In raising several questions about this issue and the economics of nuclear power, the article failed to point out, as it should have, that the study was prepared for an environmental advocacy group, which, according to its Web site, is committed to ‘‘tackling the accelerating crisis posed by climate change — along with the various risks of nuclear power.’’ The article also failed to take account of other studies that have come to contrasting conclusions, or to include in the mix of authorities quoted any who elaborated on differing analyses of the economics of energy production.
h/t huck
Do the Dino Disco!
Nake a little stance, sell a little fib,
Get down tonight.
Get down tonight.
Put ’em in a trance, make a little bling,
Get down tonight.
Get down tonight.
“gullible reporting by NYT”
Redundant, no?
Gotta love these sociology majors who have ended up as scientific “authorities”. What’s the difference between that and printing your own degree certificates with PhotoShop and a LaserJet?!?
“gullible reporting by NYT”
Redundant, no?
“reporting by NYT”
Bullsh*t, no?
The NYT’s reporting has nothing to do with gullibility. They’re trying to sell a narrative folks. So what if facts get a little distorted.
That quote is from the NYT, probably at the behest of an “advocacy group”
That “study” reads like an Ipsos-Reid poll.
Likely for the same reason……..
Nuclear power technology is changing rapidly and is becoming cheaper, safer and more reliable.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf08.html
Any comparison of solar and nuclear is against moving targets.
Gullible? No.
Culpable? Yes.
Static cost analysis of production is not the whole story. Electric power is purchased “on demand” by consumers…and that demand is quite unstable. Electric power is produced by “baseload” plants (mostly coal and nucs). Swing power is produced mostly by natural gas fired plants. They are more expensive, but easy to start up.
The fallacy of solar and wind is that the production is completely unpredictable and a very poor fit with unstable demand. The distribution system to manage this issue is expensive and hideously complex. That cost will put these sources out of reach economically…forever.
“The fallacy of solar and wind is that the production is completely unpredictable and a very poor fit with unstable demand”
That’s a somewhat myopic opinion.
For example PV panels on the flat roofs of large air conditioned buildings in the sunbelt are ideally matched with the solar load that creates the air conditioning demand and the panels intercept the solar energy before it’s absorbed into the building.
If we’re going to solve our energy problems we have to first reduce wasted energy then employ appropriate alternatives where they fit best. Nuclear, solar, wind, and hydro all have a role to play in reducing the demand for fossil fuel electricity. Finding a different source of electricity to waste isn’t going to solve the problem, and can actually make it worse.
Nice to see good work produced. This is the best junk science I ever read. How does junk science work for those who are uninformed on the methodology?
You have a pig and want to know it’s weight. No scale is available so you need a scientific way of measuring the weight. First you write a proposal that identifies what you are doing and the methodology which you plan on using. Included in your proposal is you theory that discovering the weight of the pig will help reduce global warming.
Once you receive the funding you design your apparatus. You will need three things: a platform, a fulcrum and a counterbalance mechanism.
Some would use a wooden plank but because you received a grant you create a stainless steel armature about 1.87 meters long and 38.999cm wide with a tolerance of 2 thousands of a mm. You theorize that such a devise sustain the weight of the pig.
You then engineer a vehicle upon which you would place the apparatus. this would act as a fulcrum. Some would use a rock but a scientific study demands a that a tiny titanium workhorse shaped devise is build within a tolerance of no more than 10 thousands of a mm.
You then set the apparatus on the fulcrum equa-distance from the center of the fulcrum to the ends. You then place the pig on one side and measure the height that the other end rises as a result of the pig being placed on it. Sane people know that it is equal to the height of the tiny workhorse but measurement is necessary anyways.
Using various sized paper bags, that you filled with sand to help keep the cost of your study down, you proceed to place the bags on the stainless steel armature, opposite side of the pig. This is continued until the armature levels – is even height from the ground at both ends. Thus the sandbags and the pig are in equilibrium or of equal weight. Here’s where the PHD (Pigs, Horses and Dogs) comes in.
By estimating the cumulative weight of the paper sandbags (weight of the paper included) you can safely conclude that the pig weighs the equivalent amount.
The methodology is recorded and the resulted are measures. The experiment is conducted several hundred times to ensure that your theory is sound and that the result are similar each time.
You then write up a research paper and give it to your neighbour in the office next door to validate the paper thus ensuring peer reviewed.
You then find an experienced journalist in the journalism department who has contacts with the New York Times. You explain your paper to the journalist who is so mesmerized with your finding and how it will reduce global warming and the piece is written up and you become famous.
I hope you learnt something today.
The issue was, is and remains for the foreseeable that the MSM are effin idiots and will happily spew any crap they are fed as fact. Especially if it smells or tastes like crap they have already consumed…..the icing on the cake for them is to see people regurgitating that same crap so they get to enjoy it on the rebound. Just think of the giddy high fives in the news room as some cretin pol proposes legislation based on their efforts!
They fully believe they are smarter and better than everyone who consumes what they offer …. and that just may be true.
[quote]If we’re going to solve our energy problems we have to first reduce wasted energy then employ appropriate alternatives where they fit best. Nuclear, solar, wind, and hydro all have a role to play in reducing the demand for fossil fuel electricity. Finding a different source of electricity to waste isn’t going to solve the problem, and can actually make it worse. [/quote] John Galt
John.. First you need to prove we have an Energy Problem; that is not something that should be conceded…WE don’t! … We have a political problem creating energy problems.. This is not about science or the process.. It a political MSM agenda for Global Governance! The phony Economics behind AGW can’t sell Cap & trade if Nuclear is in the MIX. Indeed they must push every failing technology, making sure any NEW technology never sees the light of day.
The research will be open to those least likely to succeed, 9-5 warm bodies who are happy to do nothing. (They are now selling LOW expectations)
We are underestimating the role of UNIONS & Civil Service pensions. They will dump all the members’ funds into Cap & trade and we will be stuck with a moral dilemma.
JMHO
“First you need to prove we have an Energy Problem”
no I don’t, so stop with the personal “you need to” BS and stick to the subject.
Wow, John Galt, you must be an absolute pleasure to work with or even be around.
John Galt…
Your point is well made.. I was making the point that BS assumptions are the tools of social scientists… I should not have used your post in the manner I did.. I apologize