text:
Welcome to the Sacramento News & Review Archives
SN&R Live Updates
Send the really bad kids to prison
By Jose Gonzalez
Jose Gonzalez is a graduate of CSUS who works as a youth correctional counselor for CYA
In my three years as a youth correctional officer and 14 years as a youth correctional counselor with the California Youth Authority (CYA), I've seen good and bad in the system.
CYA provides treatment and training opportunities for wards in its charge. We hope to enhance wards' decision-making skills and help them abandon criminal behavior. Our goal is for them to become successful, productive, law-abiding members of society. However, many wards don't take advantage of rehabilitation efforts.
Today's CYA wards are the most violent, incorrigible and complex in the history of the state. Among the worst problems are hard-core gang members who have exhausted their confinement time—they can't be given additional confinement time unless they commit a new crime. Some of these hard-core gang members prefer being incarcerated in state prison. They will assault staff members or another ward to get there.
When they arrive at CYA, many wards have engaged in criminal behavior for years. Reasons for this include negligent parents, drugs or alcohol, gang membership, the absence of positive role models, and a decay in social and family values. We must try to create positive change in them. It's an extremely difficult task attempted under difficult conditions.
Many choose to engage in gang activity; violence; and disrespectful, disruptive and self-destructive behavior. The key word here is "choose." The wards, not the staff, make choices. Although staff members encourage wards to pursue positive changes, too few actually listen and apply the advice. It's frustrating that many young people choose criminal rather than positive behavior.
It's even more frustrating when the staff works with a ward to guide him in the right direction, only to have him violate parole or commit a new crime. Teachers also become frustrated when wards display incorrigible behavior in their classrooms—disrupting those who are trying to learn and make positive changes.
Rarely is this reported in the media. Instead, they're quick to report on any staff wrongdoing, proven or not. That might make a good story, but it leaves out the full picture.
Many CYA staff—peace officers and non-peace officers alike—share these feelings. We're doing what we can to change young lives. Perhaps our legislators need to look at getting the adult, violent and hard-core wards to state prison. Doing so would help transform CYA into a safer and more successful therapeutic environment.
More Opinions » Guest Comment
Lights, camera, taxation
<i>Coach Carter</i> is a great movie, but its high school, like many in California, is critically underfunded.
Sidelined no more
Small charter schools offer a worthy alternative to mass-produced education.
Protecting reproductive rights is at the core of civil liberties.
Shedding light on 'Dark Mondays'
Demonstrate support for undocumented-immigrant driver's licenses by not buying gas on Mondays.
Stem spending
It's easy to be charitable with other people's money.
Thank you for visiting the Sacramento News & Review.
© Sacramento News & Review. All rights reserved.
SN&R Home
Best of Sacramento


Replied to the thread RTT Control Block not Found (only on auto detect) on STM32H7 Nucleo.
Replied to the thread SystemView reset board on each starting loading..
Replied to the thread SystemView Kernelpatch for FreeRTOS 10.2.0.
Replied to the thread ES Global macros.
Replied to the thread Matching braces.
Replied to the thread segger linker.
Replied to the thread [SOLVED] FreeRTOS aware in Segger Embedded Studio.
Replied to the thread Specify default build configuration?.
Replied to the thread Debug Does Not Stop at initial break point.
Replied to the thread Problems configuring project for SystemView using SES.
Replied to the thread [SOLVED] SES 4.16 not showing RTT output.
Replied to the thread [SOLVED] In need of older version of J-Link ARM.
Replied to the thread Hidden warnings, modifying the include path, path prefix.
Replied to the thread Could not perform target reset failed to connect.
Replied to the thread Program XMC4800 with JLink ARM with a script.
Replied to the thread Bug: breakpoint fails in ISR with FreeRTOS debug.


Gravity Design is founded on passion. A passion for the physical Laws of our universe, for their consistency and natural elegance. We see ourselves as working in tandem with, not controlling, the kinetic forces that surround us. Bending gravity into art.


Mobikwik (MAGICOF3) Offer – Get 10% Cashback On Every 3rd Recharge Hi Friends, We Are Again Here With New Mobikwik offer For you All. Now Mobikwik Is Offering Bill payments and recharges Which are now speedy,convenient, and rewarding.Now Get 10% Cashback On Every 3rd Recharge . So Friends What Are you Waiting For? Grab This Offer Now By Following Below Steps,And Dont Forget To Share Us.
2) Install And Open Mobikwik App .
6) Complete Your Payment Via Debit/Credit card or Mobikwik Balance .
8) You Will Get 10% Cashback In Your Mobikwik Wallet Within 24~48 Hours.
2. Use code MAGICOF3 on your Recharge,Bill Pay,DTH or utility payments on MobiKwik App.
6. The Offer is applicable only for Select Mobikwik users on all operators except AIRTEL.
7. Coupon Redemption and Payment should be done on MobiKwik"s Android,iOS or Windows (version 10 & above) App.
10. All full/partial refunded transactions or transactions less than minimum amount would not be considered in the eligible transaction list.
12. MobiKwik reserves the right to endany or all offers at it"s sole discretion without any prior notice.


text:
Q: Am I able to load information from another page in my website with Javascript? I'm working on a mock shopping website for my portfolio, and I'd like the home page to automatically show the first items posted on the shopping page of the website. Is there a way I can use Javascript to load the image, title, and price written on another page, and put it on the home screen?

A: You can write a program to take the web page content and then clean the HTML to get the content you need. An example is cors-anywhere with NodeJS.
If you can only do it on the frontend (like you use Wordpress), you can call this API to get the website content. But this method is not recommended because the above website may stop working at any time. So you should create it for yourself.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


This is a reaction of the Romanian's civil society against the potential massacre of singing birds, if the new hunting law will pass in the Parliament in the new form proposed at the end of February. Hunting on private fields without the consent of the owner, prolonging the hunting periods for 18 species of birds with up to 3 months and lifting all restrictions for the foreign bird hunters are among the most important modifications the politicians are trying to impose.
The initiators of the campaign are asking Romanians to join the action and sign a public petition to stop the law project and to send a strong message to the Parliament members saying that nature is important and the Romanians will not stand to see the songbirds decimated. So far more than 5,000 people have signed the public petition to stop the massacre of singing birds and the official Facebook account has reached more than 33.000 people with its messages. TV and radio stations across Romania sparked a national debate encouraging nature lovers to stop the bill that could kill the songbirds.
"Romania is the last country in the European Union that allows hunters to take down skylarks. The new law will start a massacre and we have unfortunate past experiences", said Ovidiu Bufnilă, spokesman for Romanian Ornithological Society/BirdLife Romania.
Many of the songbirds will be killed so that their TONGUES ARE COOKED AND SERVED in restaurants all over the world.
Songbirds travel from one country to another. If they are killed in Romania, this means that they won't be travelling to other countries either, so that we all enjoy their delicate songs.
We can't sing, but we can help.
We need the whole world to stop this barbarian law!
When watching, please activate youtube subtitles.
Why stop the Hunting Law from being adopted by the Parliament?
Because, as it is written right now, this law will allow A BARBARIAN MASSACRE AMONG SONGBIRDS and among various protected species. It's impetuous that the whole text of the law is revised and it is also necessary that around 100 normative acts regarding the hunting domain are revised – they refer to hunting funds and organizing the hunting license exam.
Not every hunter is able to identify what species he is hunting – Specialists should be involved in the process of evaluation and in deciding the levels. Levels of hunted species should be correctly and transparently established because these levels are often bigger than the real number of exponents of those species.


text:
Q: Positive positive negative negative Series What is the simplest series that alternates in order $+,+,-,-,+,+,-,- \dots$
Specifically I want to make a Riemann sum for something, but it has this reoccurent pattern I haven't previously encountered. Normally I have seen $(-1)^n$, but this is new to me.

A: $$f(n) = (-1)^{\dfrac{(n-1)(n + 2)}{2}} = \left\lbrace\begin{matrix}1, & n = 1,2,5,6,\ldots\\-1, & n = 3,4,7,8,\ldots\end{matrix}\right.$$

A: Depends on what you mean by simplest. The series $\displaystyle\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}a_n$, where $a_n = \operatorname{Re}(i^n) + \operatorname{Im}(i^n)$, follows this pattern.

A: Hint: the sequence $1,1,-1,-1,1,1,-1,-1,...$ can be described by the formula
$$f(n)=\sin{\frac{\pi n}{2}}+\cos{\frac{\pi n}{2}}.$$


As part of a regional industrial group specializing in textile activities, Balas Textile has been established for many years in the sectors of sports, sportswear, high-end ready-to-wear, and markets subject to civil bidding and military.
Auguste Delubac, the great-grandfather of Olivier Balas, inventor of "Aircraft Fabric".
In 1916, Auguste Delubac patented his invention in France and abroad, under the name of "airplane fabric" or "French fur".
Eddie Rickenbacker of the US 94th Air Squadron, American Fighter Aviation Ace of the 1914-1918 War, had a "airplane fabric" suit.
Throughout these years, Balas and Delubac families collaborated closely for the personal protection of soldiers, including the Air Force.
Auguste Delubac patented his invention in France and abroad, under the name of "airplane fabric" or "French fur".
Entrance of the Mouzon Company into Balas Textile.
In 2004, Creation of the ERTEC department, new generation technical fabric .
Supply of the flight jackets non-fire inner-lining of the French Air Force.
Purchase of the circular double-loop engine.
Creation of the laboratory in the premises of BALAS TEXTILE.
Introduction of the digital printing.
Supply of the flight jackets non-fire inner-lining of the Rafale pilots.
Acquisition of stake held in Teinture des Cèdres company.
Entrance of Tissage Robert Blanc into Balas Textile's capital.
Relocation of Balas Textile in the north of Lyon, in Saint Romain de Popey.
Acquisition of new engines for the laboratory.
MEMBER OF "UNITEX" (LYON AND REGION TEXTILE INTER-ENTERPRISE UNION), THE "SYNDICAT DE LA MAILLE" AND "FACIM" (NATIONAL FEDERATION OF MANUFACTURERS OF ADMINISTRATIVE, CIVIL AND MILITARY SUPPLIES), BALAS TEXTILE WORKS WITH THE MOST INFLUENTIAL TEXTILE ORGANIZATIONS IN FRANCE.


text:
Patrick Kos (Alkmaar, 21 september 1986) is een Nederlands baanwielrenner. Zijn sterkste onderdeel is het stayeren. Op 17 september 2011 werd hij met gangmaker Willem Fack in Neurenberg Europees kampioen.

