at UIC’s engineering building.

Nuclear is infeasible for the next 10 or 15 years in this country, he said, with the price of natural gas as it is.

Do you agree with this view, or do you feel that he is supporting the industry that once employed him?

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by nyder on Wednesday December 10 2014, @01:31AM

    by nyder (4525) on Wednesday December 10 2014, @01:31AM (#124454)

    Seriously, what?

    • (Score: 2, Interesting) by sigma on Wednesday December 10 2014, @04:23AM

      by sigma (1225) on Wednesday December 10 2014, @04:23AM (#124510)

      Until nuclear power scales to municipal levels, it should be avoided as another tool for corporate control. Like other centralized electricity generation systems, it is mostly beneficial to regulators who want to make sure utilities get guaranteed returns and investors get sure-thing dividends.

      As a model for supplying energy to end users, it's expensive, vulnerable, unreliable and it’s doomed to obsolescence.

      Distributed generation and distribution (like rooftop solar and other small-scale sources) are far less infrastructure and capital intensive, offer more opportunity for multiple competitors, and are more resistant to corporate manipulation.

      Nuclear just doesn't fit in any more.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 10 2014, @05:21AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 10 2014, @05:21AM (#124518)

        It never did fit in.
        Without massive gov't subsidies, it never would have gotten off the ground.
        The insurance waiver was worth $billions.
        This assumes, of course, that any insurance carrier would have taken them as customers.
        Any examination of the industry by underwriters would have killed it in its infancy.
        It's quite clear these days that the bunch running nukes are sociopaths.

        -- gewg_

  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by KilroySmith on Wednesday December 10 2014, @01:40AM

    by KilroySmith (2113) on Wednesday December 10 2014, @01:40AM (#124459)

    So how long does it take to build a nuclear power plant?

    If it's not gonna become economically feasible to run one for 10-15 years, I'd think now would be the time that you'd start the design/permitting process so you're ready for it.

    • (Score: 2) by mojo chan on Wednesday December 10 2014, @02:53PM

      by mojo chan (266) on Wednesday December 10 2014, @02:53PM (#124676)

      Who is going to gamble millions on nuclear becoming profitable again? Considering that even before now people were unwilling to take a chance on it, I doubt the slim chance that the tide will turn and it will become profitable in 15 years time is going to be very enticing.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday December 10 2014, @03:54PM

        by tangomargarine (667) on Wednesday December 10 2014, @03:54PM (#124718)

        On the other hand, if you're the only player in the nuclear market and it DOES become profitable, you make $$$$$.

        Or they break you up for being a monopoly. Something like that.

        --
        "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
  • (Score: 4, Interesting) by fliptop on Wednesday December 10 2014, @01:48AM

    by fliptop (1666) on Wednesday December 10 2014, @01:48AM (#124461) Journal

    ...no waste disposal issues [ocregister.com].

    --
    Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Solaarius on Wednesday December 10 2014, @05:29AM

      by Solaarius (127) on Wednesday December 10 2014, @05:29AM (#124519)

      Yeah, that's right. Just vent it into the atmosphere, so that we can all breath the carcinogenic particles and where it can accelerate the greenhouse effect. Definitely no waste disposal issues at all!

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 10 2014, @05:30AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 10 2014, @05:30AM (#124520)

      ...because they vent their waste into the atmosphere where it becomes EVERYONE'S problem.
      See "external costs".
      See "the tragedy of the commons".

      -- gewg_

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by schad on Wednesday December 10 2014, @01:53AM

    by schad (2398) on Wednesday December 10 2014, @01:53AM (#124464)

    I think he's probably right, as far as his statement goes. For the next 10 or 15 years, fracking, offshore drilling, and similar extraction methods will keep fossil fuels too cheap for anything else to compete. The only thing which could change that is some sort of government interference, e.g. taxes/fees or subsidies of competing energy sources. And I don't see any government subsidizing nuclear (any more than they do now). It lacks the trendy hipster cachet that, say, solar and wind both have. Nobody would support it.

