Comments on: Mini-Column of the Day: Steve Forbes on Al Gore, Globaloney, and Globalarmism http://www.bizzyblog.com/2007/03/17/mini-column-of-the-day-steve-forbes-on-al-gore-globaloney-and-globalarmism/ The Business End of the Blogosphere Thu, 18 Mar 2010 20:08:54 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8 hourly 1 By: TBlumer http://www.bizzyblog.com/2007/03/17/mini-column-of-the-day-steve-forbes-on-al-gore-globaloney-and-globalarmism/comment-page-1/#comment-112199 TBlumer Thu, 22 Mar 2007 18:46:02 +0000 http://www.bizzyblog.com/2007/03/17/steve-forbes-on-al-gore-globaloney-and-globalarmism/#comment-112199 #1 and #3, I'm still waiting for why RJ won't get into the CSP business if it's so good. I know enough about solar to be a little dangerous, and as far as I know, no one has solved the storage problem or the heavy use of acreage, or the limited geographic capability. But my knowledge is about 5 years behind now. Joffan is right that solar should be able to stand on its own if it really is viable without nuke-bashing, esp since the record on nukes in the free world is virtually spotless. If TMI is really the definition of a nuke disaster, may we have many more of them. #1 and #3, I’m still waiting for why RJ won’t get into the CSP business if it’s so good.

I know enough about solar to be a little dangerous, and as far as I know, no one has solved the storage problem or the heavy use of acreage, or the limited geographic capability. But my knowledge is about 5 years behind now.

Joffan is right that solar should be able to stand on its own if it really is viable without nuke-bashing, esp since the record on nukes in the free world is virtually spotless. If TMI is really the definition of a nuke disaster, may we have many more of them.

]]> By: Joffan http://www.bizzyblog.com/2007/03/17/mini-column-of-the-day-steve-forbes-on-al-gore-globaloney-and-globalarmism/comment-page-1/#comment-112197 Joffan Thu, 22 Mar 2007 18:29:01 +0000 http://www.bizzyblog.com/2007/03/17/steve-forbes-on-al-gore-globaloney-and-globalarmism/#comment-112197 Peter @1 You're a laugh a minute on nuclear power. "It may well consume more energy than it produces" - what is this fantasy? More <a href="http://nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower/WebHomeEnergyLifecycleOfNuclear_Power" rel="nofollow">debunked</a> van Leeuwen junk? Check your sources mate, they're well past sell-by. Life-cycle analysis, not a very exact science, still favours nuclear over all other sources. I see you thumping the old "disasters" like they were worse than any other technology, but of course you're wrong - nuclear is the safest energy source, even including Chernobyl. TMI was fully contained, Sellafield leaks ditto, Windscale fire had nil effect from studies, Forsmark wasn't near meltdown, etc. etc. Can't you CSP guys manage to push your technology without bashing nuclear? Is it not good enough to stand on its own merits? Peter @1
You’re a laugh a minute on nuclear power.

“It may well consume more energy than it produces” – what is this fantasy? More debunked van Leeuwen junk? Check your sources mate, they’re well past sell-by. Life-cycle analysis, not a very exact science, still favours nuclear over all other sources.

I see you thumping the old “disasters” like they were worse than any other technology, but of course you’re wrong – nuclear is the safest energy source, even including Chernobyl. TMI was fully contained, Sellafield leaks ditto, Windscale fire had nil effect from studies, Forsmark wasn’t near meltdown, etc. etc.

Can’t you CSP guys manage to push your technology without bashing nuclear? Is it not good enough to stand on its own merits?

]]> By: TBlumer http://www.bizzyblog.com/2007/03/17/mini-column-of-the-day-steve-forbes-on-al-gore-globaloney-and-globalarmism/comment-page-1/#comment-111805 TBlumer Tue, 20 Mar 2007 19:00:58 +0000 http://www.bizzyblog.com/2007/03/17/steve-forbes-on-al-gore-globaloney-and-globalarmism/#comment-111805 #1, go for it. What's stopping you? #1, go for it. What’s stopping you?

]]> By: Richard Jones http://www.bizzyblog.com/2007/03/17/mini-column-of-the-day-steve-forbes-on-al-gore-globaloney-and-globalarmism/comment-page-1/#comment-111786 Richard Jones Tue, 20 Mar 2007 16:03:34 +0000 http://www.bizzyblog.com/2007/03/17/steve-forbes-on-al-gore-globaloney-and-globalarmism/#comment-111786 "Nuclear power - a proved, ultraclean, nonemitting energy producer" - I think not! In the past 50 years we have had a disaster at Windscale, a partial meltdown at Three Mile Island, widespread contamination following the Chernobyl accident, extensive contamination from Dounreay, a near meltdown at Forsmark, a large radioactive leak at Sellafield, to name but a few. Reactors, reprocessing plants, and trains containing nuclear material are inviting targets for terrorists. Nuclear plants can be shut down by flooding, heatwaves, even maintenance. No solution has been found to the problem of disposing of nuclear waste, which remains dangerous for more than 10,000 years. When all the overt and hidden subsidies, especially insurance, are taken into account, nuclear is much more expensive than any other source of power. It may well consume more energy than it produces, while the construction of plants and mining of uranium release significant amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. I could go on. But there is an alternative. It's called Concentrating Solar Power (CSP). Analysts have evaluated the solar resource in the US Southwest and found that CSP could provide 7,000 GW of capacity, or about seven times the current total US capacity. Half a million Californians already use CSP electricity. Once the plants are in place (simple technology, uses mirrors to concentrate heat on to liquid to drive conventional turbines) no further support is required and the heat source is free, unlimited, cost effective, clean and reliable. No contest, is it? Peter Jones see www.trecers.net , www.trec-uk.org.uk etc for more information. “Nuclear power – a proved, ultraclean, nonemitting energy producer” – I think not! In the past 50 years we have had a disaster at Windscale, a partial meltdown at Three Mile Island, widespread contamination following the Chernobyl accident, extensive contamination from Dounreay, a near meltdown at Forsmark, a large radioactive leak at Sellafield, to name but a few. Reactors, reprocessing plants, and trains containing nuclear material are inviting targets for terrorists. Nuclear plants can be shut down by flooding, heatwaves, even maintenance. No solution has been found to the problem of disposing of nuclear waste, which remains dangerous for more than 10,000 years. When all the overt and hidden subsidies, especially insurance, are taken into account, nuclear is much more expensive than any other source of power. It may well consume more energy than it produces, while the construction of plants and mining of uranium release significant amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. I could go on.

But there is an alternative.

It’s called Concentrating Solar Power (CSP). Analysts have evaluated the solar resource in the US Southwest and found that CSP could provide 7,000 GW of capacity, or about seven times the current total US capacity. Half a million Californians already use CSP electricity. Once the plants are in place (simple technology, uses mirrors to concentrate heat on to liquid to drive conventional turbines) no further support is required and the heat source is free, unlimited, cost effective, clean and reliable.

No contest, is it?

Peter Jones

see http://www.trecers.net , http://www.trec-uk.org.uk etc for more information.

]]>