Patrick Kos in de zoon van oud-wereldkampioen stayeren René Kos.

Overwinningen

2009
 Nederlands kampioen stayeren (baan), Elite
2010
 Nederlands kampioen stayeren (baan), Elite
2011
Europees kampioen stayeren (baan), Elite
2014
1e en 2e etappe Ronde van Kameroen
Puntenklassement Ronde van Kameroen

Nederlands baanwielrenner

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


text:
Kevin, our partner in Sudan
We've introduced you to Kevin Massie before – he is one of our local partners in Sudan who works at the New Life Orphanage in Nyamlel. We wanted to take this opportunity to tell you more of his story. We are so thankful for all of you who contribute to our Sudan projects and for Kevin who helps facilitate the funding on the ground.
When Kevin Massie (pictured in front of Girls Dormitory in Nyamlel), a 2003 civil engineering graduate, first heard about the war in Southern Sudan, he was a freshman at Virginia Tech. He recalls how hard it was for him to comprehend that "more than two million people died in the last two decades of a 50-year war and the media rarely covered these senseless deaths. "I was gripped with compassion for the Sudanese people and I wondered what I could do to change this," he said. This compassion burned in Massie's heart for six years when he learned of Make Way Partners, a Christian mission agency committed to prevent and combat human trafficking and all forms of modern day slavery.
Make Way Partners has an orphanage of 400 children on the border of Darfur and Southern Sudan. Some of the orphans are from the South and some are from Darfur. "They all share a horrible common denominator. They have all either watched the murder of their parents, witnessed the rape of their mothers and/or suffered rape and persecution themselves," Massie explained.
On a two-week trip to Sudan with Make Way Partners, Massie encountered more stories that continued to tug at his soul. While working in the start-up medical clinic, he says he overheard a volunteer doctor examining a seven-year-old girl. He learned that the girl had woken up in the middle of the night crying loudly and could not be consoled. The mother was desperate for help, as she could not offer comfort to her child. The examination was difficult for both patient and doctor, but it was clear the girl suffered from sexual assault. "Most of the women in this village have been sex slaves or were violently abused during attacks by the Janjaweed, the name for the Muslim militia. This mother's personal trauma left her incapable of effectively touching her daughter's trauma," Massie said.
As Massie continued his work in the clinic those first two weeks, he couldn't escape the hopelessness in this young mother's voice. "I slowly realized the hope necessary to combat such cruelty comes when individuals slow down and choose to care about the needs around them," he said.
Recently, Massie joined the full-time staff of Make Way Partners as a project manager, where he puts his engineering background to work offering that hope. He helped complete a dormitory that safely houses 200 young orphaned girls who previously slept in trees to avoid attacks by hyenas and dogs. The girls are particularly thankful because the dormitory protects them from being captured or sold as sex slaves. In 2008, Massie will return to Sudan to work on a similar building for 200 boys who eagerly wait for the time they can sleep in a bed instead of trees. Massie credits "the same principles of community that strengthen Virginia Tech" as preparation for him to serve in Sudan. "The spirit of service evident at Virginia Tech guided me to apply my education to serve in one of the darkest places the world has ever known. And now, by carrying that spirit to the children of Sudan, I hope to help offer a new hope of peace through service."
[Article from: Virginia Tech Civil and Environmental Engineering Alumni News 2008]
December 5, 2008	by christine
New classrooms at New Dawn!
Boys will be boys!
Your mochas matter in South Sudan

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Turn Your $20s Into Tubmans With This DIY 3-D Printed Stamp
Two well-known DIY technologists have published a tutorial that lets you change the faces on your money.
It wasn't long ago that Phillip Torrone and Limor Fried heard the news that the United States Treasury was considering putting Harriet Tubman on the $20 bill. It seemed like a big moment, a beacon of progress. But when it became clear that it wouldn't happen any time soon—the Treasury said it would wait until 2020 just to unveil the design, let alone start printing and circulating the new bills—they decided to take the switch into their own hands.
Torrone and Fried are both perpetual makers: Fried, an engineer and electronics hobbyist, founded the open-source hardware company Adafruit Industries; Torrone founded Hackaday, and has been described by this publication as a "hardware-hacking evangelist." (Fried also appeared on the cover of WIRED in 2011, under the headline "How to Make Stuff.") The two have been at the forefront of the Maker Movement, and regularly offer tutorials for DIY technology projects. So if the government wasn't going to make those Harriet Tubman $20s, they figured they could do it themselves.
Using a 3-D printer and a handful of materials, they made stamps of Tubman's face, dipped them in ink, and then stamped them onto $20 bills. And just like that, Andrew Jackson became Harriet Tubman.
"We have this technology," says Fried. "We know how to 3-D print stamps. Instead of just making birthday card stamps, I thought it would be neat to make something a little more countercultural—something that would help people see, here's what technology can do."
Last week, Torrone and Fried put together a tutorial showing how to create a DIY stamp mold yourself. The process works with any image, which is then run through a lithophane generator to create the basic mold. Then, using a laser cutter, they cut away the parts they want to appear in the stamp. The stamp itself is made from two types of putty placed into the mold, then attached a handle and dipped into ink. "If you have a maker space or a hacker space, it's a good project that lets you learn all of these technologies," says Fried.
In their tutorial, Torrone and Fried show stamps in the likeness of Harriet Tubman and Steve Jobs. But you can imagine the possibilities of an entirely new set of figureheads on currency, representing more than just the garden variety founding fathers. Maybe people start stamping Sally Ride on the $10, Grace Hopper on the $50, Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the $100. Maybe each note represents excellence in a particular field—$5s for political heroes, $20s for cultural icons, and $100s for America's great scientists—with a whole range of faces replacing the old white men on each bill.
"If you see these faces every day, they gain power. They're on the most powerful currency in the world," says Fried. "It's hard to tell some girl, 'Hey, you can grow up to be a founding father.' No, you can't. But you can learn about Sally Ride or Harriet Tubman and be like, 'This person had strength in adversity and was able to do something amazing.'"
The stamps follow in a long line of similar projects. Efforts to politicize currency date at least as far back as the 1900s, when English Suffragettes stamped pennies with the message "votes for women." More than 100 years later, after the 2010 Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United, a group called Society of Stampers started selling rubber stamps with politicized messages, encouraging people to "stamp big money out of politics" by pressing the messages onto every bill they touched.
While these projects are all politically charged, defacing US currency isn't, on its face, illegal. Federal law only prohibits altering money "with intent to render such bank bill, draft, note, or other evidence of debt unfit to be reissued"—that is, to take it out of circulation. Torrone and Fried's project has exactly the opposite intent. They want their stamped bills to change hands as much as possible, so that people see them and think, Wait, is that Harriet Tubman? and then consider who they might want to represent them on their money.
"A lot of people feel helpless about the government, but this is something everyone can do in their own little way," says Torrone. All it takes is some putty, a 3-D printer, and a vision for the future.
Arielle Pardes is a senior writer at WIRED, where she works on stories about our relationship to our technology. Previously she was a senior editor for VICE. She is an alumna of the University of Pennsylvania and lives in San Francisco.
TopicsDIY3-D printingmoney


text:
Битката за Улцин е между османските сили на Дервиш паша, от една страна, и албански доброволци от Призренската лига – от друга. Състои се през 1880 г.

Предистория
Поводът е решението на Великите сили да заменят предаването на Княжество Черна гора на Плав и Гусине по Горни Лим (което е решено по силата решение на Берлинския конгрес), с Улцин. Причината е, че Черна гора не успява фактически да овладее Плав и Гусине.

Ход на битката и последствия
Черногорците предвождани от Марко Милянов водят три последователни битки за Плав и Гусине срещу Хоти и Груда, последните подкрепяни от призренската лига и редовни османски части. В резултат от тези събития, великите сили настояват вместо планинския район на Горни Лим, Османската империя да предаде района на Улцин на Черна гора, но и тук албанците отказват. В крайна сметка, великите сили принуждават османците да предприемат действия срещу Призренската лига и района на Улцин е присъединен към Черна гора, въпреки че и днес там 90% от населението са албанци.