    But with that said, it's a demonstration of exactly the sort of shortsighted thinking that keeps fucking us over. How long does it take, start to finish, to get a new nuclear plant online? If you guessed 10 to 15 years, you'd be right (5 to 7 to build it, as much again for planning and getting the required approvals). So it seems to me that now is the best possible time to start the ball rolling. If we wait until nuclear is cheaper than natural gas, we'll be 10 to 15 years away from our first new plant when we start to need it.

    Besides, if I were the CEO of a utility, the thing that would keep me up at night would be the government. They've already come for coal. They are almost certainly going to go after fracking soon, which means the age of cheap natural gas will end. There's not much appetite in the US for renewable energy subsidies, and right now clean energy is really only cost-effective if the government shoulders all the risk. That wouldn't leave me with a lot of options. Not saying I'd start construction ASAP. But I would definitely want to make sure that a couple years down the road -- when we have a new president, possibly a new Congress, etc. -- I'm ready to adapt to any changes in the situation.

    • (Score: 2) by morgauxo on Wednesday December 10 2014, @03:19AM

      by morgauxo (2082) on Wednesday December 10 2014, @03:19AM (#124498)

      They are going to come for fracking? Did you pay any attention to the last election? If anything I'd be predicting a coal comeback!

      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday December 10 2014, @06:22AM

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday December 10 2014, @06:22AM (#124536) Journal
        Have to agree. It depends on what happens in the 2016 elections. I think there's a good chance that Republicans carry both branches of Congress and the Presidency in which case it's probably green lights all the way for fossil fuels (at least till the midterm elections of 2018). Maybe nuclear too.
        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday December 10 2014, @06:41AM

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday December 10 2014, @06:41AM (#124545) Journal
          Sorry, didn't realize I had already posted.
        • (Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Wednesday December 10 2014, @06:54AM

          by Hairyfeet (75) <{bassbeast1968} {at} {gmail.com}> on Wednesday December 10 2014, @06:54AM (#124547) Journal

          What makes you think that? The midterms are always insanely low turnout which tends to skew the election pretty badly. if you look at the 2012 voter turnout you'l see that no one race or age bracket dominated whereas in 2014 the while male over 50 turnout just stomped every other demographic.

          Considering that nearly every other group tends to vote left and the GOP thanks to the teabaggers have done everything but hold up a "whites only" sign short of the dems running somebody as bad as Dukakis the odds are pretty low for them to take the whole ball of wax. if the GOP ends up running Jindal, Paul, or Mittens again? Give it up Chuck the dems could run Bozo the clown and win by a landslide.

          Lets face it the teabaggers have skewed the nomination process so badly that anybody that gets the nomination is already hobbled out the gate and their choices? Really not looking good.

          --
          ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday December 10 2014, @08:05AM

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday December 10 2014, @08:05AM (#124564) Journal
            Because they aren't Obama. Obama derangement syndrome is getting pretty bad right now. The Republicans might still end up losing the Presidential election due to the appearance of being the worst of two evils, but they'll have to try.

            if you look at the 2012 voter turnout you'l see that no one race or age bracket dominated whereas in 2014 the while male over 50 turnout just stomped every other demographic.

            That's a problem with the Democrats. Their would be voters have a strong tendency not to show up.

            Considering that nearly every other group tends to vote left

            Independents and Republicans don't. That's more than 50% right there.

            thanks to the teabaggers have done everything but hold up a "whites only" sign

            Remind me again which country has the NSA? Which country has the ATF? Or the IRS? Everyone, outside of a few bureaucrats, no matter their ethnicity or religious opinion has common cause with the Tea Party people, even if they never choose to recognize it.

            if the GOP ends up running Jindal, Paul, or Mittens again? Give it up Chuck the dems could run Bozo the clown and win by a landslide.

            The Democrats can't run Bozo the clown. They can only run people like Clinton who have their own list of negatives. And you're whistling past the graveyard, if you think that Jindal or Paul doesn't have a chance. Jindal in particular is one of the most competent choices out there, no matter the party. And both Pauls might be fringe, but things have gotten to the point where either one can win due to widespread distrust of government across the political spectrum (Rand Paul probably being the stronger choice). If you're worried about the NSA or ending the war in Iraq, they have a plan for that which is more than you can say for most of the current candidate possibilities.

