Recent Poll Indicates Most Likely Energy Solution

Add a Comment

Comment by Mark Hedtke on March 12, 2009 at 11:57pm

Once again you appear to be railing at what seems to be more of "if the shoe fits" syndrome. While I am sure that I would also have a hard time justifying your work with nuclear energy, you seem to be so upset about it. Although I am certain that you will take affront and respond to the contrary no matter what facts or evidence I would submit to, please do so anyway. As if your comments actually matter, you own words show just how important you must think you are, when your retort of "...I am one of the team of guys that will be telling you what we can or cannot do because I will be one of the many that will actually be responsile to have to Engineer, Procure, and Construct these projects mot just write about it". For some reason you think that people will listen to that kind of preconceived pompousness? Yes I have responded in kind to your own response to my general comments that until this post have not been directed at you in particular. However for you to make a statement accusing me of causing you personal offense, then your skin is thinner than you think. You might just be becoming a liberal, if you don't watch out. Good luck in your efforts to argue your "nuclear mis-solution". As for myself I don't have to prove the facts that you have called me so much of a liar for. Perhaps you need to have more faith in mankind!

Comment by Ralph J Branscomb on March 11, 2009 at 11:22am

Mark,

Thanks for your comments and I do respect your personal opinion, but let me be clear there is no hiding on this end by me from any aspect of the energy issues past, present or future... I take personal offense at the name calling which seems to be SOP (standard operating procedure) for the politically correct, uninformed hate professors of
mis-information if one does not agree with their philosophy. . I am a New England Boy from a very Blue Collar Family consisting of A Dad Cross Country Truck Driver for 40 years and a Mom who worked in Shoe Factories. Not quite the definition of Silver Spooned professional moniker with an attitude that is cavalier. To the contrary, I worked and paid my own way through school without subsidy assistance from anyone, just the determination to be the best I could in the energy industry, My first job was at the MIT Bates Linear Accelerator for the DOD, which I am sure you would also have had objections too then without realizing that the majority of Radiation Therapy for Cancer treatments today came from this venue of my wares. I am also sure if you were to comment on the project in 1968 that in your opinion the public would not have been willing to pay the horrendous price that I worked diligently on and that thousands of cancer patients and mankind is paying for today!

THE Fact’s are that the failure of a national energy policy lies on the shoulders of those who professed and continue to profess the "Jane Fonda” and "Jimmy Carter" theories approach because it makes them feel good and because their views are scud from the rose colored glasses they refuse to take off to see things as they truly are.. (What color is the tint of your Glasses? ) I would also like to challenge you to provide me with ANY documentation where you have seen and witnessed the results of nuclear contamination and the disastrous effects of prolonged radiation poisoning in the United States from Nuclear Power Generation.

IT DOES NOT EXIST!

As for the disposal site that was fully funded 15 years ago by the electric utilities to guess who? Our Government. They had and have the responsibility to vuild it by law. They are only 15 years behind schedule and 700% over budget. These are the people you believe are going to change energy as we know it today in io years?? This site has been tested and designed for years for the YUCCA Mountain nuclear storage; the only reason that it is not operational is due to a self-serving individual named Harry Reid and his list of campaign contributors. Have you ever been to the area? Have you ever spoke to the residents of the area? I have and the majority are ALL for it… Being even more Clear, the only reason we even need the Yucca Mountain facility is due to the Jimmy Carter failure to negotiate a non-proliferation treaty for the benefit of the USA not Russia... I have not heard you mention the French Power Generation Model of almost 80% Nuclear power generation, WHOM reprocesses 70% of the waste, and OH YES DID I MENTION THEY ARE ENERGY INDEPENDENT FROM IMPORTED OIL???



Over the past 7 years the nuclear power generation industry has done its part to reduce CO2 emissions in an effort to help save the planet by it massive investment of Power Up Rate projects increasing the output by almost 20,000 MGW without constructing one new nuclear facility or adding additional waste for storage. That is enough electricity from "BASE LOADED GENERATION to supply 4,000,000 homes... What you also failed to state is that currently under design & construction in the USA are two nuclear waste reprocessing facilities and one MOX Fuel facility that will reprocess approximately 70% of the existing waste material..

These are all due to new technologies and forward thinking by us Nuclear cubicle rats who are also good family men and women, who cherish the earth that we were bless with, and want just as much as anyone for our children and grandchildren to live in a safe and prosperous environment.

As far as President Kennedy placing a man on the moon, it was a very different time, with a very different culture in America from both a work prospective and a political and social prospective... I was a product of that culture that added value in supporting placing that man on the moon. If you think for one minute that the current administration and political machine in Washington have the same un-selfish interest and fortitude to accomplish this task in 10 years, you sir, are untruthful to yourself as well as to others and hinder the movement in going forward.. I am a firm believer in Wind Power and Solar Generation, but I am also a realist with the experience to back up what I say. I actually am part of the team that designs & build these projects. I know the good, the bad and the ugly of all of the components of generation.