Източници

Битки на Османската империя
Албански въстания срещу Османската империя
История на Черна гора
Улцин


text:
Peak Flows
How to use an Inhaler
Making Sense of Lung Function Tests
References and useful links
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease is a condition which results from a combination of bronchitis and emphysema, usually caused by smoking. People with COPD may experience shortness of breath and sputum production.
Tailoring of inhaled therapy
The mainstay of therapy for those with COPD is inhaled treatment, with a combination of bronchodilators ± inhaled steroids.
Bronchodilators are medicines which relax the muscles within the walls of the airways, aiding airflow and easing the sensation of breathlessness. Tailoring of inhaled steroids help to treat inflammation and the underlying disease process of COPD.
However, more recent evidence suggests that the use of inhaled steroids should be targeted to a selected minority of patients whose airways are actually responsive to this treatment. Whereas inhaled steroids may be of great benefit to a few patients, they carry the potential for unnecessary side-effects in others. Careful assessment is required to target this treatment to those most likely to benefit.
The assessments which we perform include measurement of exhaled nitric oxide (FENO), bronchodilator responsiveness and blood tests, as well as a full clinical assessment including your previous respiratory history, examination and review of existing and further xrays and scans.
Lung volume reduction procedures
Some patients with more advanced COPD may benefit from more radical treatments, such as lung volume reduction. Because COPD causes the lungs to lose their natural springiness, they tend to become over-inflated. Breathing with over-inflated lungs requires more work and is less efficient, which increases the sensation of breathlessness.
Some patients may benefit from a procedure to remove a portion of lung, either surgically or endoscopically by causing certain segments of the lung to collapse or fold up into less space. Two different endoscopic treatments are possible.
A one-way valve is deployed within an airway, which allows air out but not back into the upstream segment. This helps to reduce the volume of the lung.
Several valves are deployed within one lobe of the lung.
The second method is to introduce a number of coils which restore some of the natural springiness to the lung, helping to prevent over-expansion. In this subject coils have been inserted into the upper lobes of both lungs, which have the effect of reducing their volume)
By whichever method, removal of this excessive lung volume improves thoracic mechanics and relieves the sensation of breathlessness. Although these procedures carry a small risk, lung volume reduction is one of the few treatments which has the potential to extend life expectancy in those with severe COPD.
Selection of patients for lung volume reduction depends upon the findings from various investigations including a CT scan and full lung function testing in our lab. After careful discussion of the pros and cons we can then refer those people who may benefit to a surgical centre for consideration and further tests.
If you have COPD and would like to discuss any of the above possible treatments or anything else, please contact us for an appointment at which we can discuss all aspects of your respiratory health and the details of the programme. You can email info@guildfordrespiratory.co.uk or call on 01483 555800 ext 5297 or 07495 261 587.
Email: info@guildfordrespiratory.co.uk
Phone: 01483 555800 ext 5297
Address: Nuffield Health Guildford Hospital
GU2 7RF
© Copyright - Guildford Respiratory | Website by Creative Influence Design


text:
The Historical Gamer
I love history, I love games, I love computers and technology, on this site I talk about and make videos on any and all games which pertain to history and may also discuss the occasional technological or historical event outside of gaming as well.
U-Boat: A First Look at a new Submarine Simulation and Crew Management Game
Hello world! Long time no chat!
Today, I'm posting about a new game which just entered early access on April 30th, 3 days ago. The game is U-Boat and it's a combination of a U-Boat simulation game and a typical personal management game. In U-Boat, you control your German Type VII submarine as you stalk the seas in a very Silent Hunter III like experience. Some interesting differences between this and other submarine games like Silent Hunter are, the ability to walk through your entire boat in a first person view, as well as interact with many more systems and sub systems than most typical submarine games. While you're doing this, you also need to ensure your crew stays fed, rested, and at their tasks. Additionally, the game gives you a diagram side scrolling view of the world if you want to play the game in a 3rd person view.
Overall, I'm really enjoying U-Boat and think this is the foundations of what could be a tremendous game. The game still has some bugs and the controls are clunky and need work. It's very much an early access game but one I'm happy to support, so long as they iron out it's current issues. This game is a lot of fun!
If you want to learn more check out my first look video below.
Posted by Historical Gamer at 1:23 PM 1 comment:
The Destroying Angel: The Rifle-Musket as the First Modern Infantry Weapon - A Book Review
Overview: In his inaugural book "The Destroying Angel," author Brett Gibbons (a Captain in the US Army Reserves), argues why the Rifled-Musket of the 1850s and 60s was the first modern infantry weapon. The weapon fundamentally altered the capabilities and role of infantry on the battlefield. It resulted in new tactics and theories which made the weapon more similar to firearms today than what came before. In so doing, Gibbons challenges contemporary historian's (most notably Allen Guelzo and Earl Hess) who argue that the technical limitations of the rifled-musket prevented it from having any meaningful impacts on war and soldiers. Guelzo and Hess argue that the rifled-musket had more in common with the smoothbore musket of Napoleon's time, than the weapons which came later. Gibbons takes the opposite stance. Gibbons argues, the brief rifled-musket era (about 15-20 years) represented a fundamental shift in both the capabilities of the standard infantry's small arms weapon, and also the requirements placed upon the ordinary soldier. Gibbons argues the rifled-musket necessitated the adoption of a professional, thinking, soldier rather than the drilled, automatons, of the Napoleonic era.
To make his case, Gibbons first looks at the clearest example of how the rifled-musket changed warfare, the Crimean War. The Crimean War was fought from 1853-1856, between the British/French/Ottoman alliance and the Russian Empire. At this time, the rifled-musket was just beginning to become the standard issue weapon in the British Army. The Crimean War is ripe with examples of how the rifle was changing warfare and Gibbons details multiple examples to support this argument. Gibbons reveals individual marksmen knocking out artillery batteries at ranges in excess of 500 yards (a previously unprecedented occurrence), breaking up columns of Russian infantry hundreds of yards before the smoothbore armed Russians could bring their Napoleonic weapons into range, and shattering cavalry charges with multiple volleys of accurate fire, long before the cavalry could close to charge the infantry (previously infantry firing at cavalry in line was a sitting duck).
After these obvious and powerful examples, Gibbons talks about the weapon itself (what was the rifled-musket and how was it different?), the weapons iconic parabolic trajectory, which it's critics claim were an Achilles heel of the weapon, but how despite these limitations the weapon resulted in a revolution in military theory. Gibbons talks how the high arching trajectory of a rifled-musket's shot actually resulted in the development of modern infantry tactics. This trajectory allowed the invention of infantry being used as support troops for assaulting infantry. Support troops would fire over the head of advancing infantry, to pin down the defender while, the assaulting column advanced in relative safety. Cover/Support fire is a tactic which is fundamental to the modern way of war even today (150 years later). Gibbons also talks about how the British trained soldiers to use their weapons in a highly professional manner. This was a revolution in of itself. Prior to the rifled musket, infantry was just a trigger puller. Smoothbore-musket armed soldiers just needed to point their weapon in the general direction of the enemy, pull the trigger, and reload. The rifled-musket armed soldier needed to be an individual soldier. He needed to know how to estimate distance, adjust his sites for the distance, and aim deliberately. These new requirements prompted the British army to open up marksmanship schools, something previously unheard of but something which remains an essential today. Gibbons then returns to the battlefield with additional examples of rifled-muskets being used as modern fire arms (during the Indian Rebellion of 1857) and of other nations failing to use the weapons as anything but a modified smoothbore-musket (the wars of Italian Unification). He discusses how different powers either successfully or unsuccessfully leveraged the capabilities of the new weapons (namely the British vs the French) and he concludes with a brief look at the American Civil War and the contemporary historian's arguments.
In his final passages, Gibbons challenges the arguments of contemporary historians, Guelzo and Hess. Gibbons argues that both historians make the mistake of relying too heavily on the American Civil War in their evaluation of the rifled-musket. Gibbons' thesis that the rifled-musket was the first modern infantry weapon also means it's the first firearm which requires a modern soldier. During the American Civil War, while US soldiers were impeccably drilled in the maneuvers of Napoleonic armies, they received little to no marksmanship training. Modern fire arms require substantial and constant live fire training to make an infantryman effective. During the Civil War marksmanship training was nearly unheard of. Because of the lack of training and the failure of the US officer corps to adapt to a new way of thinking about their weapons, the American's failed to leverage the new capabilities of their rifled-muskets, despite having hundreds of thousands of soldiers armed with them. Gibbons claims, Gulezo and Hess fail to understand the way in which the rifled-musket was revolutionary because they failed to look at the right conflicts. The British Army of the 1850s and 1860s is where Gibbons argues the rifled-musket was truly appreciated and where its full potential was leveraged. After all, you can't have a modern fire arm, if you don't also have a soldier trained to use it. The British backed up their breakthrough weapons with revolutionary training regimes worthy of a modern army. Guelzo and Hess are mistaken because the American armies they looked at were not training their soldiers to be modern soldiers; they were training them to march in the ranks of Napoleon or Wellington. American soldiers had neither the time nor the resources to do anything different.
For a first book, Gibbons' "The Destroying Angel" is impressive. Gibbons clearly has a knack for clear and precise prose. He effectively and succinctly lays out his argument and explains things like firing arc's and trajectories in a way which the ordinary reader can easily follow. He also provides several graphics which help the more visually inclined (the Kindle version's visuals are far superior to the print version of the book). Gibbons key failings are unusual for an author, he's too concise. The book while approachable and an easy read (100 pages in the print version) also lacks somewhat for contextual depth. Gibbons provides the necessary context for the rifled-musket itself but his case studies could have used more depth. There seems to be an expectation that the reader already has a background in history and at least a 10,000 foot understanding of the Crimean War or the Wars of Italian Unification. While the lack of context doesn't take away from the argument, it may prove somewhat incomplete to the reader looking to understand why the Italian soldiers were not professionals like the British. Additionally, Gibbons focuses heavily on the British Army and their use of the rifled-musket but the book would benefit at looking at how the Prussian's, Italians, and Austrian's viewed this new technology. There is perhaps too much of a focus on the British, without enough context of the outside world (it's there, just not in much detail). Additionally, a more detailed background of the development of the first rifles and how the rifled-musket was different (the book touches lightly upon this) would also be appreciated. Still, these are minor complaints, borne mainly out of my desire to read more by Gibbons. On the whole, I fully enjoyed this book and for $4.99 (Kindle Price) I can't recommend this book enough (affordable, approachable, and well written), for anyone remotely interested in the topic.
If this sounds like something you might want to read you can buy the book here:
Posted by Historical Gamer at 1:27 PM 5 comments:
Paradox Interactive Announces Plans for IPO
Yesterday, Paradox Interactive CEO Fredrik Wester announced plans for the Strategy game publisher to seek an Initial Public Offering (IPO) and take the company public. Paradox Interactive is estimated to be worth over 150 million dollars and collected more than 74 million in revenues in 2015. In the following video I discuss my thoughts on the intention of Paradox to go public.
Posted by Historical Gamer at 11:05 PM 1 comment:
Scourge of War: Waterloo
Hey everyone. Scourge of War: Waterloo is out, a game I helped to make (A very small part) and I have my first video looking at the game.
Posted by Historical Gamer at 1:55 AM No comments:
Humble Bundle and Steam Refunds
There's a Humble Bundle on for Strategy and Wargamers, Slitherine titles were chosen for the Weekly Bundle, check it out here: https://www.humblebundle.com/weekly
Below listen to me talk about the Bundle and Steam's revolutionary digital return policy while playing Close Combat: Gateway to Caen.
Posted by Historical Gamer at 11:31 PM 3 comments:
Brother Against Brother - First Look
I've been playing quiet a bit of a new Civil War game called, Brother Against Brother. The game reminds me in many ways of the tactical side of Civil War Generals 2. I've really enjoyed this little game which focuses on lesser well covered small battles which took place in the initial years of the American Civil War, in the years of 1861 and 1862.
Brother Against Brother: Part 1
Posted by Historical Gamer at 12:32 AM 1 comment:
Vietnam 65 - An Interesting Little Game
I recently completed a short series on a new game called, Vietnam 65. The game is an interesting and simple yet surprisingly deep game that focuses on the campaign in the Ia Drang Valley in Vietnam during 1965. The game is far more abstract than one might expect of a game that claims to focus on one geographic area over a relatively short period of time. Towns are random, maps are random, and tactical battles are largely abstract. Still it's a fun little game that focuses on Counter Insurgency as the US Military envisioned it in the summer of 1965. I wouldn't say it's the most "accurate" Vietnam game I have ever played, but it feels devilishly authentic in it's approach and understanding of the war, even if some of the games premise on how to win are probably more in line with what the US Military thought was needed to win and less in touch with reality.
Vietnam 65 - Part 1
Vietnam 65 - Part 3 - Final Impressions
Posted by Historical Gamer at 3:49 AM 11 comments:
Buzz Aldrin's: Space Program Manager - Released! and my USSR Let's Play
Buzz Aldrin's Space Program Manager has officially launched a few weeks ago and I've started a let's play for the USSR. Check it out here!
Part 1 - First Look
Part 2 - Space Plane Catastrophe and Triumph
Part 3 - A String of Success'
Part 4 - For the Motherland!
Part 5 - Two Men In Space!
Part 6 - Landing on the Moon! (of a probe)
Command: Modern Air/Naval Operation's Part's Two and Three
I've posted two more episodes of Command: Modern Air/Naval Operations on my channel. I'm not a great player at the game though I do enjoy it quiet a bit. I'm considering making a full blown nuclear war between the US and the USSR but I'm not sure how my CPU would handle thousands of independently tracked missiles crisscrossing the globe but it would be interesting to find out. I'm also working on a China vs Vietnam modern day scenario based around a hypothetical conflict over oil exploration near the Vietnamese coast.
Anyway, I hope you enjoy the following episodes, #2 and #3 from my CMANO series.
Posted by Historical Gamer at 3:57 AM 3 comments:
Command: Modern Air Naval Operations
In this video I take a first look at Command: Modern Air Naval Operations which just recently went on steam and caused a bit of a controversy due to its high price. With that said the game is a phenomenal modern military simulation and the included database is worth well over the cost of the game just by itself. You'd pay more to get the database included in the game in the form of Janes or Conways, the game is just a perk!
Posted by Historical Gamer at 11:32 PM No comments:
thehistoricalgamer
Historical Gamer