            As a relevant aside, I heard a rumor recently from a friend that his employer was thinking about dropping health benefits. I don't believe the rumor is at all true - not because it won't happen, it may well occur as advertised, but because I doubt anyone in the know would leak that debate. While he's not Democrat, he opposes the Republican Party. He has every reason to view Obamacare and other Democrat-led health care policy changes favorably. Yet here is this fear.

            I think the FUD surrounding the Democrat's signature piece of legislation, the PPACA ("Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" or what I routinely call "Obamacare") is growing. They still have yet to implement key parts of the legislation such as the employer mandate. By 2016, I think it'll be a rather large albatross around the neck for any Democrat candidate.

            • (Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Wednesday December 10 2014, @09:31AM

              by Hairyfeet (75) <{bassbeast1968} {at} {gmail.com}> on Wednesday December 10 2014, @09:31AM (#124587) Journal

              LOL looove the right wingers trying to justify their crap hand LOL. Jindal has NO chance thanks to his fucking the poor of LA with moves like refusing to accept the money to extend unemployment (Carver will have a field day with him, mark my words) and Paul? After the "you should be allowed to discriminate against blacks in the private sector" crack he might as well run with a white hood, that kind of shit just won't fly in 2016.

              Poll after poll has shown that if old Slick Willie could run again he'd win and Hillary could sell herself as another Slick Willie term. It may chap your ass but Bill was well liked, the economy was good, we weren't in any wars, Al lost because he tried to disown Willie and go on his own and his charisma is less than a pet rock.

              I would also remind you that it was Gonzales who pushed for waterboarding and all that crap so a lot can still be hung on Dubya, the wiretaps, the TSA goon squads, CIA torture, so at worst Obama will most likely be seen as a one topic pres and that topic is something most of the working poor benefited from.

              Mark my words the dems keep the POTUS, probably retake the senate (after all the reps have 2 years to shoot themselves in the foot with more shutdowns) with the GOP only holding a narrow lead in the house. again you may not like it but the average American leans left on the home front and thanks to the teabaggers the GOP is getting a reputation of the rich old white people party, blacks, latinos, LGBTs, and young whites need not apply. Hell that "Let 'em die WooHoo!" crack is enough to make a good Willie Horton style ad for the dems, so short of the dems running Biden or Hilary picking a democrat version of Caribou Barbie? yeah sorry but I predict they'l win by at least 15 points.

              --
              ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday December 10 2014, @10:04AM

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday December 10 2014, @10:04AM (#124598) Journal
                Slick Willie isn't running again. Just keep your words in mind when the Democrats get trounced in Congress in 2016.
                • (Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Wednesday December 10 2014, @05:41PM

                  by Hairyfeet (75) <{bassbeast1968} {at} {gmail.com}> on Wednesday December 10 2014, @05:41PM (#124792) Journal

                  If you don't have the POTUS? You ain't got shit as the POTUS sets the agenda and controls the talking points. personally I'd prefer 3 or 4 strong parties but the GOP seem bound and determined to fit every stereotype of the rich old white people party and the simple fact is there just isn't enough rich old white people (and racists, you go down south and you find tarpaper shacks with Mittens signs and talking to them its clear they don't like no "uppity nigger" in the big chair) to win national elections. Look at the exit polls in 2014 and compare them to 2012 and 2008...notice something? the largest demographics simply do not bother with midterms, they only care when the POTUS is on the line. What this means is the GOP can only gain on the off years and will get curbstomped every 4 years.

                  Again who they gonna run against Hillary? Mitt "Thurston Howell The Third" Romney? Rand "I'm not a racist but you should be able to hang no blacks allowed signs" Paul? Bobby "I hates them poor folks" Jindal? Lets face it the party of Reagan has been drug soooo far right that their platform simply isn't appealing to anybody but older white males and that demographic is dying. The demographics coming up, the blacks, latinos, asians, pro LGBT whites? yeah none of them will vote for you, sorry. Either the GOP throws the teabaggers under a bus and runs to the middle or they pick another loser in 2016, its as simple as that.

                  --
                  ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
                  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday December 10 2014, @11:13PM

                    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday December 10 2014, @11:13PM (#124898) Journal
                    POTUS is mildly up in the air. But I think it strongly favors Republicans. Congress will be very hard to lose especially with the growing mess heading into 2016.

                    and racists

                    Sorry, your race card is over its limit. Do you have another card which you can apply this charge to?

            • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday December 10 2014, @03:49PM

              by tangomargarine (667) on Wednesday December 10 2014, @03:49PM (#124712)

              Remind me again which country has the NSA? Which country has the ATF? Or the IRS? Everyone, outside of a few bureaucrats, no matter their ethnicity or religious opinion has common cause with the Tea Party people, even if they never choose to recognize it.

              Oh, sure, of course the Tea Partiers SAY they're going to get rid of All Those Bad Things The Democrats Did To Your Rights.* I am far from convinced, unless their "everything Obama ever does is evil and must be destroyed" dogma keeps going. The Bush-era Republicans were the ones who passed the Patriot Act in the first place.

              *Not that I'm saying those didn't happen, but the important part is that they remind everyone that it's the Democrats' fault as loudly and often as possible.

              --
              "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday December 10 2014, @11:16PM

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday December 10 2014, @11:16PM (#124901) Journal

                Oh, sure, of course the Tea Partiers SAY they're going to get rid of All Those Bad Things The Democrats Did To Your Rights.* I am far from convinced, unless their "everything Obama ever does is evil and must be destroyed" dogma keeps going. The Bush-era Republicans were the ones who passed the Patriot Act in the first place.

                So they're bad people? Is it really better to allow these rogue government agencies to prosper, and for tyranny and injustice to spread across the land, than to have common cause with uncool people who share many of your concerns?

                • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday December 10 2014, @11:47PM

                  by tangomargarine (667) on Wednesday December 10 2014, @11:47PM (#124914)

                  Is it really better to allow these rogue government agencies to prosper, and for tyranny and injustice to spread across the land, than to have common cause with uncool people

                  Oh come on, now you're just using excessively flowery and patriotic language. (One of the best ways for you to make me personally distrust everything you say is to demand patriotism. That's what you do if you can't construct a logical argument to convince me; call for blind faith that you're smarter than me.)

                    I'm saying I have no more confidence in the Tea Party "reformers" than I do in the Democrats (until recently) in charge. Those in power generally like to keep their power, and the Republicans recently acquired said power.

                  --
                  "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
                  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday December 11 2014, @12:07AM

                    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday December 11 2014, @12:07AM (#124917) Journal
                    Fuck you too. Do you want a police state (Y/N)?

                    If the answer is "N", why can't you be bothered to work with other people who also don't want police states?
                    • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday December 11 2014, @03:17PM

                      by tangomargarine (667) on Thursday December 11 2014, @03:17PM (#125073)

                      No, which is my point. We kind of already have one, and based on their track record I have no faith that the TP would alleviate that.

                      Which is why I'm voting third party.

                      --
                      "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
                      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday December 11 2014, @03:38PM

                        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday December 11 2014, @03:38PM (#125086) Journal

                        and based on their track record I have no faith that the TP would alleviate that.

                        What track record?

                        • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday December 11 2014, @04:40PM

                          by tangomargarine (667) on Thursday December 11 2014, @04:40PM (#125116)

                          Tea Party isn't fully Republican

                          I know a guy who's currently working in the Republican party, and he's explained that the Tea Party is basically holding the rest of the party hostage with their demands. So in practice, the Tea Party more or less IS the Republican Party (plus whoever others you seem to be implying call themselves TPers but aren't Rs).

                          What track record?

                          Go read up on the government shutdown again and tell me with a straight face that it was the Democrats' fault. Because after the first 12 ways the Republicans tried to shoot down Obamacare didn't work, they decided to play chicken with the entire U.S. economy. These are the kinds of people I ABSOLUTELY DO NOT WANT in charge of our country.

                          But hey, we apparently handed control of both houses to them now, and somehow Scott Walker is still going to be around killing the unions, so either somebody must know something I don't or I just haven't been cynical enough.

                          --
                          "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
                          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday December 11 2014, @09:02PM

                            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday December 11 2014, @09:02PM (#125249) Journal

                            I know a guy who's currently working in the Republican party, and he's explained that the Tea Party is basically holding the rest of the party hostage with their demands. So in practice, the Tea Party more or less IS the Republican Party (plus whoever others you seem to be implying call themselves TPers but aren't Rs).