The first and largest issue you fail to identify is the ageing work force, along with the failure of the education system over the past 25 years to produce the number of qualified young people to perform this work, The key word is ENGINEERS & TECHNICIANS as well as qualified skilled craft labor. In 2010 we are facing a shortfall of over 270,000 workers to support the projects that are currently on the books nationwide never mind supporting a new bold initiative of Alternative Energy Projects...

As I state in my personal Quote; "Everything in Moderation" use the current nuclear, coal, wind and solar available now while in parallel moving forward with the new initiatives. Just the T&D infrastructure to support the new projects will take 10 years to construct from the day they are funded, designed and issued for construction.... $650B dollars is required to perform this task... Our team currently sees $20B on the books right now in the Phase I design phase...

Now that I have responded in a less than professional manor to your comments, and have also relieved We can get there by 2025 if and only if we utilize all the components of generation in a synergistic approach.

Now that I have responded in a less than professional manor to your comments, and have also made my views as clear as I can, I welcome your challenges and intellectual engagement of words as the checks & balances necessary for all of us to ponder our own
Missions to insure we are on the right track for the good of our nation, our families and children, and fellow residence of this great earth we reside on. So in closing I am one of the team of guys that will be telling you what we can or cannot do because I will be one of the many that will actually be responsible to have to Engineer, Procure, and Construct these projects not just write about it

Regards,

Ralph Branscomb

Comment by Mark Hedtke on March 11, 2009 at 5:23am

Should I say right up front that the so called "Energy Experts" for the past forty years have failed miserably! Yes I should. Should I refer to them as "professionals"? Naw! There is little common ground to agree upon except for that fact! So I certainly thank you for your response. It is always interesting to hear from people so deeply entrenched in some of the problems that have brought us to the situation we are in today. In one breathe you attempt to berate those who recognize the intelligent choice of the most plentiful energy sourses on the planet, then include your own hype of a "Nuclear Solution" with it's particular undesirable effects. This actually causes me pause to think that you really consider that "nuclear" is a reasonable effective cost solution. Perhaps you are the one who needs to be factual and realistic. My own personal knowledge of the history of the government's attempt to find a "nuclear dump site" for the spent core material, etc. is a nightmare that NO community wants in their back yard. I have seen the results of nuclear contamination and the disasterous effects of prolonged radiation poisoning. So who is being real here? Your attitude is cavalier when it comes to equating public safety to dollars and cents of what must happen. Am I expressing my disagreement with your continuation of a failed energy plan and am I being unreasonable, you are damn right! People who are committed to making real change here don't hide behind a professional moniker. When people like you tell me that there is no way we can get the zoning, building codes, etc within the next ten years, then that fires people like myself up to reply with, " Don't tell us what we can or can not do!" This is in fact no different than what President Kennedy did with landing a man on the moon. So stand aside disbeliever and so called "energy expert", let the people's will show you what can be done and what we don't want from government, utilities or those who can't see the forest for the trees. The citizens of America are motivated and business efforts to quash this movement will not work this time. Perhaps you would best explore another venue for your wares, as the public just isn't willing to pay the horendous price you want mankind to pay!

Comment by Ralph J Branscomb on March 9, 2009 at 8:35am

I would like to begin by respectfully agreeing to disagree with you comments ,false statements, and forward looking at solutions with blinders on. I agree that Solar & Wind can and should play a substantial part of the Power Generation mix but to say that Nuclear, Coal, & Gas have no place and are not just as critical of components to the total Energy Plan is both irresponsible and an extreme view in presenting valid points of our future needs. Now if you are trying to sell or sponsor specific segments of alternative energy solutions, that's fine. You would be doing everyone a greater service to be honest in that respect and I can appreciate ones passion. I, myself am very open and honest about my passion regarding the renaissance of nuclear power in a distributive generation format (Mini-Reactors under 100 MGW ) as the base load component of both wind and solar generation facilities. My experience with most PHD's that I have hired over the years is that they are brilliant in conceptual, analytical and philosophical subject matter, but have ZERO experience in EPC methods and the actual design, construction and operations of these facilities. I don't see one word in your response addressing Capacity Factor and Grid Stabilization Issues which are currently the Achilles Heel of both Wind and Solar Installations. I also missed your mentions of current "Cost per Kilowatt" to the consumer regarding Solar Generation which is current 35% higher than base loaded Generation. That would be in the consumers electric bill !

Being factual and realistic , you could not get the necessary zoning, building codes, regulatory and Home Owner Association changes and approvals within the next 10 years to install 2000 residential units Did I mention the "BIG CF" capacity factor issue (<38%) and Grid Stabilization issues that comes with both Wind and Solar? That is why presently they all are using gas fired turbines to maintain Grid Stability for the Larger Peaking Wind & Solar Projects and emitting CO2 to the atmosphere?

So now that we have vetted our disagreement, let's see if we can work together providing a plan with synergistic use of what is available today, What's real, and not the dreams of tomorrow or we will end up as we are today, waiting another 30 years for a real Energy Plan developed by politicians not Subject Matter Experts in the Energy Industry.

Please continue to work diligently on what you believe in and engage in dialog such as this so that as professionals we can come to common ground for the good of our Country !

God Bless the United States of America.

Warm Regards;

Ralph Branscomb
Sr. Consultant
Yankee Atomic