You've reached CCSVI-3 or Part 3. Go here to read Part 1 or for Part 2, go here.
If you want to read about people who have undergone the procedure under Dr. Dake's care, check out the "This is MS" site. They are tracking the progress of MSers who are currently being treated.
And if you'd like to watch the recent special about Dr. Zambino's Liberation Treatment done by Canada's CTV, click here. (Clicking link will open a new window).
If it sounds like we are hoping that this treatment will work, then you guessed right. We're not doctors, of course, but we still have hope that one day there will be a cure for MS. And if this is the cause of even a small number of people with this disease, then it should be explored.
Director of the Centre for Vascular Diseases, University of Ferrara, Ferrara (ITA), He discovered and described this condition in MS patients in Italy.
For a more complete list, go to the This is MS Forums. (clicking here will open a new window).
We'd also love it if you use the form below to let us know what you think about this promising study. Sharing your experiences will help others decide if this might be a possible treatment for them, as well.
Here are a few questions you might consider addressing in your submission. You can answer them all - that would be great. Or just the ones you feel comfortable answering - that's okay, too.
Did you get the treatment?
Do you feel that it was a success?
What types of improvements have you seen?
How long after treatment did these improvements occur?
I'm sure you can probably think of several more We're excited to see more about this treatment – are you?!
Have You Tried CCSVI for Your MS? Would You Like to Try it?
Share your CCSVI story for treating your multiple sclerosis here. How has it helped you or how do you feel it will help you?
Share your story, tips, and advice about CCSVI with other MSers here. Or talk about why you think it should be available for people with MS.
Go from CCSVI-3 back to Part 1 or Part 2, here.