                            Proof by talking point from an anonymous source? Seriously? Ever consider that this guy might not have a clue just like you? The only reason you take him seriously IMHO is because he tells you what you want to hear.

                            Go read up on the government shutdown again and tell me with a straight face that it was the Democrats' fault. Because after the first 12 ways the Republicans tried to shoot down Obamacare didn't work, they decided to play chicken with the entire U.S. economy. These are the kinds of people I ABSOLUTELY DO NOT WANT in charge of our country.

                            The US government is not the entire economy. Also, I think it was a constructive learning experience. Universal shutdowns are dumb. They don't have the resolution to target problem areas. If the current batch of legislators insist on another broad shutdown, then that will be an indication that they need to be replaced. But the House has the power to defund by very narrow categories.

                            Similarly, it's silly to expect Obama to renege on his signature piece of legislation. There simply is not enough legal pressure that you can apply to make a stubborn US President admit that they fucked up, especially if they think they're in the right.

                            • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday December 11 2014, @09:09PM

                              by tangomargarine (667) on Thursday December 11 2014, @09:09PM (#125252)

                              Proof by talking point from an anonymous source? Seriously? Ever consider that this guy might not have a clue just like you? The only reason you take him seriously IMHO is because he tells you what you want to hear.

                              No, I take him seriously because it's his fucking profession. And as I mentioned, he's in the Republican Party, so in general he does *not* tell me what I want to hear.

                              --
                              "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
                              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday December 13 2014, @02:23AM

                                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday December 13 2014, @02:23AM (#125675) Journal
                                Reading your earlier post again, I find I just don't care anymore whether this guy knows anything or not. This quote has me mystified:

                                he's explained that the Tea Party is basically holding the rest of the party hostage with their demands. So in practice, the Tea Party more or less IS the Republican Party (plus whoever others you seem to be implying call themselves TPers but aren't Rs).

                                There are two things to note here. Just because someone is "holding" a group "hostage" doesn't make them the group (especially when you acknowledge "plus whoever others you seem to be implying call themselves TPers but aren't Rs"). It just means that they have considerable influence. Your claim in the second paragraph just doesn't follow from the former. But let's consider that you believe this is true. Then why shouldn't the Tea Party get what they want from the Republican Party, if they actually are the Republican Party? It's a democracy, right? The Republican party has elections for a reason, right?

                                The other thing is that you think that holding the Republican Party hostage is a bad thing. I find it interesting just how undemocratic your views are here. They extend to the point that you not only side against a popular movement which aims to make the Republican party more responsive to a good portion of its actual constituency, but actually will side with the tone-deaf elite who are on the currently losing side of this particular conflict.

                      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday December 11 2014, @03:39PM

                        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday December 11 2014, @03:39PM (#125087) Journal

                        Which is why I'm voting third party.

                        Tea Party isn't fully Republican. That just happens to be the major party most receptive to their interests. Libertarian Party is also popular.

      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday December 10 2014, @06:33AM

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday December 10 2014, @06:33AM (#124541) Journal
        Have to agree. It depends on what happens in the 2016 elections. I think there's a good chance that Republicans carry both branches of Congress and the Presidency in which case it's probably green lights all the way for fossil fuels (at least till the midterm elections of 2018). Maybe nuclear too. Depends on the economy and whether the Republicans can stay unified in the face of victory (assuming they get that far).
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 10 2014, @05:52AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 10 2014, @05:52AM (#124525)

      Solar panels cost practically zero [thegreenage.co.uk] and produce no waste.
      By the time you get your nuke plant finished (with its tons of waste), rechargeable batteries will cost practically zero.

      ...and just how gigantic do the storms have to get [nasa.gov] before we stop pumping CO2 into the atmosphere?

      It would be great if we could get past all this last-century thinking and just embrace the zero-pollution future that renewables offer.

      -- gewg_

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 10 2014, @08:44PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 10 2014, @08:44PM (#124856)

        1. Nuclear power doesn't pump CO2 into the environment.
        2. Solar panels may produce no waste during their operation, but waste was definitely produced to create them, and some day they will fail and become waste themselves.
        3. I'm not as confident as you that rechargable batteries will drop in price that much. They aren't like crystalline silicon solar panels that are basically made out of sand.