text:
7 Things People Got Wrong with our Recent 'Nuclear Power Dilemma' Report
Steve Clemmer, director of energy research, Clean Energy | November 16, 2018, 1:29 pm EST
On November 8, UCS released The Nuclear Power Dilemma: Declining Profits, Plant Closures, and the Threat of Rising Carbon Emissions, which found that more than one-third of existing nuclear plants, representing 22 percent of total US nuclear capacity, is uneconomic or slated to close over the next decade. Without new policies, we found that if these and other marginally economic nuclear plants are closed before their operating licenses expire, the electricity would be replaced primarily with natural gas. If this occurs, cumulative carbon emissions from the US power sector could rise by as much as 6 percent at a time when we need to achieve deep cuts in emissions to limit the worst impacts of climate change.
Unfortunately, some of the media coverage and statements by the nuclear industry and other groups have mischaracterized our report and our past work. Here are seven points to correct the record:
1. The report does not promote new nuclear power plant construction.
Our analysis is focused on the economic viability of existing nuclear power plants in the United States through 2035. The cost of keeping existing plants operating is considerably less than building new ones. While new nuclear plants could be built under a national carbon price or low-carbon electricity standard, our modeling shows they are too expensive compared to new wind and solar projects, energy efficiency programs, and natural gas plants with carbon capture and storage.
The only new nuclear reactors included in our analysis are the two currently under construction at the Vogtle plant in Georgia. Their cost has ballooned to more than $27 billion, which is double the estimate approved by regulators in 2008, and the project is more than five years behind schedule. This 2012 UCS analysis shows that building the two new Vogtle reactors would be more expensive than other alternatives. And the Vogtle reactors' cost has escalated significantly over the past six years, while the cost for wind and solar has fallen dramatically.
This isn't the first time UCS has shined a spotlight on the high costs of building new nuclear reactors. This 2016 UCS power sector deep decarbonization study found that nearly all nuclear and coal plants in the United States would be replaced by low-carbon technologies by 2050 under every scenario, except our "optimistic nuclear case." A blog I wrote in 2013 explains why calls by some climate scientists to build new nuclear plants are misguided.
2. The report does not advocate for subsidies for any specific nuclear plants.
The report emphasizes that a price on carbon or a low-carbon electricity standard (LCES) would be the best options for internalizing the costs of climate change in the price of burning fossil fuels and providing a level playing field for all low-carbon technologies. As explained by UCS President Ken Kimmell in his recent blog, "the report does not argue for subsidies to any specific plants. That case will have to be made in state-specific forums. Should states decide to support nuclear power plant subsidies, our report calls for them to be temporary and subject to periodic reassessment. Companies seeking subsidies must open their books and allow the public and regulators to make sure that the subsidies are needed and cost-effective, and that the same level of carbon free power cannot be provided during the relevant time period with less costly options." Any subsidies also must be part of a broader strategy to reduce carbon emissions that increases investments in renewables and efficiency.
Finally, our report makes clear that UCS would never support financial assistance that is also tied to subsidizing fossil-based energy sources, such as Trump administration proposals to bail out coal and nuclear plants based on spurious grid-reliability and national-security grounds.
3. Existing nuclear plants must also meet strong safety standards to be eligible for support.
Since the 1970s, UCS has been a leading nuclear safety watchdog. The new UCS report recommends that nuclear reactors must meet or exceed the highest safety standards under Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) Reactor Oversight Process to be eligible for any policy or financial support. If the NRC weakens these standards, as proposed by the nuclear industry, UCS could no longer support this recommendation. At the same time, UCS will continue to push for better enforcement of existing regulations, the expedited transfer of nuclear waste from overcrowded cooling pools to safer dry cask storage, strengthened reactor security requirements, and higher safety standards for new plants. We also consider the NRC safety standards to be a floor, not a ceiling. States could encourage plant owners to make other safety improvements that go beyond current NRC standards.
4. Not every currently operating nuclear plant should stay open.
The report highlights examples where it might make sense to shut down existing nuclear plants that are saddled with major, reoccurring safety issues such as the Pilgrim plant in Massachusetts that Entergy is closing next year and the Davis-Besse plant in Ohio that FirstEnergy is threatening to close in 2020 if it doesn't receive subsidies. Other examples include Indian Point, due to its proximity to New York City, and Diablo Canyon, which is located near earthquake fault lines in California.
It also might make sense to shut down plants with high operating costs or ones that need to make major new capital investments to continue operating safely. Examples cited in the report include Crystal River in Florida and San Onofre in California, which were retired in 2013 following failed steam generator replacements. Fort Calhoun in Nebraska shut down in 2016 primarily for economic reasons following several years of extended outages and flood damage. Chris Crane, CEO of Exelon, agrees that some high-cost plants should probably close: "I will be the first one to tell you that some of the nuclear plants are small, uneconomic and they won't make it and they probably should not make it," he said. "Let's not save every one."
5. Not every nuclear plant that retires early will be replaced with fossil fuels.
The report acknowledges that with sufficient planning and strong climate and clean energy policies, some existing nuclear plants can be replaced with renewables, energy efficiency, or other low- carbon technologies. For example, California passed legislation in September that commits the state to replace Diablo Canyon with zero-carbon energy sources by 2025. And states experiencing rapid wind and solar power deployment such as Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas, and Texas could potentially replace their nuclear plants with low-carbon energy sources over a reasonable period of time. However, a significant portion of the electricity in most of those states is still generated by coal and natural gas. Replacing those fuels with renewables and efficiency would result in much greater emissions reductions than replacing nuclear plants, another low-carbon source of electricity.
6. UCS has long recognized the role of existing nuclear plants in reducing carbon
UCS has long supported keeping existing nuclear reactors that meet high safety standards operating to combat climate change. In 2004, the director of our energy program at the time, Alan Nogee, stated: "We cannot phase out current nuclear generation quickly, especially without [a] significant increase in carbon emissions." Five years later, we released our "Climate 2030 Blueprint," which assumed the fleet of more than 100 US reactors would continue to operate through 2030 and beyond. You will find in the report's executive summary: "Hydropower and nuclear power continue to play important roles, generating slightly more carbon-free electricity in 2030 than they do today."
US Electricity Generation under the UCS Climate 2030 Blueprint
Two years ago we posted a "Nuclear Power and Global Warming" page on our website, highlighting the need for all low-carbon technologies, including nuclear power, to limit the worst consequences of climate change. The web page also warns that replacing existing nuclear power plants with natural gas plants would increase carbon emissions.
In 2016, UCS was involved in negotiations in Illinois to keep two uneconomic nuclear plants running, while strengthening the state's renewable energy and energy efficiency standards. We posted the following blogs on the topic: "A Huge Success in Illinois: Future Energy Jobs Bill Signed Into Law," "The Future Energy Jobs Bill: Promise, Pitfalls, and Opportunities for Clean Energy in Illinois," and "New Analysis Shows Fixing Illinois Clean Energy Policies Is Essential to Any 'Next Generation Energy Plan.'"
7. UCS has long supported a low carbon electricity standard (LCES), but not at the expense of renewable electricity standards (RES).
Since at least 2011, UCS has engaged in constructive dialogues and provided support for LCES proposals. See here, here, here, and here. More recently, UCS advocated for the 100 percent zero-emission electricity standard in California that was signed into law in September.
While an LCES could be effective at preserving existing nuclear generation and increasing the deployment of renewable energy and other low-carbon technologies, our position has remained consistent (including in our new report) in that we do not recommend replacing state RESs with broader LCESs. Renewable standards have been effective at reducing emissions, driving down the cost of wind and solar, and creating jobs and other economic benefits for states and in rural communities. They have also been affordable for consumers. Including existing nuclear power plants in state renewable standards could significantly undermine the development of new renewables and all the benefits that go along with them.
We recommend including existing nuclear in a separate tier of an LCES, as New York state has done, to limit costs to ratepayers and avoid market-power issues due to limited competition among a small number of large plants and owners. New York also has combined an LCES with a zero-emission credit program to provide financial support only to existing nuclear plants that need it, adjusting support as market conditions change. New technologies would be eligible to compete in the existing tier to help ensure that the most cost-effective, low-carbon energy sources replace any retiring nuclear plants. Illinois and New Jersey also strengthened their renewable standards while providing separate financial support for distressed nuclear plants.
And finally, despite reporting to the contrary, UCS has not changed its position on nuclear power. Has UCS advocated vigorously for policies to increase the deployment of renewable energy to address climate change? Absolutely. Have we been a longstanding watchdog for nuclear power safety? You bet. Do we now believe the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is an effective watchdog or that nuclear power safety concerns are overblown? Emphatically no.
But UCS has long recognized that the current nuclear fleet is a significant source of low-carbon power and that nuclear plants should not retire precipitously without carbon-free replacements. As cited above, my former colleague Alan Nogee tweeted a slide from 2004 showing that UCS grappled with just this point more than a decade ago:
Posted in: Energy, Global Warming, Nuclear Power Tags: Carbon Emissions, Carbon Price, climate-change, low carbon electricity standard, nuclear power, renewable electricity standard, Renewable energy
J Kim
These caveats amounts to very nearly not saying anything, which is just multiplying ignorance instead of spreading understanding. Scientists should be informing the public about what is more dangerous and what is less dangerous among the threats out there.
There is overwhelming hard scientific evidence of the damage done by fossil fuels – both to the environment and directly to human beings. Even leaving aside global warming, the World Health Organization estimates that 7 million people suffer early deaths in a single year from air pollution. That is equivalent to over a thousand Chernobyls every year, just from ordinary operation – but it is not considered a crisis, and many people even consider nuclear power *more* dangerous than fossil fuels.
It is the responsibility of scientists to accurately portray the difference of risks between fossil fuels compared to other power sources. The public is constantly being fed misinformation about risk by advocacy groups, and scientists must take a stand and inform, rather than engage in double-speak to not say anything.
I find myself fairly well in alignment with the UCS position on nuclear. Keep the safest reactors in operation for now.
Forget about building any further reactors unless someone can produce a new reactor that produces electricity at wind/solar prices. And that reactor should be built with private, not taxpayer or ratepayer money. The risk of non-completion or failure to financially compete should be totally born my the investors.
That said, I do want to point out one problem with your analysis. In your chart "Blueprint Case for Electricity Generation" you show a drop in electricity use due to efficiency. While it is the case that current demand is likely to drop as we become more efficient we have a new demand for electricity coming at us.
We are beginning to see the serious uptake of battery powered vehicles and we should see an accelerating transition away from ICEVs as battery prices fall. We probably have sufficient capacity to charge the EVs that will come online over the next ten years or so but it's likely to be mainly late night CCNG. Gas plants that would otherwise be idled when the wind is providing.
We need, IMO, a significant price on carbon so that wind and solar installation speeds up to at least 3x what it is now. The increased cost in burning fossil fuels would drive wind and solar faster, increase EV purchases and also allow existing reactors to stay in operation until they encounter an expensive repair need or are no longer needed.
In "wind/solar prices": batteries, integration costs, coal/gas-fired backup plants are never included.
"Batteries not included in renewable fantasy plans"
cfact … org/2018/11/17/batteries-not-included-in-renewable-fantasy-plans/
"'Renewable investment boom tipped to slow' because the bankers suddenly discovered you need a massively expanded transmission network. If only this was forseeable …"
smh … com … au/business/banking-and-finance/greater-uncertainty-renewable-investment-boom-tipped-to-slow-20181010-p508te.html
Wind and solar prices are what they are. There are additional costs on any grid beyond the cost of the input electricity sources. All inputs, including nuclear, need backup. Nuclear needs spinning backup. Since wind and solar often perform for hours, uninterrupted, the backup source does not need to be 'spinning'.
Once nuclear penetration reaches the minimum demand it either needs storage or has to curtail, just like wind and solar. The big difference is that the cost of curtailing nuclear is much higher than curtailing wind and solar.
Back when we were building nuclear we built a lot of pumped-hydro storage in order to time-shift nuclear generation. We'll be able to use those PuHS facilities for wind and solar.
Nuclear, however, has a unique cost. No other form of generation can suffer a nuclear meltdown creating massive costs.
Wind and solar have low capacity factor, they need much more backup from fossil plants.
And the result is clear: wind and solar have failed miserably at reducing emissions, at cost of trillions of dollars and huge ecological impacts/environmental damages, and caused the electricity prices to skyrocket everywhere, e.g. Germany, Denmark, South Australia, California, Minnesota, etc., while carbon-free nuclear is an indubitable success, e.g. France, Sweden, Ontario.
"In Sweden, nuclear power has demonstrated its ability to rapidly decarbonize the electricity system" – Nov 20, 2018
sfen … org/le-blog-des-energies/in-sweden-nuclear-power-has-demonstrated-its-ability-to-rapidly-decarbonize-the
"How to decarbonize? Look to Sweden"
tandfonline … com/doi/full/10.1080/00963402.2016.1145908
"German CO2 Emissions Higher Now Than In 2009" – Oct 30, 2018
notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress … com/2018/10/30/german-co2-emissions-higher-now-than-in-2009/
"Emissions in Germany have not decreased for the last 9 years & emissions from transportation have not fallen since 1990…. Germany inched ahead of Denmark for the highest electricity prices for household customers"
sandiegouniontribune … com/business/energy-green/sd-fi-california-germany-20181111-story.html
"Minnesota is blowing billions on wind power … the result is HIGHER electricity rates and dubious CO2 reductions"
youtu … be/0vaIYttrL88
Tim, I've seen your posts on many sites over several years and I know that you put nuclear advocacy ahead of honesty. I'm not going to get into the junk you link because, frankly, it's junk. What I'm going to do is to offer some information that others might find useful.
Capacity factors for US onshore wind farms brough online starting in 2013 are averaging in the mid 40% range. Utility solar in the US is averaging around 30% thanks to single-axis tracking. Since the wind tends to blow more when the Sun is not shining the hours during which we can power our grids directly with wind and solar, without storage or overbuilding, it almost certainly over 50% but less than 70%. We now know that by moving to higher hub heights (100 to 140 meters) we can enjoy wind CFs from 60% to 70%. Along with tracked solar we may be able to supply all hours with wind and solar, no storage, as much as 80% of the time if not more.
Then, there is essentially no hour in which the Sun does not shine nor the wind blow. It's just that the solar/wind input is not high enough to fully supply demand. That problem can largely be offset by overbuilding wind and solar. (The US currently overbuilds coal and natural gas capacity by about 2x.)
I ran a model using 2017 CAISO (California grids) hourly demand, solar and wind data. By overbuilding wind and solar by 3x California could have supplied every hour of every day in the year with only wind and solar except for three days. No storage. No fossil fuel.
Overbuilding 3x would mean increasing the cost of two cent wind and solar to six cents. But it would also mean a very large amount of electricity that could be sold to other users whose demand was more flexible.
If every car and light truck in CA was battery powered that extra generation would have charged them daily, except for the three low solar/wind input days. Selling surplus electricity to vehicle charging would bring the price down from six cents to around four cents. There would still be a large amount of electricity that could be sold for things like water pumping and desalination, bringing the cost back closer to two cents per kWh.
The three undersupplied days. There was some wind and solar, just not enough. Some storage or backup generation would be needed. Perhaps using vehicle to grid would be sufficient. Add in existing pump-up hydro. Use paid off CCNG plants fueled with methane from sewage, feedlots, and landfills.
Wind and solar are almost certainly going to dominate the world's energy sources. They are simply too widely available and low enough priced that expensive technologies like nuclear will be abandoned.
"…Wind and solar are almost certainly going to dominate the world's energy sources…"
Interesting that wind and solar are available for free since the ancient times: sails, windmills, Archimedes' heat ray, solar cookers(1869); but even so they were replaced by fossil fuels.
Wind and solar aren't alternative to fossil fuels even in small-scale, worse yet in large-scale; intermittent renewables are just a 'decorative facade' for the coal/oil/gas/fracking industries in order to displace carbon-free nuclear energy.
"…overbuilding wind and solar…" it's economically and environmentally/ecologically costly.
"…I ran a model … with only wind and solar … No storage. No fossil fuel…"
Try to run a small place(>10,000 inhabitants) with only solar and wind without any drop of fossil fuels and no external big money support and let's see if it is technically/economically feasible. Notice: there is ~1000GW of installed-capacity of wind/solar globally, but there is no small city/island successfully 100% powered by "wind/solar+storage", El Hierro island is a clear fiasco, other islands have less than 500 inhabitants and/or are supported by external big money with vested interests.
In the face of Climate Change, what should matter is emission reduction and in this requisite, wind and solar are a grotesque fiasco: almost a terawatt(1000 gigawatts) of installed-capacity globally with almost nothing to show in terms of emission reduction, in most cases, natural gas(methane: worse than CO2) has replaced coal and reduced CO2 emissions while intermittent renewables have taken the credits providing "greenwashing" for the gas/fracking industry.
"Wind and Solar Power Advance, but Carbon Refuses to Retreat"
nytimes … com/2017/11/07/business/climate-carbon-renewables.html
nedford
The problem with this discussion, with the idea of supporting nuclear power, and with the entire discussion of subsidies is that it lacks the input of the disruptive nature of plunging renewables prices. Wind is now able to produce power for one tenth of the best cost of a new nuclear plant, and an infinite amount of wind can be added for no subsidy, which is less money than needed to keep aging nuclear plants operating.
This wasn't true a year ago. Solar at utility scale can be built anywhere in the U.S. for a quarter or less of the cost of a new nuclear plant, and solar prices keep falling. New wind and solar are substantially cheaper than operating existing coal, natural gas and nuclear plants.
For the last five years we have installed new wind and solar, when the effect of efficiency is considered, about five times faster than nuclear plants have retired. Increases in output have kept total nuclear generation going, but that can't last. The point is we can add new solar and wind faster and cheaper than the old plants will retire – we are at present and if the rate of retirement picks up we will still be building clean energy faster – the real challenge is to triple the rate of new wind and solar in the next several years for climate goals, and that leaves the entire nuclear issue where it belongs – in the last century.
Aging nuclear plants don't need a tidy little tip to stay functional. They operate at very low cost until they need a major retrofit, at which point the money is obscene – the billions that FirstEnergy is seeking is not just outside your well-obscured "parameters", it is what all these plants are going to need – most of them not so soon.
The effect of your report is irrelevant to the intended purpose, and has the unintended purpose of dividing the clean energy community in a way which really isn't helpful at this time. I have a lot of respect for UCS over the years, but not this time.
Steve Clemmer
Thanks for your comments Ned. As you know, UCS is as bullish on renewable energy as anyone. Our analysis does assume continued cost reductions for wind and solar. In our modeling, we use NREL's mid-case renewable energy cost and performance projections from their Annual Technology Baseline (ATB) 2017 report (see more details in Appendix F of the full report).
In our reference case, which assumes no new policies and low natural gas prices, US non-hydro renewable generation nearly doubles to 19.4% of total US electricity generation by 2025. But most of this increase in renewables, along with an increase in natural gas generation, goes to replace generation from retiring coal plants like it has over the past decade. However, after the federal tax credits for renewables expire in the early 2020s, wind and solar grow much more slowly while natural gas generation ramps up even faster. Therefore, if we retire more nuclear generation during the next decade at the same time we're retiring coal plants and electrifying other sectors of the economy, most of the lost nuclear generation is replaced with natural gas (as we show in our early nuclear retirement scenarios).
We also did a sensitivity case using NREL's low-case renewable energy cost projections from their ATB 2017 report that results in slightly more wind and solar deployment over the next 15 years to replace some of the generation from early nuclear retirements. But the vast majority of the replacement generation still comes from natural gas in our reference and early nuclear retirements cases that assume no new policies (see pp. 84-86 of the full report).
You're right that we need to significantly increase the rate of new wind, solar, and energy efficiency to meet our climate targets and replace coal and natural gas generation, which represented 62% of US electricity generation in 2017. But how are we going to do this without new state and federal policies that either recognize the low carbon attributes of these technologies or address the climate externality costs of burning natural gas and coal? Our analysis shows that a national carbon price or a low carbon electricity standard could be effective at achieving this. Under these policies, US non-hydro renewable generation would more than triple from 10 percent of US electricity generation in 2017 to 36-41% by 2035.
But even if we achieve these gains, increase energy efficiency, and preserve most of the existing US nuclear generation, our analysis shows that the US is still not on track for decarbonizing the US power sector by 2050. More stringent policies than the ones we modeled would be needed to get there. If we retire more nuclear generation in the next 15 years it makes the job even harder.
As discussed in my blog, we agree new nuclear plants are considerably more expensive than new wind, solar and energy efficiency. Our analysis clearly shows this. However, it is much less expensive to keep most uneconomic existing nuclear plants operating longer. Our analysis shows it would cost ~$814 million per year on average over the next five years—equivalent to ~$19/ton of CO2 avoided or $7.7/MWh on average, to bring the uneconomic nuclear plants to the breakeven point (i.e. revenues = costs).
CogWheeler
Fort Calhoun, in NE, was closed because public rate-payers chose to save $.014/KWh. It was in the slides the utility displayed, leading to the decision. At the time, new natural gas was planned in '22 or '23. Those plans fell to the side, and now the utility is half coal, and proud of its half-wind.
Fort Calhoun's immediate population effectively said "no" to a $14 per ton carbon price, assuming a ~1 ton per MWh emissions rate. Many of us are imputing CO2 prices, for sequestration, for PV-battery, pumped hydro, etc. How many shots have we got left, to pay $14-30/ton? Paying several hundred million, at reactor sites such as Pilgrim, to fix pumps, to safely maintain these stations are the "cheap" tons, of CO2 avoidance. PV-Battery and carbon capture can reach toward $1,000.
Whether urgency over GHGs, or the belief policy will only score so much money in this fight, UCS's involvement is a welcome addition.
Phil Ord
Okay. I see how it is. Why say anything at all then? You must realize that by adding to the chilling effect around nuclear, you are pretty much as culpable as the fossil fuel industry in damaging our climate. The fact that you downplay nuclear's future in clean energy, ignoring the plethora of evidence that nuclear is literally the safest and cleanest, is unconscionable and downright immoral. This millennial is livid that UCS, which people consider a "scientific" organization, is too stubborn to face the music and evidence, at the expense of my generation. Sorry, but to just putting out a statement saying we need to keep open nuclear plants isn't gonna cut it. That is plain laziness, and reeks of you guys just trying to maintain an ounce of credibility whatsoever.