        Solar power is definitely a very important source of energy, but your position that it is the only source we should pursue is foolish.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 11 2014, @04:51AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 11 2014, @04:51AM (#124963)

          1. True, but power plants that burn stuff do.
          1a. Nukes spew Cesium 137 into the environment when they blow up.
          Childhood thyroid irregularities around Fukushima are 40x normal.
          1b. Nukes, even when operating normally, produce kilotons of high-level waste and no one has ever figured out what to do with it.

          2. Sounds like you're claiming the incumbent systems use construction materials made of butterfly's breath.

          3. Exactly how fast prices will drop is still a question, but they will go down noticeably and quickly with Elon's gigafactory in full production.

          I used solar as an example.
          The USA has a giant Sun Belt.
          Other locations have other natural assets to exploit.
          The Great Plains have wind up the ying-yang; mountain passes too.
          The Ring of Fire and Iceland have gobs of underground heat for geothermal sources.
          Tidal energy has barely been tapped to date.

          Burning stuff that has been sequestered for eons and creating radioactive poisons via the most expensive method ever devised to boil water are both on the way out.
          The biosphere can't stand much more of that.

          -- gewg_

    • (Score: 2) by Snotnose on Wednesday December 10 2014, @06:00AM

      by Snotnose (1623) on Wednesday December 10 2014, @06:00AM (#124527)

      If I had mod points I'm mod parent up. Said my feelings on it better than I could have said it.

      --
      Why shouldn't we judge a book by it's cover? It's got the author, title, and a summary of what the book's about.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 10 2014, @07:42AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 10 2014, @07:42AM (#124557)

    Remember kids, Exxon has very significant investments in fracking in America. It is definitely not in their interest to have any lower demand for gas. And this guy probably holds some of Exxon shares. So what do you expect?

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 10 2014, @02:35PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 10 2014, @02:35PM (#124665)

      Everyone with a mutual fund most likely holds Exxon shares. What's your point? Oh yeah, "if you disagree with me, you obviously are on the take." I mean, heaven forbid that YOU might be wrong about something.

  • (Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Wednesday December 10 2014, @09:33AM

    by wonkey_monkey (279) on Wednesday December 10 2014, @09:33AM (#124589) Homepage

    Another Giant Declares Nuclear Dead In Fracking America

    I've heard enough from the giants. We want to know what the elves think!

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk
    • (Score: 2) by CoolHand on Wednesday December 10 2014, @01:06PM

      by CoolHand (438) on Wednesday December 10 2014, @01:06PM (#124626) Journal

      I for one welcome our fracking proselytizing giant overlords...

      --
      Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job-Douglas Adams
  • (Score: 4, Informative) by rts008 on Wednesday December 10 2014, @01:49PM

    by rts008 (3001) on Wednesday December 10 2014, @01:49PM (#124645)

    I have always wondered what earthquakes felt like, until the past few years.

    Thanks to fracking, I now know what it's like. Several hundred times over, in fact. Scarey.

    And thanks to all of that, my house is now falling apart, the insurance company says take it up with the oil companies.

    But the good news is that my drinking water is not flammable(yet), and I no longer need to dust stuff on shelves anymore...all of the shelves have fallen over the past several years, foundation cracking and settling unevenly, roof leaks, sinkholes forming, etc.

    I figure in a few more years, I will live either in a scenic/tourist spot at the edge of the 'New, Almost Grand Canyon', or at the bottom of it. ;-)

    An interesting graph is posted by the USGS: http://http//earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/states/oklahoma/images/OklahomaEQsBarGraph.png/ [http]; the sudden increase is astonishing, I know, I feel them almost weekly!

    • (Score: 2) by HiThere on Wednesday December 10 2014, @08:42PM

      by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday December 10 2014, @08:42PM (#124854) Journal

      You can get the same result after pumping the oil out of a reserve in the normal manner. Usually they don't lead to anything serious. Once in awhile you get something major, but it's hard to be sure that was due to the pumping rather than normal fault line activity. In the central US you don't get fault activity very often, but when you do it's major. S.a.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1811%E2%80%9312_New_Madrid_earthquakes [wikipedia.org] .