There will be hell to pay if the American nuclear fleet collapses under your watch, during a climate emergency. The NRC is one of the most strict regulatory agencies of the federal government, and for you to add to the ridiculous safety demands expected, you are essentially standing in our way. If you don't want to be cursed by future generations, the following needs to happen.
One, the UCS must unequivocally support all existing nuclear plants from being shuttered without replacement. Two, the UCS must not only keep plants open, but promote the building of new ones, slashing red tape. Three, the UCS must actively advocate for new next-generation nuclear reactors that are safer and cheaper, if you claim to be so scared of existing plants.
Stop this insanity, you guys know better as scientists to look at the evidence. The evidence has been crystal clear since the dawn of nuclear power. It is the best way humans have to lift everyone out of energy poverty while polluting the very least. Get out of the way and help nuclear fix our burning world. Go nuclear or go extinct.
"…UCS will continue to push for better enforcement of existing regulations, the expedited transfer of nuclear waste…"
Natural gas extraction(fracking), coal ashes, rare-earth metals in renewables, produce much more radioactive wastes that are dumped directly into the environment with almost no regulation, as well arsenides and other chemical carcinogens present in solar panels and windmills that never lose their toxicity with time.
UCS(Union of Confused Scaremonger) have only served to favor the fossil fuels(backup for intermittent renewables) which air pollution respects no border and kills millions of people every year.
death/TWh: coal 161.00, oil 36.00, solar 0.44, wind 0.15, hydro 0.10, nuclear 0.04
"Even the worst nuclear accidents result in far fewer deaths than the normal operation of fossil fuel power plants."
wind/solar = 20% wind/solar + 80% coal/oil/gas/fracking
By providing "greenwashing" (decorative facade) for coal/oil/gas/fracking industries in order to displace carbon-free nuclear energy, intermittent renewables are as deadly and dirty as fossil fuels.
Rod Adams
Nuclear plants are only too expensive if one assumes that nuclear engineers, designers and project managers are too dumb to learn from experience. There's no doubt that Vogtle and Summer have been challenging, but there is also no doubt that the experience in building new nuclear plants in the US is minimal to non-existent. For many reasons, we waited nearly 40 years between the first bandwagon market for new nuclear plants and starting the Vogtle and Summer projects.
Westinghouse's AP1000 design, despite all of its refinements and projected benefits, was incomplete because they had never been able to assemble the resources needed to complete the design and build a first of a kind unit.
A confluence of factors led the company to accept contracts to build 8 units, 4 in China and 4 in the US, before it had completed detailed design and before its suppliers had been able to complete and test a number of uniquely challenging key components (including SQUIB valves and canned rotor coolant pumps that were largest ever built by a factor of about 25.)
Now, in 2018, there are 4 AP1000 plants running in China, with the first of those in actual commercial service. IOW, at least one version of the plant is now finally complete and developing operating experience.
In addition to fact that there are now a number of proven options for new nuclear power plants that are complete and beyond FOAK learning, there are numerous refined nuclear plant designs that might turn out to be far less expensive to build and operate – but their proponents still need to prove their assumptions through FOAK construction.
New nuclear plants are a definite opportunity. As I read the UCS report, they will not oppose, and might even support cost effective new nuclear.
As a nuclear technologist, I'm confident that we are fully capable of producing very safe nuclear that can compete with fossil fuel and beat wind and solar on any moderately level playing field.
Do your projections have a provision for the HLRW (high-level radioactive waste) and spent fuel already created? Would these new plants produce radioactive waste that will last 100,000 years, or a million?
Greg Barton
Store the spent fuel onsite, in a long term repository, or reprocess it. It's not a problem.
Here's what the French do: https://cdn.streamlike.com/uc/getCode?med_id=640a84ec4e4809dd&events=1&fbclid=IwAR3qOW30f-P3MnHtGCA_kmrOXA7ac9-UUCU5X8TnJ2A49LlJfdZ5Q7cLHtM We can do that as well.
jimhopf
Nuclear waste management, to the highest standards ever applied to any waste stream, is already paid for and is included in the price. It only costs a fraction of a cent per kw-hr.
It is other energy sources (fossil fuels as well as sources like solar) that do not contain their wastes and therefore do not have the cost of responsible waste management factored into their costs.
A million years?? How will solar and coal pay for their waste streams which remain toxic forever? The truth is that nuclear waste will require no monitoring after the repository is sealed. Not more than any other waste stream. It's also true that the very long term risks/impacts from nuclear's waste stream will be far smaller than those associated with other energy source's waste streams
Thanks for your comment. UCS will be addressing the issue of new reactors in a forthcoming report so stay tuned for more details.
Brief proofreading comment:
Above post includes following quote "New York also has combined an LCES with a zero-energy credit program.." It should be "New York also has combined an LCES with a zero-EMISSIONS energy credit program".
It wouldn't make sense to provide a credit for systems that produce "zero-energy."
Good catch. That was a typo.
Ian Prado A
I wish the fifth point further explained how "some existing nuclear plants can be replaced with renewables, energy efficiency, or other low- carbon technologies". I appreciate the concrete example of California's legislation to replace Diablo Canyon with renewables, but I fail to see how Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas, and Texas rapidly deploying wind and solar addresses the need for baseload electricity from an area dependent on a decommissioned nuclear power plant.
For an organization prides themselves on being a "watchdog for nuclear power safety", I wished you mentioned the enormous safety advantages of the fourth generation reactor designs, and hence their enormous economic potential.
My understanding: The SmartGrid no longer needs huge base-load plants. Also, when the "new generation" of nukes is touted, I never hear that the problem of nuclear waste for the next 100,000 or a million years has been dealt with.
Where is this "smart grid" of which you speak?
Nuclear is almost always replaced by fossil fuels. That happened in CA (with San Onofre) and has happened everywhere else.
Also, even if nuclear were replaced by renewables, it still represents an indefensible choice of fossil fuels over nuclear, since that renewable generation could have been used to replace fossil generation instead.
CA is a case in point. They've made massive investments in renewable generation, and it's all gone into replacing nuclear, while the amount of on-state fossil power generation has stayed roughly constant.
That new renewable generation should be used to replace fossil fuels, not nuclear, should not be controversial. Not in any society that claims to care about global warming. Thus, closing any nuclear plants while fossil generation remains prevalent is indefensible.
As described in UCS 2013 Ramping up Renewables report, there are many ways to integrate renewable energy sources into the electricity system and combine them with other technologies and approaches to replace so-called "baseload" nuclear and coal plants. https://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/smart-energy-solutions/increase-renewables/ramping-up-renewable-energy-sources.html#.W_LOA5Xrspx. This includes energy storage, more transmission capacity, managing customer demand, geographic dispersion of wind and solar projects, better forecasting of wind and solar output, improved scheduling by grid operators, making power plants more flexible, and using smart grid technologies.
Recent reports from the Brattle Group and the Analysis Group show that "baseload" is an outdated term and is not necessary for maintaining reliability: http://files.brattle.com/system/publications/pdfs/000/005/456/original/advancing_past_baseload_to_a_flexible_grid.pdf?1498482432
http://www.analysisgroup.com/uploadedfiles/content/insights/publishing/ag_markets_reliability_final_june_2017.pdf
Jim Carleton
FWIW, the Diablo Canyon plant is already slated to close, as it is nearing its original maximum safe lifetime. and the licenses to operate are nearing their expiration date. Unit 1 will close in 2024 and Unit 2 in 2025. Currently, this plant produces about 9% of California's total energy supply.
FWIW, Diablo Canyon isn't even close to its maximum safe lifetime. Its original license period of 40 years wasn't established based on safety or even on an estimate of useful life. It was established based on the logical notion of not licensing a facility indefinitely without the opportunity to review its condition and prospects for additional safe operation. 40 years made sense to drafters of the Atomic Energy Act because that was the license period in effect for hydroelectric facilities, which were also licensed by the federal government.
Approximately 3/4 of all operating nuclear plants in the US have already successfully been reviewed for license renewal for additional 20 year periods. Two have recently applied for their second 20 year extension. Well operated and maintained nuclear plants can continue to operate safely for an indefinite period of time, but there will be a continuing need to review and inspect them to keep them humming along.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_power_accidents_by_country. The United states has a table entry after the United Kingdom. (Tables in Alphabetical Order by county name.)
Outside the old Soviet Union, that entire list of events caused fewer deaths than pollution from fossil power generation causes every – single – day.
And that's not counting global warming……
It's true that most existing nuclear reactors in the US have licenses to operate for 60-years. However, to date, not a single reactor in the U.S. has operated that long, and there may be other reasons to close a plant before then. As discussed on p. 51 of the full report, PG&E decided to retire the plant because it would be more expensive to refurbish, relicense and operate the plant than to invest in other low carbon energy sources, its location near earthquake fault lines, its large size and lack of operating flexibility, and the projected loss of customer load due to community choice aggregation providers.
@Steve Clemmer
You're correct, no commercial nuclear plant in the world has operated for 60 years. The only ones that COULD have operated that long based on their completion dates were the first of a kind plants like Shippingport (US) completed in 1957 – 61 years ago, and Calder Hall (UK) completed in 1956 – 62 years ago.
Oyster Creek, which was the oldest operating plant in the US until it was shut down in October, had been operating since its commissioning in December 1969, just a dozen years after the FOAK plants began operating. There was no mechanical or material reason for Oyster Creek to close, it was closed as part of a political agreement with state of NJ to allow it to operate 10 years past its original license without being forced to install cooling towers.
I also take issue with the way you describe PG&E's agreement with a narrowly selected group of "stakeholders" to halt its efforts to relicense Diablo Canyon and shut it down as soon as it could be fully depreciated at the end of its initial operating license.
PG&E didn't say that continuing to operate Diablo Canyon would be more expensive than its chosen alternative. It said that under the conditions that it foresaw, closing the plant would be the most effective way to achieve CA's SB 350 policy goals. Those goals include a non-nuclear Renewable Portfolio Standard of 50% by 2030. Even though DCNPP's output would qualify for a later established Clean Energy Standard of 100% by 2050, its production would be counted against the 50% RPS.
Meeting that standard would have required PG&E to artificially reduce the plant's capacity factor by lowering its output to make room for wind and solar output whenever the weather and time of day were favorable. Reducing nuclear plant output reduces the production of clean electricity available for sale without reducing any costs associated with maintaining the plant or providing the incredible level of required security forces.
What isn't actually written in any documents readily available to the public is the fact that PG&E, as a regulated power provider, will be allowed to charge rates high enough to provide it with a generous rate of return on the capital invested in qualifying renewable energy and the transmission infrastructure required to move RE from the remote areas where it is generated. It will also be able to benefit from rapid depreciation schedules associated with RE.
Since DCNPP would be fully depreciated PG&E would no longer benefit from further depreciation and would only be allowed to receive a rate of return on any new capital investments required to keep the plant operable. Fully depreciated assets don't generate any revenue from rate of return allowances because from an accounting point of view there is no longer any capital invested.
Thanks for the clarifications.
I checked to see when was the last time that anything was posted on UCS efforts 'to push' the NRC to enhance its safety regs. I came up with something written by David Wright in 2015. If the NRC regs are 'a floor' rather than 'a ceiling' why hasn't UCS continued to try to get the NRC to do more? Is it because the so called Triple Disaster at Fukushima happened more than 7 years ago?
I remain unconvinced by and disappointed about UCS's position on this issue.
Moi Aussi!!
Fukushima showed us that even worst-case meltdowns of several large reactors cause few if any deaths. That, in a world where fossil power generation causes~1000 deaths every single day, in addition to global warming.
The rational response would have been to *reduce* regulations, as the consequences of meltdowns were shown to be much smaller than previously thought (those previous assumptions, tens of thousands of deaths, etc.., being the basis of current regulations).
Excessive nuclear regulations are responsible for much of the fossil generation being used today. Thus, they are responsible for millions of deaths along with much of the global warming problem.
UCS has certainly sought to raise the safety bar when we felt it necessary. Here are four examples from Dave Lochbaum, former director of UCS Nuclear Safety Project and co-author of this report:
1) UCS submitted this petition for rulemaking to the NRC in 2016 seeking to have the agency develop regulations governing reactors in extended shut downs: https://adamswebsearch2.nrc.gov/webSearch2/main.jsp?AccessionNumber=ML16258A486
2) In 2017, UCS participated in a Commission briefing on subsequent license renewal, pointing out deficiencies in the current license renewal rule that needed to ensure safety during extended operation: https://adamswebsearch2.nrc.gov/webSearch2/main.jsp?AccessionNumber=ML17116A208
3) In late 2015, UCS submitted comments on changes proposed by the NRC to its regulations governing the decommissioning of reactors: https://adamswebsearch2.nrc.gov/webSearch2/main.jsp?AccessionNumber=ML16013A124
4) After 9/11, UCS teamed up with the Mothers For Peace to submit this petition for rulemaking to the NRC seeking two security upgrades — to have owners assess vulnerabilities of their plants to suicide aircraft impacts like they evaluated plants for fire vulnerabilities and also to eliminate the gap between safety evaluation and security evaluations. That petition led to security regulations adopted by the NRC in 2008: https://adamswebsearch2.nrc.gov/webSearch2/main.jsp?AccessionNumber=ML031681105
Joffan
OK guys. You've clarified that your previous "reconsideration" was just a stunt.
Now tell us about a time when you supported a nuclear plant. Any plant. Go on. The world is waiting for some proof of your sincerity.
As mentioned above, we supported the Illinois legislation in 2016 that prevented the abrupt closure of the Clinton and Quad Cities plants and will allow them to operate for at least 10 more years. Dave Lochbaum, former director of UCS Nuclear Safety Project and a co-author of this report, also sent me a letter he sent to the NRC on January 10, 2000, that supported the restart of the DC Cook plant, which shut down in September 1997. UCS supported the restart because of the extensive work by the plant and NRC staffs to fix the safety problems and because of key changes the NRC made to its reactor oversight process (ROP) to protect the public and ensure safety performance didn't decline after restart. We have several other examples like this.
For further proof UCS is not anti-nuclear, see this example where we supported a plant owner: https://allthingsnuclear.org/dlochbaum/exelons-full-fixes, and this example where we supported the NRC: https://allthingsnuclear.org/dlochbaum/thanks-to-nrc.
Over the past 40+ years working on this issue, UCS has not opposed the construction of new nuclear reactors or the relicensing of existing reactors. UCS did not call for reactors to be shut down after 9/11 or after Fukushima. UCS did advocate for measures to make the reactors adequately secure and safe. That same policy UCS has followed for decades went into this report.
As mentioned above, you blocked that Illinois nuclear support until it had a large enough bribe for renewable energy included. Your discussions of that process do not highlight the nuclear support as a positive thing; it's excused and weighedagainst other aspects of the bill.
I recognize the value of Dave Lochbaum's contributions to the public discussion. This has almost never been the public face of UCS; the discussions on nuclear, as here, always make it a generation option that is expected to apologize for its existence.
If you don't recognize the abusive and suppressive nature of your attitude, I'm not sure how to make it any clearer.
A "bribe" for renewable energy? Give me a break! I think you have this backwards. The 2016 IL legislation mostly fixed the state's existing 25% by 2025 renewable standard—a policy that UCS helped pass in 2007—to unleash billions of dollars of new investment and create thousands of new jobs in Illinois (as shown in analyses by UCS and others). UCS had been advocating for fixing and increasing this policy for years.
What do you call the ~$235 million per year that a profitable company like Exelon is receiving from ratepayers to keep the Clinton and Quad Cities plants open for at least 10 more years? UCS and other groups rightly questioned both the level and duration of these subsidies to limit impacts to ratepayers and avoid windfall profits. In fact, our new report shows that these subsidies may have much more than Exelon needed to keep these facilities operating.
Looking out for ratepayers and advocating for nuclear plants to be safer and more secure for over 40+ years–while calling for strong policies to achieve deep cuts in carbon emissions in the most cost-effective way possible–is far from "abusive" or "suppressive."
It's ironic how you keep protesting what I say and then demonstrating how correct my assessment of your attitude is in the same comment.
Would you, in fact, have supported the bill without the renewable component? For example, suppose that renewable subsidy program had been passed the previous year, and then the nuclear power support bill, excluding any mention of renewables, had come up?
If the answer is "no", do you still believe that you actually supported nuclear power here?
Incidentally, do you adjust support for renewables based on how profitable the operating company is?
Here's a suspect way of assert a non-fact: "our new report shows that these subsidies may have much more than Exelon needed to keep these facilities operating." You have shown that this may be more than bare survival subsidy? Presumably then you have equally shown it may not be more than that? Or maybe it's less even than bare survival? I guess the climate is not very important to you if you want to play that kind of brinkmanship game.
It depends on whether a state meets the conditions laid out in our report, but in general, we would not support subsidies exclusively for nuclear plants. Why? Because if you believe there's a public policy rationale for valuing the low-carbon attributes of nuclear, why shouldn't that policy extend to all low carbon technologies and be part of a broader strategy to reduce carbon emissions? That's why we recommend policies like a price on carbon or a broader low carbon electricity standard as the best approaches for providing a level playing for all low carbon technologies and achieving greater carbon reductions.
The policies adopted in Illinois, New York and New Jersey don't apply these competitive mechanisms to nuclear, which is why they are a less preferred approach. The nuclear subsidies are given to one company and 2-3 facilities in each state for a mature technology that has been around for decades and already recovered most of its capital investment from ratepayers. That's why we believe any financial support should be limited and adjusted over time to ensure that companies don't make windfall profits at the expense of ratepayers.
In contrast, under a renewable electricity standard (RES), multiple technologies, projects, and companies compete to provide a growing share of renewable energy at the lowest cost. In other words, the cost adjustment mechanism is already built into the policy and is a key reason why the cost of wind and solar has fallen by more than two-thirds over the past decade.
FirstEnergy's "zero-emissions nuclear" proposal in Ohio is a perfect example of why we shouldn't provide subsidies exclusively for uneconomic nuclear plants. FirstEnergy doesn't care about reducing CO2 emissions. If they did, why are they also seeking subsidies for their uneconomic coal plants and why did they spend years at the Ohio legislature trying to gut the state's energy efficiency and renewable energy standards? In addition, their Davis-Besse plant has one of the worst safety records in the country and is currently not meeting the NRC's highest safety standards.This is why we're opposed to FirstEnergy's proposal, as explained in a separate blog.
So if every other non-carbon generation has subsidies but a bill to also subsidize nuclear comes along, it would be opposed by UCS. Got it.
You are special pleading that a nuclear subsidy has to be the "best possible" arrangement before you will speak up in favor, which doesn't apply to other subsidies. You blithely ignore the other support that wind and solar in particular enjoy, getting preferential grid access and massive construction subsidies along with enduring operational subsidies, and I notice that you don't oppose those subsidies due to their failure to support nuclear.
Your baked-in opposition to nuclear makes you find any excuse to draw back from sustaining this generation source. It really doesn't matter whether or not First Energy "cares about reducing CO2 emissions", like it doesn't matter that that wasn't France's priority when they built their nuclear fleet – if it works, support it. Their coal proposal is separate – oppose it.
Wrong again on two fronts. First, FirstEnergy is specifically asking the Trump Administration to give them subsidies for both their coal and nuclear plants based on bogus and debunked claims that these plants are needed for reliability and national security. PJM analysis has shown that these and other plants are NOT needed for reliability.
Second, I'm not ignoring subsidies and policy support for renewables that have been tremendously successful in reducing emissions, driving down costs, and new creating jobs across the U.S. It is you that is ignoring the significant subsidies that nuclear power has already received that provides justification for limited and adjusted support going forward. Here's an excerpt from p. 42 of the full report that explains this:
"Financial support for existing nuclear plants should be limited to the amount needed to preserve the
carbon emissions benefits of distressed plants because most plants have already received significant subsidies, while also making large profits when natural gas and wholesale electricity prices were high. Nuclear and fossil fuels have received far more subsidies than renewables over the past 70 years (Goggin 2017b). Many of the subsidies for nuclear and fossil fuels are permanent, while subsidies for renewables are temporary and scheduled to phase out in the next few years. A 2011 UCS analysis found that subsidies for existing nuclear plants have cost taxpayers more than the market price of power they helped generate, and these plants continue to receive subsidies ranging from 1 to 6 cents per kilowatt-hour (Koplow 2011). Existing plants in several states also received large subsidies from consumers in the form of "transition assistance" when the electricity sector was restructured in the late 1990s and early 2000s."
Time to move on. Happy Thanksgiving.
Now, at "time to move on", you play the past subsidies nonsense card? Wow. Like that is valid; nuclear has never received operational subsidies of the scale and duration seen for renewables. Next you'll be trying to pretend the Price-Anderson Act is a subsidy or other ridiculous anti-nuclear garbage.
Your references:
"Goggin 2017b": From the American Wind Energy Association blog, in an article titled:
"Low natural gas prices, not wind energy, primarily responsible for coal's troubles"
– you extract the very suspect "fact" of huge past nuclear subsidies, accounting not at all for the wide gulf in energy production.
"Koplow 2011": a UCS report continuing your tradition of anti-nuclear propaganda,
"Nuclear Power: Still Not Viable without Subsidies"
– rolls all sorts of non-subsidies and accounting variations into the fiction of a continuing subsidy for nuclear. As predicted: including the non-subsidy that is Price-Anderson.
Anyway, great, you've clarified that the dogmatic UCS campaign against nuclear power will continue. No-one needs to be fooled by the recent insincere attempt to hide your hypocrisy on the climate.
Steve Clemmer – I agree with Joffan that the UCS has many negative statements about nuclear power, and is doing nothing to dispel the extremely prevalent unscientific fear-mongering of anti-nuclear positions. You claim that the UCS did not oppose new reactors and you didn't call for closures – but by only speaking of dangers and problems, and doing nothing to oppose misinformation on nuclear power – the UCS is being actively anti-nuclear.
Steve Clemmer is the director of energy research and an expert on the economic and environmental benefits of implementing renewable energy technologies and policies.
Read Steve's posts >


Whipper on a stand with suction system. Easy to use - one hand operates the push button that releases the contens, and the other is free for the product to be garnished. Insulation by double walled vacuum body.
Keeps cold for up to 12 hours.
Keeps hot for up to 3 hours.