      Don't expect fracking to lead to major quakes. Subsidence is a worse problem. Look into Long Beach, CA for some of the results. OTOH, we aren't talking about hundreds of feet, more like 10s of feet, and usually slowly (unlike collapses of coal mines...look into the history of Pennsylvania).

      While the problems that you describe are real, don't exaggerate them with unrealistic fears. You should, however, monitor radon, and probably water quality.

      I'm actually more worried (I don't live in a fracked area) about methane escapes, but with all the other potential methane leaks now happening, even that is a rather diffuse worry. A warmer planet automatically produces the release of methane in so many different ways that it's difficult to count them all, but its a positive feedback relation, so small increments can be important. What I'm unsure about is what are the factors that will limit the feedback. There are certain to be some, but we may not like them.

      --
      Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
      • (Score: 2) by rts008 on Wednesday December 10 2014, @10:04PM

        by rts008 (3001) on Wednesday December 10 2014, @10:04PM (#124880)

        While the problems that you describe are real, don't exaggerate them with unrealistic fears.

        Yes, the problems are very real, and with the exception of the joke about living at/in the new almost grand canyon, no exaggaration was made.

        And watching my house shake apart around me is not an 'unreasonable fear'. It's happening.

        Oh, and there have been numerous studies from both of Oklahoma's universities(OU and OSU) geology dept.'s that pin the increase in earthquakes directly on the phenomenal amount of fracking out this way.
        The linked graph I put in my comment correlates exactly with the timing and number of fracking sites and the increase in earthquakes. That seems pretty suggestive to me, and apparently to many others.

        So, the next time the ground is shaking, the house is moving, and I'm dodging ceiling tiles, I will try to remember your lecture from your ivory tower. ;-)

        • (Score: 2) by HiThere on Thursday December 11 2014, @08:45PM

          by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Thursday December 11 2014, @08:45PM (#125241) Journal

          My ivory tower is in California, where significant earthquakes are not uncommon. OTOH, construction codes around here do tend to take notice of them, which, I guess, makes a bigger difference than I realized. (But do compare your experience with that from the Pennsylvania coal country, where housed literally *did* drop into holes that suddenly appeared in the ground.)

          Digging stuff out of the ground is destructive, sometimes more than others, and until we switch to renewables we're going to be stuck with that problem.

          --
          Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
          • (Score: 2) by rts008 on Friday December 12 2014, @05:04AM

            by rts008 (3001) on Friday December 12 2014, @05:04AM (#125375)

            Sorry about the harsh reply, but I really wasn't trying to blow it out of proportion, except for the grand canyon joke.(Sorry for the bad joke too)

            I agree that you are correct about the collapse after removal being the prevalent cause, it is definately fracking causing the large majority of quakes around here.(according to the 'boffins'--I love that word:)

            I also agree that we need to get off pulling/digging/drilling up the ground we live on for energy, then having to breath, drink, and eat the wastes/garbage, when there are alternatives. The longer we wait, the more costly it will be when we have no other alternative to survive. Our collective greed is outpacing technology's ability to keep balance.
            I don't but into the 'money is the problem' mantra from Big Oil. I truly despise the profits over well-being mentality displayed.

            My house was built in the immediate post-WW2 boom with no thoughts given to earthquakes(look up 'shotgun house'). The building codes are/were more concerned about tornadoes, fires, and floods(in that order). That may change due to the increase in quakes recently.

            Yeah, I lived in PA for a while(10-11 years in Bedford and Fulton Counties), and I also know about old mine fires (coal mines under Joplin, MO that have been burning for many decades) collapsing the surface( I was born and raised in southern MO).

            I thought it odd that I experienced my first quake in fricking OKLAHOMA, of all the places I have lived[1].

            Five decades, in many different places, no quakes until five years ago...been stabbed twice before graduating high school, shot three times on active duty(US Army), fell 130 feet during a parachute mishap(gaining teflon kneecaps, re-learning to walk, and unable to jump again*sigh*), knocked off of buildings in construction work, watched countless tornadoes go by, survived a half-dozen or more hurricanes, and like Wile E. Coyote, I keep my calm determination.

            But this earthquake thing? Hah, I nearly soiled my drawers! (a magnitude 3.6, centered 40-50 miles away--mild as far as quakes go, I understand)
            The worse was the mag. ~4.5(IIRC) that lasted for over two minutes; I got a little concerned, but not panicky.(acclimated to a degree by then)

            One of the biggest strengths, and one of the biggest weaknesses, of the human being is our adaptibility.

            I guess it's what you are used to.
            Tornadoes...meh, I stand outside and watch them for fun. Hurricanes?..open the doors and windows then get out of it's path. You can see both of them coming, no problem nowadays.

            Earthquakes on the other hand seem to come without warning, you can't see them, hear them(in time to matter-although many times critters seem to have more warning/awareness), and have no clue where to run, except outside in the open.(only to be swallowed by a fissure opening, if you've been exposed to excessive amounts of Hollywood's offerings:)

            The quakes are one of the reasons that CA was never on my list of places to live. In that context, you are braver than I am.

            BTW, the relationship to fracking=more quakes here, is the fracking provides lubricant to otherwise stable, dry formations, thus increasing instabilty. So we don't expect an 'earth-shattering kaboom', but a 'death by a thousand cuts' scenario.

            [1] I'm a NASA brat, and as Dad got stationed many places, well, I've lived in more states than the avg. person has visited, but not on the west coast, oddly enough.
            Missouri, Lousianna, Texas, Michigan, New Jersey, Virginia, Maryland, Florida, Pennsylvania, Oklahoma, Montana, South Dakota and Kansas(GAH!!!), and Nevada, to name a few.

            • (Score: 2) by HiThere on Friday December 12 2014, @07:59PM

              by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Friday December 12 2014, @07:59PM (#125571) Journal

              I'm rather sure that there's more to it than additional lubrication. Removal of supporting structure is probably high on the list. Quite plausibly if they got the stuff out without breaking the rock, though, and replaced it with something else, you wouldn't get the quakes even with the additional lubricant. Of course, breaking the rocks is what fracking is about, so that's impossible.

              --
              Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 10 2014, @10:03PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 10 2014, @10:03PM (#124879)

    in a state of mentality of "we -vs- them" nothing will change.
    the utilities think "we" provide electricity and "them", they're the ones buying.
    utilities think they make the world spin and they're right...for the past 100 years they were
    the main source of industrial (r)evolution.
    interestingly enough, there was a "we" mentality when electricity was discovered and the idea that
    every human should share in this new discovery, that it would make the lives of each of us
    safer, healthier and .. well ... just better.
    along the way, new original sources were tapped and exploited (and maybe running into scalability
    problems when explosive growth pushed efficiency onto the back burner) and suddenly everybody
    was hocked on electricity and along the way it became all about profit.
    now? upgrades only when the grid was short of collapsing. you know .. sake of profit.
    innovation went out the window (tbh, improving on the ingenuity of tesla is difficult).
    we're now firmly stuck in the "we -vs- them" profit mentality even though "we" are at the same time
    firmly technologically enabled to contribute to electricity generation.
    anyways it seems we got another 15 year dead-line to make coal, gas and oil last another extra
    50 years (that's when fusion will come only, lol) by turbo-boasting generation w/ free sunshine;
    else "shit will start falling apart and infecting teh regular solid stuff" again w/ help from those atom splitters.
    i for one would rather be buried on the left side of the graveyard that says "died from cancer" then the
    right side that says "please wear hazmat suit and dosimeter before entering".

  • (Score: 2) by ngarrang on Thursday December 11 2014, @02:17AM

    by ngarrang (896) on Thursday December 11 2014, @02:17AM (#124935) Journal

    We need a balance of all forms of energy production. Nuclear, natural gas, coal, oil, bio, solar, wind, water. For America to insure its energy security, it MUST have and use all form available to them, regardless of the cost. Natural gas production will level at at some point, and prices will go up. As each goes up and down, maintaining active production and expertise in all of the forms constrains the possible spikes in energy pricing. It is pure stupidity and near-sightedness to put too many eggs in one basket.